Page 1 of 14
Liberty Is Dangerous
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:17 pm
by MSimon
My friend Eric wrote:
As I keep saying, freedom includes the freedom to do unwise, unhealthy, and immoral things. Reckless sexual practices can kill people, and reckless financial practices can kill jobs, businesses, housing markets, and even economies.
and
…if there is one lesson I have learned from freedom, it’s that there are risks and downsides, and you have to take the good and the bad.
Economies do not always thrive. The American people are acting like a bunch of babies. (Or whiners as Phil Gramm said). Like gays clamoring to shut down the bathhouses once they got AIDS (which some did).
Hedonism, the irresponsible fast lane of freedom, is a high risk activity — whether economic, sexual, or chemical. You cannot have freedom without allowing it, and people are going to get hurt. Ditto, legal guns.
The problem is, no one wants to hear this.
Beyond that, the more the government intervenes (as they did in this economy), the greater the demand for more intervention when intervention fails, which it inevitably will.
True conservatism (at least, the old fashioned kind) involved allowing freedom and encouraging — not mandating — responsibility. It’s AYOR (at your own risk) stuff, and it’s not for children.
Failure in all these things has to be allowed, but the voters want safety nets and will not allow it.
There’s tragedy in this.
Yes. there is. There is either the Darwin Awards or a Police State. Choose.
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/01/reso ... e-immoral/
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:25 pm
by Skipjack
I just heard something funny from a friend in Texas. This once again shows how special interest groups influence law making:
In Texas everyone has a gun, literally and the Texans are very proud to be armed and carrying their concealed handguns...
But at the same time, it is not allowed to carry long bladed weapons like swords, sabers or walking sticks with blades in them. Personally I understand blade weapons to be arms just as like guns are. So why the difference?
Answer: because there is no lobby for blades as there is for guns.
Personally, I think the result is BS. Why shouldnt I be allowed to carry a sword if everyone arround me runs arround with a gun under their armpitt? It is completely ridiculous.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:38 pm
by MSimon
Skipjack wrote:I just heard something funny from a friend in Texas. This once again shows how special interest groups influence law making:
In Texas everyone has a gun, literally and the Texans are very proud to be armed and carrying their concealed handguns...
But at the same time, it is not allowed to carry long bladed weapons like swords, sabers or walking sticks with blades in them. Personally I understand blade weapons to be arms just as like guns are. So why the difference?
Answer: because there is no lobby for blades as there is for guns.
Personally, I think the result is BS. Why shouldnt I be allowed to carry a sword if everyone arround me runs arround with a gun under their armpitt? It is completely ridiculous.
Never bring a sword to a gun fight.
None the less it is ridiculous.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:41 pm
by MSimon
Re: Liberty Is Dangerous
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:52 pm
by KitemanSA
MSimon wrote:My friend Eric wrote:
As I keep saying, freedom includes the freedom to do unwise, unhealthy, and immoral things. Reckless sexual practices can kill people, and reckless financial practices can kill jobs, businesses, housing markets, and even economies.
Your friend Eric is slightly wrong. Freedom does not include the freedom to do the immoral. Unethical, yes. Ethics relates to how you treat yourself, and you may treat yourself as badly as you wish. But "immoral", no. (By the way, I use "morality" in it's fundamental, right/wrong sense, not it's "religious dogma" sense.) Morality relates to whether you do right or wrong to OTHERS, and your freedom does not include others, unless they volunteer.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:59 pm
by ladajo
I think the issue is not the idea of "at your own risk". I think the issue is with the after part. Contemporary culture seems to dictate, "I can take all the risk I want" because, "somebody <else> must pay <for my consequences>".
Modern society is about the majority paying for the mistakes of the minority that want us to believe that they are the majority. The trouble with this is that the previous majority that footed the bills, is now the new minority that still foots the bills, and the new majority has not figured it out nor wants to, because they keep getting payed-for from imaginary money. In the end, we all lose. Oh wait, it seems we are now in the end game, but seeking overtime on technicalities.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:21 pm
by MSimon
Freedom does not include the freedom to do the immoral.
Depends on how you define morality don't it? If you limit it to direct non-consensual (some people like getting spanked - I wouldn't deny it - but there are risks) harm to others I'll buy in.
Look at business - 9 out of 10 start-ups fail. I'd like to see tolerance for such odds in other realms. Let the bad examples speak for themselves.
Living on the edge is thrilling. And requires nerves of steel and fast thinking. But it is not for everyone.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm
by MSimon
Modern society is about the majority paying for the mistakes of the minority
It has wondered me for decades why the majority doesn't just stop paying. The majority could do it by vote. No conflict with the IRS required.
And yet here the majority is: bitching and paying.
I don't get it.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:28 pm
by MSimon
Take our friend D. He don't like paying for stoners to idle on the public teat.
Excellent!!!
So does he go after the public teat? Uh. No. He goes after the stoners.
I don't get it.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:39 pm
by ladajo
MSimon wrote:Modern society is about the majority paying for the mistakes of the minority
It has wondered me for decades why the majority doesn't just stop paying. The majority could do it by vote. No conflict with the IRS required.
And yet here the majority is: bitching and paying.
I don't get it.
We had our chance when we were the majority, now we are the minority. The new majority has no incentive to change any thing as long as they keep getting real free-stuff footed by bleeding us, the new minority of what little we have left, and making up for shortfalls with ever growing piles of imaginary money.
The version of Robin Hood I remember is the one where he had no debt. The new Robin Hoods in Congress sustain their role with debt used to buy votes from folks who know nothing but handouts.
We have no ability to vote them out now unless we do something radical like, "You give up your right to vote while you take taxpayer handouts." Poll Tax did serve some purpose in its day. Why do we persist in rewarding those who do not want to try? We have achieved a Shangri-La where failure is success to be rewarded.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:40 pm
by MSimon
What I have figured out in the last few months is that our only hope is to grow the economy faster than the SOBs can steal the loot. I'm working on my plan. Which is why I am elsewhere for days and sometimes weeks.
Re: Liberty Is Dangerous
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:47 pm
by Diogenes
MSimon wrote:My friend Eric wrote:
As I keep saying, freedom includes the freedom to do unwise, unhealthy, and immoral things. Reckless sexual practices can kill people, and reckless financial practices can kill jobs, businesses, housing markets, and even economies.
and
…if there is one lesson I have learned from freedom, it’s that there are risks and downsides, and you have to take the good and the bad.
Economies do not always thrive. The American people are acting like a bunch of babies. (Or whiners as Phil Gramm said). Like gays clamoring to shut down the bathhouses once they got AIDS (which some did).
Hedonism, the irresponsible fast lane of freedom, is a high risk activity — whether economic, sexual, or chemical. You cannot have freedom without allowing it, and people are going to get hurt. Ditto, legal guns.
The problem is, no one wants to hear this.
Beyond that, the more the government intervenes (as they did in this economy), the greater the demand for more intervention when intervention fails, which it inevitably will.
True conservatism (at least, the old fashioned kind) involved allowing freedom and encouraging — not mandating — responsibility. It’s AYOR (at your own risk) stuff, and it’s not for children.
Failure in all these things has to be allowed, but the voters want safety nets and will not allow it.
There’s tragedy in this.
Yes. there is. There is either the Darwin Awards or a Police State. Choose.
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/01/reso ... e-immoral/
More crap from Eric, who hasn't got the balls to stand and debate me. EVER. For someone so certain of himself he certainly dodges and twists when you get him pinned down on an issue.
I peeked in their the other day due to a link from Ace Of Spades, and I noticed Eric had written this. Not worth responding to I thought, mainly because any evidence which doesn't fit his world view will simply not register on his consciousness.
Arguing with such people might be fun for awhile, but it is inevitably futile.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:52 pm
by Diogenes
Skipjack wrote:I just heard something funny from a friend in Texas. This once again shows how special interest groups influence law making:
In Texas everyone has a gun, literally and the Texans are very proud to be armed and carrying their concealed handguns...
But at the same time, it is not allowed to carry long bladed weapons like swords, sabers or walking sticks with blades in them. Personally I understand blade weapons to be arms just as like guns are. So why the difference?
Answer: because there is no lobby for blades as there is for guns.
Personally, I think the result is BS. Why shouldnt I be allowed to carry a sword if everyone arround me runs arround with a gun under their armpitt? It is completely ridiculous.
It is not just that. Ask yourself what sort of person is likely to want to carry around a sword. (I happen to know lots of such people) They are immature ninnys for the most part.
Swords were a useful means of self defense at one time, but nowadays anyone with a practical mindset will chose a gun. As for a long knife, there might be a good argument for allowing that, but it does open up a lot more doors for criminal minded people than it does for honest ones.
I think a good compromise would be to allow long blades for anyone with a carry permit. That ought to address the issue of who should and should not be carrying dangerous weapons well enough.
Re: Liberty Is Dangerous
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:54 pm
by Diogenes
KitemanSA wrote:MSimon wrote:My friend Eric wrote:
As I keep saying, freedom includes the freedom to do unwise, unhealthy, and immoral things. Reckless sexual practices can kill people, and reckless financial practices can kill jobs, businesses, housing markets, and even economies.
Your friend Eric is slightly wrong. Freedom does not include the freedom to do the immoral. Unethical, yes. Ethics relates to how you treat yourself, and you may treat yourself as badly as you wish. But "immoral", no. (By the way, I use "morality" in it's fundamental, right/wrong sense, not it's "religious dogma" sense.) Morality relates to whether you do right or wrong to OTHERS, and your freedom does not include others, unless they volunteer.
You are being heretical to libertarian dogma. Some people think that Spreading diseases to others is their own business. I say playing with matches in a forest is EVERYBODY'S business.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:55 pm
by Diogenes
ladajo wrote:I think the issue is not the idea of "at your own risk". I think the issue is with the after part. Contemporary culture seems to dictate, "I can take all the risk I want" because, "somebody <else> must pay <for my consequences>".
Modern society is about the majority paying for the mistakes of the minority that want us to believe that they are the majority. The trouble with this is that the previous majority that footed the bills, is now the new minority that still foots the bills, and the new majority has not figured it out nor wants to, because they keep getting payed-for from imaginary money. In the end, we all lose. Oh wait, it seems we are now in the end game, but seeking overtime on technicalities.
Well said.