quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong, even if that person was benevolent and it made my life easier.
I can't reconcile the two statements.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong, even if that person was benevolent and it made my life easier.
I can't reconcile the two statements.
Why not? The military does not have power over me. They are not deciding my life for me.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
But it protects your freedom by taking some away, with no consideration given to your will in that decision. There's now a collective calculation of which action/inaction provides greater freedom where you no longer are the only agent that decides how your resources are expended.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. Tax money gathered from individuals is spent in (significant) part for the support of the military, federal resources of other sorts are spent on the military (including public land), there is required registration for military service by young male citizens, there is the potential for a draft in time of need -- and to oppose any of these with effect is to enter into a well-trod road of enforcement.
These look like a level of control, albeit at times minor in effect. Still, always there, and what you said was "any level of control." For example, try not paying the portion of your taxes that funds the military. Eventually, it should get interesting.
Or, you know, you could just abide by that rule which enjoins you to support the military as part of your federal tax burden.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
But it protects your freedom by taking some away, with no consideration given to your will in that decision. There's now a collective calculation of which action/inaction provides greater freedom where you no longer are the only agent that decides how your resources are expended.
Again, everyone seems to ignore the last part of my original post. I stated that those freedoms I want for myself must also go to ALL others. That automatically limits my freedoms, otherwise I would be an all powerful tyrant. In order for everyone to be free, they must be protected from those that wish to take it. This means a professional military.
I do not see this as a limitation but an empowerment as without it, I will be enslaved.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
This is my quibble with all-or-nothing, black-and-white, categorical statements of political or personal philosophy. They work for bumper stickers, but not for real life. Real life is messy. There are exceptions and unacknowledged or vaguely acknowledged assumptions. Here, above, is one. There are others.
That is one reason why people may not see things as baldly, clearly, and black-and-white obviously as you. They may indeed be looking at the messiness swept under the rug.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: You completely failed to notice the conclusion so I write it here again:
The only limit I want placed on myself is to have those same freedoms extended to everyone else so that neither I nor anyone else can take that from them.
I noticed it, and in particular, notice that the numbered points rendered to set up the idea are just .. not .. applicable .....
You're using words and applying ideas in absolutes which are unworkable and completely arbitrary and end up conflicting. You are just deciding to call some limitations which point one explicitly disallows and calling them something else entirely, like, um 'empowering limitations.'
Note also the abuse of Declaration 'rights.'
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, everyone seems to ignore the last part of my original post. I stated that those freedoms I want for myself must also go to ALL others. That automatically limits my freedoms, otherwise I would be an all powerful tyrant. In order for everyone to be free, they must be protected from those that wish to take it. This means a professional military.
I do not see this as a limitation but an empowerment as without it, I will be enslaved.
So you are OK with freedoms being taken against your will, provided the effect is that you have more net freedom than you would have if those freedoms were not taken from you. Is that correct?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CT: But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
This is my quibble with all-or-nothing, black-and-white, categorical statements of political or personal philosophy. They work for bumper stickers, but not for real life. Real life is messy.
Amen. I think of this whenever I listen to anarchists, utopian socialists, communists, or Objectivists.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
While technically correct, what is not an enumerated right is nonetheless referred to as an inalienable natural right in the document that started it all.
I'm always baffled when people show disdain for the rights enumerated in the Declaration (or for anything else in the Declaration.) The Framers certainly didn't view it with disdain. I sometimes think perhaps such people feel equal disdain for the Constitution, but the Constitution actually is the law of the land, so they can't blatantly disregard it and act as though it has no relevance or bearing on the country today. Not that some don't try, of course.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Seriously? Is this going to be another one of those "You implicitly agree, and if you don't, you can always leave" arguments? Because no, we really can't. There's only one country on earth that was founded on the principles of individual freedom, and to change that and say, "Sorry, try somewhere else" is a very unfunny joke.
quote:Originally posted by CT: But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
It doesn't limit my freedom to act in an objectively legitimate way. "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." That is not in any way a limitation on a sane person. Only on a beast.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Seriously? Is this going to be another one of those "You implicitly agree, and if you don't, you can always leave" arguments? Because no, we really can't. There's only one country on earth that was founded on the principles of individual freedom, and to change that and say, "Sorry, try somewhere else" is a very unfunny joke.
This exactly.
Then you're basing yourself on nothing but thuggery. Congratulations.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What??? Lisa, you just completely misread me! I was agreeing with you. What you said about this country is exactly right. It's the thing that people who want to make our country more in line with socialized European countries either don't understand or choose to ignore.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CT: But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
It doesn't limit my freedom to act in an objectively legitimate way. "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." That is not in any way a limitation on a sane person. Only on a beast.
How is being subject to a compulsory tax to fund the military "act[ing] in an objectively legitimate way"? You aren't acting, you're being acted upon.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
While technically correct, what is not an enumerated right is nonetheless referred to as an inalienable natural right in the document that started it all.
I'm always baffled when people show disdain for the rights enumerated in the Declaration (or for anything else in the Declaration.) The Framers certainly didn't view it with disdain.
i show disdain for people assuming that the declaration is a legal document that actually provides rights.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What??? Lisa, you just completely misread me! I was agreeing with you. What you said about this country is exactly right. It's the thing that people who want to make our country more in line with socialized European countries either don't understand or choose to ignore.
My most humble apology. Given the way this board has been going, I automatically took the "this exactly" the wrong way. I'm very sorry.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
While technically correct, what is not an enumerated right is nonetheless referred to as an inalienable natural right in the document that started it all.
I'm always baffled when people show disdain for the rights enumerated in the Declaration (or for anything else in the Declaration.) The Framers certainly didn't view it with disdain.
i show disdain for people assuming that the declaration is a legal document that actually provides rights.
it provides none.
SamP is right, and I agree with him. Mark it on your calenders, this is truly a historic event.
The Declaration does not refer to rights guaranteed by the government. That is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights was for. The Declaration refers to rights given not by the government, but by God.
I would be interested to find out exactly what the Founders were referring to in regards to "liberty." As they said it was an inalienable right endowed by their creator, were they referring to free will? Were they referring to liberty of tyranny, taxation, or government? How do you interpret it?
Everyone has a right to live, to make their own decisions, and to try and be happy. That doesn't mean that the government or others are forced to provide the means in which to do it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No document "provides" rights. Rights are there whether they are recognized or not. Any "rights" given by the government above those are nothing of the sort. They are entitlements. Gifts. As Geraine points out, government can "guarantee" rights, but it cannot grant them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What??? Lisa, you just completely misread me! I was agreeing with you. What you said about this country is exactly right. It's the thing that people who want to make our country more in line with socialized European countries either don't understand or choose to ignore.
My most humble apology. Given the way this board has been going, I automatically took the "this exactly" the wrong way. I'm very sorry.
No problem. I should have said "QFT," since that has less room for misunderstanding.
Re: what Geraine said... This exactly. I mean... QFT! Oh, but I didn't quote it. Hmmm... I guess I'll just say "I agree" and leave it at that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No document "provides" rights.
When we are talking about law, society, social, and legal/contractual systems, it does. You can say as much as you want that it is not true in your private religious/moral view, but for the purposes of this (more actionable) discussion, yes, documents provide rights. Much like 'the constitution' or 'your green card.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
