Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It did not protect their rights

Free assembly ? The Theater, much like whatever word is shouted is largely irrelevant, it's the context that matters.

reds8n wrote:

It did not protect their rights

Free assembly ? The Theater, much like whatever word is shouted is largely irrelevant, it's the context that matters.

I guess when looked at from the perspective of free assembly you are correct in that people had the RIGHT to go to the theater. Freedom of assembly is another law entirely. The law says peoples right to assemble shall not be impugned. And the ruling did not change that. Which is exactly my point. When they limited one persons right to free speech, they did not create another right. The other persons right in this case, assembly, existed before the ruling, and existed after the ruling. It was not changed. The only thing that changed was one persons rights were limited. And the courts have limited the right of assembly. When you want to have a demonstration in Washington DC, you have to get a permit. The government can deny that permit. If you do not get a permit, you can be arrested and the demonstration broken up. Every time a law is passed, it limits SOMEONES freedom.

Whilst protecting, safeguarding or even enhancing someone else's.

And of course that has chanegd : it's no use if you can assemble to do whatever if every single gathering is essentially prevented by people standing up and yelling "fire", "terrorist attack" whatever.

And yes, Govts. can restrict gatehrings, just as the right to private ownership might well prevent people from gatehring in/on private property.

It's all a question of balance : if something helps many people it could/can be viewed as being more "good" than something that only helps an individual. By safeguarding and protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, be definition, is what a society is.

The right of assembly did not say "you have the right to assemble in safety" It said you had the right to assemble. And again, that law was not changed. The only law that changed was that freedom of speech was limited.

And I have already pointed out that I realize it is a question of balance. But you still have not refuted my basic premise that laws exist to limit freedom, and that the more laws you have, the less freedom you have..

"By safeguarding ad protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, by definition, is what a society is" that statement is incorrect. What you create by that definition is mob rule. That is what happened in France during the French Revolution. And England during Cromwells time. And the US during Jim Crow and segregation. I would hardly characterize those as a freer society.

By definition here is what a society is (from webster's):

1: companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : company
2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends ; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <literary society>
b: a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners

Red in the US you have an absolute right to assemble if you are not trespassing on private property. There are very few limits to such-mainly that permits need to be acquired in city areas, and it can't be on government property, that sort of thing.

Even the Klan / New Black Panthers can assemble-helps to better keep an eye on 'em.

Mango wrote:The right of assembly did not say "you have the right to assemble in safety" It said you had the right to assemble. And again, that law was not changed. The only law that changed was that freedom of speech was limited.

And I have already pointed out that I realize it is a question of balance. But you still have not refuted my basic premise that laws exist to limit freedom, and that the more laws you have, the less freedom you have..

You really don't think the right of assembly defaultly includes safety as implicit ? Really ? Whole thing is kind of pointless otherwise.

"By safeguarding ad protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, by definition, is what a society is" that statement is incorrect. What you create by that definition is mob rule. That is what happened in France during the French Revolution. And England during Cromwells time. And the US during Jim Crow and segregation. I would hardly characterize those as a freer society.

No, as mob rule is ochlocracy, and defined by violence. That's not what I please don't try and put words in my "mouth". Again. And when it's a revolution there is an overthrow of the law-- that's what it is, so yes, during a revolution you are, technically, freer than previously as there are no laws. But are you actually freer if you are not in the mob or the revolutionaries ?No, of course not. In the midst of a revolution you don;t see fighters stopping to respect the rigts of ownership or freedom of speech do you ?

And damn right the common man was/is freer during and after Cromwell than he was before.

By definition here is what a society is (from webster's):

1: companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : company
2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends ; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <literary society>
b: a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners

Yes. point 3 being what I said. laws being organised patterns, instituitions etc etc. And ?

I don't really see how I'm not refuting any point you claim to be making : without laws you have tyranny or bedlam and then only the "strong" can claim to be free in any form at all. With laws to restrict and govern behavior more people are free.

So.... if a society or laws grants freedom to say 20 people, that is a freer society than one that only has rights for 1 person.

reds8n
your exact statement
"By safeguarding and protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, be definition, is what a society is."

The majority imposing its will on society is NOT making a society freer. It is imposing the will of the majority. Which is in essence what mob rule is.

Yes without laws, you have anarchy. My basic premise is that laws restrict freedom. More laws = Less freedom. Every time a law is passed it restricts SOMEONES freedom. Every year laws are passed, every year we become less free.

You would make Orwell proud.
"With laws to restrict and govern behavior more people are free."

"freedom is slavery" a direct quote from 1984.

Society and laws do not grant freedom, they restrict freedoms. Laws allow society to function. therefore society restricts freedom.

Mango wrote:reds8n
your exact statement
"By safeguarding and protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, be definition, is what a society is."

The majority imposing its will on society is NOT making a society freer. It is imposing the will of the majority. Which is in essence what mob rule is.

No, mob rule is entirely driven by violence. Laws enable society-- organisation, co-operation etc etc. If you don't have a society in the first place you cannot have a freer society.

EG : A butterfly cake is a sponge cake with little wings cut out of the top and "glued" back using icing/butterscotch etc. If I just cut the wings out and throw the rest away I no longer have a butterfly or indeed any type of cake indeed. I have fragments.

The dog'll be happy I guess.

Yes without laws, you have anarchy. My basic premise is that laws restrict freedom. More laws = Less freedom. Every time a law is passed it restricts SOMEONES freedom. Every year laws are passed, every year we become less free.

Wrong, without laws you have chaos. Anarchy is a step beyond that. It's a subtle definition that you don't seem capable of grasping despite your otherwise masterful grasp of online dictionaries.

I'll wait for the cheap personal shot....

You would make Orwell proud.
"With laws to restrict and govern behavior more people are free."

"freedom is slavery" a direct quote from 1984.

Society and laws do not grant freedom, they restrict freedoms. Laws allow society to function. therefore society restricts freedom.

BINGO !

They cannot restrict what doesn't exist without them in the first place. If it's just THE STRONGEST SURVIVE, that's no freedom at all for the majority of people. You don't seem to be able to grasp that by lessening the "freedom" of one you can increase the freedom for others. To a vast degree.

You appear to be confusing natural law and freedom.

I've read Orwell a lot thanks

I've leave you to your John Norman Gor Chronicles.

You are the one apparetnly mistaking natural law for freedom.

What I am describing is indeed anarchy, not chaos.
Anarchy
1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Chaos
2 aoften capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme ; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms — compare cosmos b: the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a: a state of utter confusion <the blackout caused chaos throughout the city> b: a confused mass or mixture

You make fun of using a dictionary?
"ignorance is strength"
Another Orwelian concept.

From what i was able to find, the Chronicles of Gor is a series of books, and apparently not a very popular one. Not having read them, I do not see the point you are trying to make.

I stated very clearly in my earlier posts that a society is preferable to anarchy. I also stated that laws restrict freedoms. You even agree with that point.

again, quoting your own words.
"You don't seem to be able to grasp that by lessening the "freedom" of one you can increase the freedom for others. To a vast degree."

You have lessened one persons freedom. By a law. wether or not that law enables other "freedoms" for more people is irrelevant. A. Law. Reduced. Freedom.

law:
1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Freedom:
1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence

So a law "binds" which means restricts. It is "enforced".
Which is the exact opposite of freedom.

More laws = less freedom.

It does not get more simple than that.

wether or not that law enables other "freedoms" for more people is irrelevant

No it isn't at all--that's the key issue.

You're not describing anarchy--you're not "describing" anything.


Laws grant freedoms as without the actual realisation of freedoms in a society they don't exist.

Again, no I think it's you who is putting forward the concept of natural law = freedom. It doesn't.

reds8n,
What came first, people or society?

Mango wrote:The substance of my actual claim still stands. Great change happens suddenly. You again are proving my earlier points of legislative creep. Slow change in politics results in s steady eroding of freedom. So thank you for agreeing with that part of my argument. As for scientific progress, yes that happens in incremental steps wiith sudden leaps. But we were not talking of scientific progress were we, we were talking about social and economic progress.

That's it? Just a restatement of the most trivial of the side issues... no attempt to actually substantiate anything you were claiming. Then a couple of posts later you reboot your whole argument. Conversation doesn't work that way, mate. It isn't just people repeating their thesis over and over again.

Anyhow, so now you're saying that it's social and economic progress (why are you saying this? because it relates to your original claim how? no-one knows...) - so let's look at another case from history;the independence movement in India. It's famous for one guy, Ghandi, and yet it started in 1867 when the Indian National Congress was formed by Surendranath Banerjee, the Indian National Congress. Meanwhile Syed Khan launched his own independence movement for Muslims. By 1900 the movement had an independence element, and Dadabhai Naoroji managed to be elected to the British House of Commons arguing for that very issue. From here you have ineffectual arguments for attack on the Raj itself, until you reach WWI. There were 1.3 million Indian troops in the Western Front, and it marked a significant change in Indian culture towards independence, people felt after the contribution of so many of their sons they had earned independence, given back to the British. There were a bunch of failed mutinies, then in 1919 Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer machine gunned a peaceful protest and killed around a thousand Indians. Now independence moves from being a political issue among the elite to a full blown issue, as well as the famous Ghandi, C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose become significant voices in the movement for independence. In 1928 Motilal Nehru heads a group that drafts the first Indian constitution. In 1929 the Indian National Congress, under Jawaharlal Nehru passed a resolution calling for independence from the British and called for an independence day in 1930. Following the Salt tax, Ghandi performs the Salt March. Then you've got WWII, and the Quit India campaign starts up under calls from Ghandi and this leads to massive protests and about 100,000 arrests. At the end of the war the Royal Indian Navy mutinied, led by MS Khan. Many argue the mutiny of the navy was far more significant. In 1947 Indian was granted independence under Prime Minister Nehru.

Do you want more, or will that do it? Your understanding of history as these sudden changes by individuals is bad.

Mango wrote:In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

It is extremely disputable, to the point where I'd argue that you haven't in any way substantiated any of it. Please begin to list things an individual could do in 1984 or 1959 that he can't do today. And don't try something like firecrackers, try and make it a little bigger than that.

Is one form of government more socially just than another? That depends. The citizens of the USSR for example had access to state run universal health care. The USA did not. This meant that some citizens of the USA had less access to health care than did a Soviet citizen. Socially, when talking only of health care, the Soviet System was more equal than was the US system. Would a citizen of the US be able to read what they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to travel where they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to gather together in a group and discuss anything they wanted? Yes. Could they do that in the Soviet Union? No. Was it better to live under the Soviet System or the US system? Again that is a matter of opinion and preference. I would say that it was better to live under the US system, but that is an opinion.

Again arguing the merits of a socialist system as opposed to a republic capitalist society, is a matter of opinion. Is one system less free than the other? Yes. Which one do you want to live in, that is personal choice. My personal choice and opinion is that the less control over my life another person has, the better. I do realize that a certain level of governmental control is necessary for a society to function. However, I want that level to be as small as possible.

You seem to be assuming that the USSR is somehow representative of all socialist systems. It isn't.

My personal opinion is that justice does not equal equality. Say that over a period of years, I work hard, and collect, prime, and paint 100 models. Then I meet someone who just started collecting models, and has only acquired 50 of them. I have 100 models of space marines, and someone else has 50, equality would demand that I give that person 25 of my models. That way both would have 75 models. Is that equal? Yes. Is that justice? That depends. If I chose of my own free will to give that person 25 models, that would be justice. If a third party took them at gunpoint, and gave them to the other person would that be justice? No. If the third party passed a law (which again is backed by force) and took my models and gave them to another, is that justice? Again I would say no. Is it equal? Yes. The main difference is that amount of personal choice I have in the mater. In life of course, things are not this cut and dry. One person has more money and better health care. So a third party raises taxes on that person, and gives it to a person with less money and less healthcare. Is that person having access to more health care and money desirable? Yes. Is it still as desirable when the first person has it taken from them without their say? That is where the arguments really start heating up.

Your analogy uses the single instance of one guy painting his army and so is a bad analogy. See, in your example the guy painting his army does so alone, reliant on no-one else. But in the real case, the individual and his pay packet, things are nowhere near as simple. The firm you work for exists because of the corporation, property and contract laws written by the state. The work you do on your computer is product of the research and innovations of thousands. The desk you write at is the result of the manufacturing of a few more dozen. The road you took to get to work is the result of hundreds more, funded by government.

The job you do is one link in a vastly complex supply chain. To take your paycheck at the end of the day, pretend it's entirely the product of your own brow, and the tax drawn from it is the product of some external factor is absolute lunacy.

By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

Mango wrote:reds8n,
What came first, people or society?

packs of animals.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

Prexactly.

Sebster,
your words.
"It is extremely disputable, to the point where I'd argue that you haven't in any way substantiated any of it. Please begin to list things an individual could do in 1984 or 1959 that he can't do today. And don't try something like firecrackers, try and make it a little bigger than that. "

It does not have to be bigger than that. That is exactly my point. every time a freedom is restricted, you become less free. Even if it is a small loss of a freedom, it is still a loss of a freedom. Small losses add up. 1 penny is not worth much. 2 pennies are still not worth much, but add a penny a minute, and very soon you will have a substantial amount of money. The whole jist of my argument is that laws are passed every year. Everyyear we are less free.
Freedom is the ability to choose for yourself, free from constaints. That is the established definition. 10 years ago could I ride a bicycle? Did I have to wear a helmet? No. today it is illegal to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet. Is wearing a helmet a good idea? Yes. But did my ability to choose wether or not to wear it get taken from me by law? Yes. Did a law get passed limiting my ability to choose? yes. So if my freedom was lessened, am I less free? YES

When you demand that I give a big example of a loss of freedom what you are trying to do, is change the parameters of the debate. None of you has refuted my basic argument that laws restrict freedom and that more laws equates to less freedom.

But you want a big example of how people are less fre today than they were 25 years ago? here it is.
In january 1999, David Howard was an official in the DC mayor's office. He was discussing his administration of a fund. He said that hi was being "niggardly" in the administration of the fund. He lost his job for using a word. worse, he lost his job for using a word ina grammaticlly correct way, and in the proper context.

Before anyone gets thier knickers in a twist, here is the definition of the word niggardly:
1 : grudgingly mean about spending or granting : begrudging
2 : provided in meanly limited supply

So, he lost his job for speaking correctly. That is a loss of freedom.

1.So give me an example of a representative socialist system that is freer than a capitalist republic.
2. Show me how more laws and regulations make you more free.

Again your words:
"Your analogy uses the single instance of one guy painting his army and so is a bad analogy. See, in your example the guy painting his army does so alone, reliant on no-one else. But in the real case, the individual and his pay packet, things are nowhere near as simple. The firm you work for exists because of the corporation, property and contract laws written by the state. The work you do on your computer is product of the research and innovations of thousands. The desk you write at is the result of the manufacturing of a few more dozen. The road you took to get to work is the result of hundreds more, funded by government.

The job you do is one link in a vastly complex supply chain. To take your paycheck at the end of the day, pretend it's entirely the product of your own brow, and the tax drawn from it is the product of some external factor is absolute lunacy. "

Using your logic, the person with the models did not act alone either. Did he make the paints? No. Did he make the brushes? no. Did he make the odels? no. Others made the paints, others made the models, others drove trucks to get themodels to the store where they wer purchased. You did not refute my argument. you disagreed with it. That is an opinion.

*edited post, I originally for got to add the quotation marks around sebsters quote.

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

reds8n
We do not know what came first, becasue there is no proof. All we can do is make guesses about the early development of humans. My guess is that they arose more or less concurrently.

the point is that society at that point was small hunter gather groups. They still had rules. Even if the rules were not written down, they had rules. A society by definition is a group of individuals bound together by a set of shared circumstances. Key word "BOUND" restricted. A society restricts the actions and behaviors of its members. The more restrictions a person has placed upon them the less free they are. Even in "context" they are less free.

Mango wrote:reds8n
We do not know what came first, becasue there is no proof.

Nope, it's pretty much fact that packs of animals were around before people.

All we can do is make guesses about the early development of humans. My guess is that they arose more or less concurrently.

the point is that society at that point was small hunter gather groups. They still had rules. Even if the rules were not written down, they had rules. A society by definition is a group of individuals bound together by a set of shared circumstances. Key word "BOUND" restricted. A society restricts the actions and behaviors of its members. The more restrictions a person has placed upon them the less free they are. Even in "context" they are less free.

No, I disagree. By having rules to do with sharing food a person is freed from having to hunt/whatever, that person can... raise the infants, paint wall paintings.... whatever and won't starve. That person and others are now freer because of "laws", in turn this makes society freer overall.

You're treating "free" like it's some easily quantifiable thing, it isn't. It.... "ripples" out to affect people and society in ways you can't quantify. Tu steal an earlier analogy : I would say a society is freer if it has books like 1984 published because of it's affects and implications even if it requires certain people- soldiers for example-- to give up or have their freedom restricted in certain ways.

Basically, it seems to me that you treating "freedom" like it's an interger and you can simply add or subtract to that and easily determineif it has grown or lessened. I don't think you can do that.

here's far more laws in the USA than say Darfur but I would say the former is a much freer society.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?
2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.
3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.
4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.
5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.
6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

hitler's rise=> sudden
hitler's fall => sudden

Christianity as the dominant religion of the m,iddle east and north africa=>slow and incremental
The rise and spread of Islam => sudden

Huh? Each took it's time in reality.

Rise of the roman republic=>slow and incremental
Fall of Roman republic =>sudden

Ok. So the progress in this case was incremental built on small decisions (ie. The rise of Rome took centuries). Rome's fall took even longer though. The Roman Empire split into two portions the last of which fell after 1000 years, if that's not incremental enough nothing is.)

Rise and maintance of Feudalism=> Slow and incremental
Collapse of French monarchy=>sudden

I see you have a fascination with revolution. Not surprising. But the factors which lead to the revolution built for generations. It is also relevant to consider the rise of Parliamentary democracy in England which took almost 600 years. By comparison to parliamentary democracy, feudalism took relatively little time to establish.

Dominance of the catholic Church in Europe=> slow and incremental
Rise of protestantism=>sudden
American Revolution=>Sudden

I find it curious you choose to link these suddens. So I'll ignore the second one for now and focus on the first.
Do you think protestantism in any way was a one day development of Martin Luther? The conditions that were required for the development of Protestantism in Northern Europe had taken centuries to develop. There was a conflux of events at Luther's time that allowed his ideas to spread, but to reach that point

Rise and maintanence of Czarist russia => slow and incremental
Bolshevik Revolution => sudden

Jim Crow Laws and segregation=>suddenly passed => no change for a long time
MLK jr, civil rights movement=>sudden

Lets hear some examples of slow and incremental progress.

From your own list:
Rise of Rome
Rise of Christianity
Development of feudalism

Others:
Progress of Science
Rise of Parliamentary democracy (which your own republic could not have existed without)
Rise of England as a world power


If you plan on making an argument, support it.

If you plan on making an argument support it with facts. Not Fox facts, but real facts. History is built on small decisions that build to larger decisions. The appearance of massive change is always predicated by an entire series of events which lead to the larger decision.

For example:
Hitler's rise took almost 30 years and likely would have failed if not for the crippling penalties that were imposed on Germany following the end of the 1st world war. Hitler;s rise was built on the massive trauma of WWI. How was his rise anything other then incremental. And further too that how was it progress? As with many other unsuccessful leaders it was undone before he had died. Progress requires something that you did to outlast you. Hitler's time on this earth can thus be relagated to the dustbin. It was not progress.

An example of an incremental increase in power can be seen in the rise of two Empire which had a major impact on the world as it was known. In both cases it took several hundred years of gradual expansion. When completed both benefited enormously for the Empire then gradually declined. But even as they faded from existence they left institutions and landmarks that marked their passing.

The best example of instrumentalist changes though goes to the English Parliament. In a series of gradual developments to law and order power moved from the hands of a single man to the privileged to the common man and then to all people over a certain age. This transition was done peacefully over 700 plus years.

Mango wrote:

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

If you can prove your initial assumption that law=loss of freedom then we who disagree with you lose if we try to argue from that point. Sooo... since your initial point is debatable you lose because you have failed to successfully argue that laws truly and always represent a loss of freedom for all people involved. ie. because laws can protect other freedoms that means there can be a net increase in freedom by the addition of laws even if some freedoms are restricted.

For an example of a law that increases freedom look to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxins into the waterways. or laws that allow for people to vote without thier individual votes being known.

Right economics, greater wealth for the wealthy, greater peaks and falls in national wealth, more opportunity for competitive business to do well and uncompetitive business to fail.

Left economics, greater wealth for the poor, more stable economy, bad businesses kept going, successful businesses held back.

I'm not saying one is better than the other (personally I vote green simply because going left right left right does not amount to actual democracy). Though it is hilarious that some are trying to say the right is always better in every single way.

efarrer wrote:

Mango wrote:

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

If you can prove your initial assumption that law=loss of freedom then we who disagree with you lose if we try to argue from that point. Sooo... since your initial point is debatable you lose because you have failed to successfully argue that laws truly and always represent a loss of freedom for all people involved. ie. because laws can protect other freedoms that means there can be a net increase in freedom by the addition of laws even if some freedoms are restricted.

For an example of a law that increases freedom look to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxins into the waterways. or laws that allow for people to vote without thier individual votes being known.

Ok again, I will try to explain this using small words. Take a look back through the posts.
Look up the definition of freedom.
Look up the definition of law.
For your benefit, I will repost them:

Freedom: 1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

Now, absence means that something is not there. Necessity means you have to do something or have to have something. It does not mean you can choose to do something or choose to do without it. Coercion means forcing someone to do something. Are you still following me? Constraint means the state of being held back or restricted. I know these are very hard concepts to understand, so I will ask again, are you still following me?
You are? good

Law:1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Ok, again using small words. Binding means restricting. (see above definition, key words "abscence of constraint". Now let's look at another word in that definition. Enforced. to compel. to gain by force,to effect by force. see above definition of freedom "the abscence of coercion" Ok, I know that this is very trying for some of you lefty types, as it requires logiccal thinking and a basic understanding of language, but please try to follow along. Controlling is a root word, "control" with an action suffix. (suffix means something added at the end of a word). When an action suffix is added it means the act of, for example run + ing gives you running. ie the act of running.
So controlling means the act of control. Control means to exercise restraining influence. We have already established that constraint/constraining is being held back or restricted.

Now lets look at the symbol "=". It is generally used to mean "the same as"

Now lets look at the word "opposite." it is generally used to mean "not the same as", and more, means diametrically opposed to the
original.

So is restriction the the same or equal of the word freedom?
Or does restriction mean the opposite of the word freedom?
Is compel the same as or equal of the word freedom?
Is compel the opposite of freedom?
Is enforce the same as or equal of the word fredom?
Is enforce the opposite of freedom?

Now lets take a look at the word "less"
Less;: of reduced size, extent, or degree

So if you have something, and it is reduced or restricted in size or EXTENT, then you have less of it.

Law equals restrictions, constraints, enforced actions. This means you have "less" freedom in your actions

Law = less freedom

That is by definintion what it means.

So, if a company cannot dump toxins, then that company has had thier choices limited. If you HAVE to vote in secrecy, and do not have the choice of voting publically, then again, your choices have been constrained. Every law by definition constrains freedom. More law = less freedom.

Efarrer,
Your claim that i use "fox facts" is
a. spurious
b. insulting

In my previous post, I was returning the favor in the tone I used. previously, the discussions, while we 9meaning everyone who had posted) were being civil. Please let's try to keep it that way. I could easily have ridiculed the huffington post, The daily kos, CNN, CBD, or a host of other news outlets. Disagreeing with someone is fine. being rude is not.

Mango wrote:Efarrer,
Your claim that i use "fox facts" is
a. spurious
b. insulting

In my previous post, I was returning the favor in the tone I used. previously, the discussions, while we 9meaning everyone who had posted) were being civil. Please let's try to keep it that way. I could easily have ridiculed the huffington post, The daily kos, CNN, CBD, or a host of other news outlets. Disagreeing with someone is fine. being rude is not.

The comment was fair and balanced given your obvious lack of historical knowledge. The use of Fox facts was to indicate a knowledge based on a glance with an eye to seeing the facts you wish to see. Your commentary was wrong. Moreover you know that and that is why you ignored the remainder of the post. If you wish to use historical examples it is important to know what you are talking about. If you are insulted by your base lack of knowledge being exposed, so be it. Get educated and then come back and try again.

P.S.
Insulting other media institutions can be fair, I don't read those so why would I care. My comment was made in a way anyone who read it (yourself included knew what I was saying).

PPS
Further to this post you have the gall to complain about my tone when you insult my intellect in the post which precedes this one
.

efarrer wrote:

Mango wrote:Efarrer,
Your claim that i use "fox facts" is
a. spurious
b. insulting

In my previous post, I was returning the favor in the tone I used. previously, the discussions, while we 9meaning everyone who had posted) were being civil. Please let's try to keep it that way. I could easily have ridiculed the huffington post, The daily kos, CNN, CBD, or a host of other news outlets. Disagreeing with someone is fine. being rude is not.

The comment was fair and balanced given your obvious lack of historical knowledge. The use of Fox facts was to indicate a knowledge based on a glance with an eye to seeing the facts you wish to see. Your commentary was wrong. Moreover you know that and that is why you ignored the remainder of the post. If you wish to use historical examples it is important to know what you are talking about. If you are insulted by your base lack of knowledge being exposed, so be it. Get educated and then come back and try again.

P.S.
Insulting other media institutions can be fair, I don't read those so why would I care. My comment was made in a way anyone who read it (yourself included knew what I was saying).

PPS
Further to this post you have the gall to complain about my tone when you insult my intellect in the post which precedes this one
.

Hmmmm i insulted your intellignece and you feel insulted, and then ignore the rest of the post

Pot meet kettle.

Mango wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Mango wrote:

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

If you can prove your initial assumption that law=loss of freedom then we who disagree with you lose if we try to argue from that point. Sooo... since your initial point is debatable you lose because you have failed to successfully argue that laws truly and always represent a loss of freedom for all people involved. ie. because laws can protect other freedoms that means there can be a net increase in freedom by the addition of laws even if some freedoms are restricted.

For an example of a law that increases freedom look to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxins into the waterways. or laws that allow for people to vote without thier individual votes being known.

Ok again, I will try to explain this using small words. Take a look back through the posts.
Look up the definition of freedom.
Look up the definition of law.
For your benefit, I will repost them:

Freedom: 1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

Now, absence means that something is not there. Necessity means you have to do something or have to have something. It does not mean you can choose to do something or choose to do without it. Coercion means forcing someone to do something. Are you still following me? Constraint means the state of being held back or restricted. I know these are very hard concepts to understand, so I will ask again, are you still following me?
You are? good

Law:1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Ok, again using small words. Binding means restricting. (see above definition, key words "abscence of constraint". Now let's look at another word in that definition. Enforced. to compel. to gain by force,to effect by force. see above definition of freedom "the abscence of coercion" Ok, I know that this is very trying for some of you lefty types, as it requires logiccal thinking and a basic understanding of language, but please try to follow along. Controlling is a root word, "control" with an action suffix. (suffix means something added at the end of a word). When an action suffix is added it means the act of, for example run + ing gives you running. ie the act of running.
So controlling means the act of control. Control means to exercise restraining influence. We have already established that constraint/constraining is being held back or restricted.

Now lets look at the symbol "=". It is generally used to mean "the same as"

Now lets look at the word "opposite." it is generally used to mean "not the same as", and more, means diametrically opposed to the
original.

So is restriction the the same or equal of the word freedom?
Or does restriction mean the opposite of the word freedom?
Is compel the same as or equal of the word freedom?
Is compel the opposite of freedom?
Is enforce the same as or equal of the word fredom?
Is enforce the opposite of freedom?

Now lets take a look at the word "less"
Less;: of reduced size, extent, or degree

So if you have something, and it is reduced or restricted in size or EXTENT, then you have less of it.

Law equals restrictions, constraints, enforced actions. This means you have "less" freedom in your actions

Law = less freedom

That is by definintion what it means.

So, if a company cannot dump toxins, then that company has had thier choices limited. If you HAVE to vote in secrecy, and do not have the choice of voting publically, then again, your choices have been constrained. Every law by definition constrains freedom. More law = less freedom.

Your argument, while fun is still
a) incorrect.
b) at it's base illogical

Laws on paper do not restrict freedom any more then paper planes make mass air transit possible.

You have the right to vote privately so that you have freedom of choice. Does a person with as little knowledge as you even come close to having the ability to comprehend why that law is needed to ensure a free society? You have a law which allows you that privacy and the freedom to say out loud who you voted for if you wish.

The company when not thus restricted removes the freedom of people to use that public water. Thus it's loss of freedom results in a net gain of freedom for all people in the society. The companies choice to pollute is restricted, the rest of the societies freedom to use the water is increased. In both examples the laws allow for the weak to be freed from the tyranny of the strong.

Law need not be about restrictions that cage people but rather about rules that prevent the powerful from abusing their power.

Your arguments hold no water.
+
Law does not automatically equal lack of freedom. [u]

efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. By the very definitions of the words, they do so. Please show me, oh Superior Intellect, how my reading of two simple definitions is flawed.

Effarrer just did.
Reds8n did.
Sebster conclusively demonstrated with his example of India that your concepts as applied to societal progress are also demonstrably false.

You demonstrate a bright mind which has latched onto certain political concepts as if they were mathematically true, because that is the way they have been presented to you. Unfortunately many of the underlying assumptions of those arguments are false or misinterpretations of data. Reds8n's example of laws restricting pollution of water, and laws restricting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, are clear proof that your mathematical formula "laws = less freedom" is wrong.

Your use of carefully-chosen dictionary definitions as the underpinnings of your argument is ignoring the forest for the trees. You're championing an argument that misses the point of the discussion, out of a desire to be "technically correct", which, despite what the beureaucrats on Futurama have told us, is NOT "the best kind of correct."

Mannahnin wrote:Effarrer just did.
Reds8n did.
Sebster conclusively demonstrated with his example of India that your concepts as applied to societal progress are also demonstrably false.

You demonstrate a bright mind which has latched onto certain political concepts as if they were mathematically true, because that is the way they have been presented to you. Unfortunately many of the underlying assumptions of those arguments are false or misinterpretations of data. Reds8n's example of laws restricting pollution of water, and laws restricting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, are clear proof that your mathematical formula "laws = less freedom" is wrong.

Your use of carefully-chosen dictionary definitions as the underpinnings of your argument is ignoring the forest for the trees. You're championing an argument that misses the point of the discussion, out of a desire to be "technically correct", which, despite what the beureaucrats on Futurama have told us, is NOT "the best kind of correct."

Respectfully, I disagree that reds8n and sebster did so.
efrarrer most assuredly did not.

Laws exist to restrict freedom That is my basic premise. Again more laws restrict freedom. I have shown that a law when written retricts frredom

For example free speech. The law is clear. It restricts a government official from imposing furtther laws against free speech. Did it give protection to one group? yes. Did it restrict one group? yes, in this case a government offficial. Have politicians and judges passed/clarified the original laws in such a way to circumvent them? yes, as witnessed by my citing the gentleman who lost his job for saying a word. Which everyone has seemed to ignore. Yet I am blasted for not addressing every single argument posted by 5 different people. To which I do not have enough time.

All laws by nature are restrictive. You still have not disproven me.

I will get to sebsters historical arguments when I get back from the park with my son, and dinner with my wife. But I will get to them.

I will add more fuel to the fire now. For all you socialist apologists. What form of government did Nazi Germany have? was it a democratic republic? or was it a form od socialism? What type of government does china have? What type of government does North Korea or cuba have? What do just about every repressive dictatorship on the planet have for a government is it a republic capitalist system or a socialist/communist system.

And now tell me socialism makes people freer.
That is because you cannot.

I will get back to the historical content of sebsters argument, and point out its flaws.