Liberty Is Dangerous

[Diogenes]

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.

Cascade and Herd theory. Much of what we tolerate has been crept up on us incrementally. Minimal Taxes on just the rich back in 1916? Hurrah! (thought most folk) Since then, they have defined rich downward, and minimal taxes upward.

Other tricks include automatic payroll tax deduction. If Americans had to WRITE a check every week, Washington would have NEVER got so huge. Also, the 24th amendment made it possible to vote without paying taxes, and the 26th amendment made it possible for 18 year olds to vote for all the government spending goodness they wanted before they actually had to PAY for any governmental bills. (Which are of course hidden from them by the automatic payroll tax deduction.)


Nowadays it is the culture to just keep paying and let the Government Spend that as well as a lot more which they keep borrowing.

[Skipjack]

They are immature ninnys for the most part.

How does that change the injustice of the law? Besides, some people might have other reasons for it. Some may find it romantic and then there are those that are more capable with sabres than guns ( I am equally as capable with both, but I would not mind carrying a walking stick with a blade in it, its elegant and goes better with a tuxedo ).

[Diogenes]

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.

Your view is distorted. I spend NO TIME worrying about stoners. When the topic comes up, I voice my opinion, but it is not an issue that I prefer to discuss.

As for sucking on the public teat, I am more bothered by the vast army of government employees doing it, (The School system has become a jobs program for Union Democrats) as well as the Welfare recipient ne'er do wells.

The stoners that I know are mostly unemployed or retired on disability types, and I am generally left with the impression that one can be a stoner or gainfully employed, but seldom both. (I am aware of a few exceptions.)

I really do not care that some people want to smoke pot. It seemingly is an improvement over alcohol, and if people can afford to indulge, then I don't care if they do. Most of them can't, unless someone else is paying their bills.

[Diogenes]

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.

I have been ranting about those three little words at the end of the 24th Amendment for decades. "or other tax." Representation without taxation is just as bad as taxation without representation.

What this did was cut out a major piece of the negative feedback system used to stabilize our Fiscal policy. The 26th amendment did so as well. I would have changed the wording of the Amendment to extend the vote to any 18 year olds who were in the service of our country, and leave it at that.

[Diogenes]

They are immature ninnys for the most part.

How does that change the injustice of the law? Besides, some people might have other reasons for it. Some may find it romantic and then there are those that are more capable with sabres than guns ( I am equally as capable with both, but I would not mind carrying a walking stick with a blade in it, its elegant and goes better with a tuxedo ).

Like I said, they should simply extend the gun permit into being a "deadly weapons" permit. If someone is willing to go through the trouble to lawfully carry a deadly weapon, then they are likely not going to misuse it.

They let you have guns in Austria? I thought Europe was turning into the Weeny continent?

[CaptainBeowulf]

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.

Hopefully Polywell being "shiny" will help with this problem.

[KitemanSA]

Freedom does not include the freedom to do the immoral.

Depends on how you define morality don't it?

I defined it. Morality is the subject of right and wrong. People have the right to voluntary action. It is wrong to involve someone in an action involuntarily. Simple.

[KitemanSA]

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.

This just shows how little you understand libertarian philosophy. My statement is fundamentally libertarian.

[MSimon]

I say playing with matches in a forest is EVERYBODY'S business.

The only way I can see to stop that is to make matches contraband. Or perhaps we need to appoint a minder for every citizen. Who will mind the minders?

As I understand it the Communist states promised safety. The promise destroyed them. Be careful what you wish for.

Liberty without risk? I don't see how you can get it.

Jefferson understood the problem well D and anticipated you by some 200 years:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

Note: Eric hates debate. If you want a debate on the subject I'm your man.

[Skipjack]

Msimon, I think that you have to a bit of a balance. You can not have liberty at the expense of other peoples liberties. Because some individuals or groups will intend to dominate others and thus destroy other peoples liberties, if they are given the liberty to do so. Does that make sense? So there has to be some control and unfortunately some reduction of liberties. Personally, I dont like being dominated by anyone or told what to do by anybody. So I really like my liberties. I only barely accept being told by the government what to do ever so often. I would certainly not accept this from any private individual or company. This could lead to (even bloody) conflict.

[Diogenes]

I say playing with matches in a forest is EVERYBODY'S business.

The only way I can see to stop that is to make matches contraband. Or perhaps we need to appoint a minder for every citizen. Who will mind the minders?

There is no need to ban matches, (or risky sexual behavior) All that needs to be done is to drop a hammer on those who set the forest on fire. (Or infect someone else with a disease.)

Deterrence is the theory on which our entire crime prevention system operates.

As I understand it the Communist states promised safety. The promise destroyed them. Be careful what you wish for.

Liberty without risk? I don't see how you can get it.

You get it the same way you get a perfect "Q". You don't. You get a good "Q" and you use it.

Jefferson understood the problem well D and anticipated you by some 200 years:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

I think he has a very different idea of Liberty than do you. I recently read a comment in which someone argued that "Liberty" is being able to do what you want within the accepted social framework, while "freedom" is being able to do anything you want. The commenter argued that "Freedom" can be viewed as unchecked, while "Liberty" can be viewed as "Freedom" within the boundaries of social norms, a sort of Burkean sort of Freedom.

While I might not agree with the fellows explanation of the terms, I do note that in any monarchy, the King is free to do anything he wants, and represents the extreme of "freedom." He can literally do ANYTHING he wants, and TOO anyone he wants. He is in effect, totally "free." Everyone else is constrained in what they can get away with. Constrained by the law. The King's law.

Note: Eric hates debate. If you want a debate on the subject I'm your man.

Sure he hates debate. If I were on the wrong side, I couldn't win one either. I've always said that in winning a debate, the first thing you have to do is be on the "correct" side.


Eric will start out like he wants to debate, but when you point out his thinking yields a paradox, or puts him in an uncomfortable position, he simply runs away. For example, In discussing Homosexuality and Pedophilia, Eric explained how he was against the one thing, but accepting of the other. When asked why, he says "because it is illegal."

When I pointed out that up till the 1970s, Homosexuality was illegal too, and would he have been against it because it was illegal, or would he have supported it when it was illegal? This question he will not answer. It puts him in an uncomfortable position one way or the other. He simply wants to believe what he wants to believe, and he doesn't want anyone making him THINK about the consistency of his philosophy.

Libertarianism is very much like what Reagan said about the Democrat Congress's budget. "It's a great plan if you don't expect to live very long."

[Betruger]

Debate vs dialectics

[KitemanSA]

There is no need to ban drugs, (or risky sexual behavior) All that needs to be done is to drop a hammer on those who hurt others with drugs. (Or infect someone else with a disease.)

Deterrence is the theory on which our entire crime prevention system operates.

D,
Didn't know you had changed your mind! WOW, you progress.

(Quote slightly changed to tick off the guilty)

[Diogenes]

There is no need to ban drugs, (or risky sexual behavior) All that needs to be done is to drop a hammer on those who hurt others with drugs. (Or infect someone else with a disease.)

Deterrence is the theory on which our entire crime prevention system operates.

D,
Didn't know you had changed your mind! WOW, you progress.

(Quote slightly changed to tick off the guilty)

I look at the use of hard drugs as the equivalent of firing rifle rounds into the air. Eventually one is going to come down and hit someone.


The argument that they have a right to do this is nonsense.



The INJURY that one person does to another with drugs, is introducing them to it. That one act sometimes has horrible consequences for the injured person.

[Skipjack]

Like I said, they should simply extend the gun permit into being a "deadly weapons" permit. If someone is willing to go through the trouble to lawfully carry a deadly weapon, then they are likely not going to misuse it.

They let you have guns in Austria? I thought Europe was turning into the Weeny continent?

Somehow missed your post earlier. Sorry for the late reply.
I agree on the idea of extending the gun permit into a deadly weapons permit. I see no difference between a sword, a sabre, a knife, or a revolver. Someone who has a carry permit for a gun should be able to carry one or more of the others as well. Glad we see it the same way. I guess that the gun lobby does not care about the other weapons and unfortunately the way I see Washington (even more so lately) is that if there is no powerful lobby/money involved, there is no support at all from lawmakers.

We are allowed to have guns in Austria yes.
Everyone with a hunting permit is allowed to own two rifles (e.g. a shotgun for small animals and a rifle for deer and buck, etc).
You can also have small caliber rifles for sports and air guns and all that. Not sure whether they can actually count as a weapon (though I would probably be able to shoot your eyeball out from 10 meters, used to be a sports shooter).
If you can make it plausible that your life circumstances require it, e.g. you are in a business that requires you to transport large amounts of cash, or you are working in security, or are a taxi driver, etc, etc you can also apply for permission to carry a handgun. Getting that permission is quite involved though including a psych eval. Now I do regard psychologists as mostly idiots, kinda the leftist replacement for a priest. Both are trying to tend to your sould, you know... that thing that does not exist. So they might just as well let you get an evaluation from your pastor
Then there are also the reserve and professional soldiers who have their guns at home.
Either way, these are your options for guns here. It is not quite as bad, as americans might think, but it certainly is not great by any means.