Liberty Frightens People

[QUOTE="Scampi, post: 1067205419, member: 72673" no one here will stop you.[/QUOTE]

Not so far

 

My mistake, i thought you were unhappy with how things are.

 

Yes butvgovernment serves as a third party. Which is where the fairness comes from. To allow people to come up with their own punishments is absolutely asinine.

 

Any disinterested third party can serve that function. Private arbitration firms are all over the place. They exist because enough people would rather pay them than use government courts because government courts tend to be slow, inefficient, and unpredictable. In addition to the four or five competing private courts that settled disputes and decided punishments in England before the Royal courts began to monopolize the field, town moots(where trusted members of the community were called on to settle disputes(resolve accusations)) did the job. This is where the common law tradition, that which the legal system you live under is based on, began.

You don't need government to have law, and you don't need government to make it fair.

 

Not at all unhappy, however, I do have a responsibilities.

In theory, governments have very different motives than private third parties. In practice, the actual people in government and the actual people they govern are motivated by the exact same spectrum of incentives. The actual people in government are no more or less likely to be "fair" than those they govern. In fact, historically, government tends to corrupt the actual people who wield its power.

 

Good point. The general rule is that the liberty of one ends, where the nose of another begins.

The principles by which the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted implies the same thing when it puts individual rights and freedoms "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The legitimate authority of Gov't applies only to acts which are directly injurious to others. Jefferson put it this way.

This is true liberty - the ability to do what what wishes so long as one is not directly harming someone else (which does not include hurting their feelings or moral sensibilities).

 

So true! Unfortunately, by the above standard, the vast majority of what government does government should not be doing. Government has no place in pension, education or health care. Government should work only against injury; it should never work for benefit because government can only benefit some by injuring others.

 

Yes, a good man's evil is an evil man's good. Your point being...?

You get one guess.

What the hell for, since any change you work for is neither good nor evil?

 

Civil forfeiture anyone?

 

Everyone has heard that Gov't should be limited. 12 years of school and almost no one can answer the question...

Limited to what ? (refer to Jefferson quote in previous post).

There is a mechanism by which laws outside the legitimate purview of Gov't can be made.

I mentioned that one of the principles was that individual rights and freedoms were put "Above" the legitimate power of Gov't.
The other principle is that the authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" as opposed to divine right/god as was the case in the past.

We gave an authority the power to punish offenders for violating the law. That power was to be very limited as no man wants another to have power over him. Limited to protection from harm "Murder, rape, theft and so on"

The reason we gave the authority power is as per the "social contract" an overwhelming majority of people agree that these things should be forbidden.

The bar is the same for any other law. If Gov't (fed, state, municipal) wants to make a law outside it's purview - it needs to go to the people and get an overwhelming majority (at least 2/3rds majority). A law on the basis of 50+1 - especially one that messed with individual liberty was referred to as tyranny of the majority.

The law banning pot then illegitimate - no way this is supported by 66%.
A law banning Heroin/Meth is legitimate - easily supported by an overwhelming majority.

Folks always bring up slavery back in the day. Guess what - an overwhelming majority supported slavery ... when this changed the law changed. Same thing for homosexuals - back in the day an overwhelming majority was against the practice.

 

They are absolutely more likely to be fair in practice by not being emotionally motivated in near the manner involved parties are. What an asinine comment.

Otherwise, without government to dictate punishments for quarrels, if I feel wronged by you, I can essentially take whatever actions I want against you. Don't like it? Fight me about it, whoever wins is right. That's literally what anarchy is lolol. It is chaos.

Those who are in favor of anarchy have a terrible sense of the world. We simply arent ready for that yet. Likely never will be, as emotions are such a part of who we are.

Anarchy only works up until there is a need for conflict resolution. Which is constantly.

My city alone hit 1.3 million 911 calls for a population of 800000 thousand in 1 year. To pretend conflict resolution is not needed is ridiculous.

 

That is something you need to work out for yourself.

 

Ya know what frightens people?

Being sick and not having healthcare

 

Clowns

 

If you're correct, there's nothing for anyone to work out, because nothing matters - other than maybe getting all the pleasure and avoiding all the pain you can before you die.

 

People are frightened about a lot of things. Ask a British soldier sitting in a trench a hundred feet from a trench filled with Germans back in WW1 what he's afraid of, and he's going to tell you machine guns, cannons, bayonets, and mustard gas. This fear didn't mean that a surrender was in the works. It meant that he was going to have to deal with his fears the best he could.

Hang in there, ol' Hoss! There is no surrender in the works, and it's looking to be a longer war than originally thought.

 

Am I really the only person here who sees blue skies at the end of a just struggle?
Come on chaps, muck in, heads down and go out and talk to real people. Find common ground, identify the freedoms you have and spread the word, not to be selfish, but to share in the planning of the new better society. Come on, crack on!

 

I'm not scared... I'm fearless... sorta... sometimes

 

I do not know. I am 47, and due to my disability my parents are my guardians.

They provide for me financially and they do control me.

Tens of millions of mentally disabled Americans have no guardians -- they live lives of poverty and drugs. Most prisoners are mentally disabled.

 

People are free to harm themselves by smoking, drinking alcohol, and tens of millions of people in USA take drugs.

 

Most drug users consider their behavior ethical. Some Liberals believe assaulting people for Politically Incorrect opinions is ethical.

Every criminal feels justified.

 

But most drug users and criminals believe that they are right.

 

Of course some Laws are unwise, but once people start deciding which Laws to follow, the Society is doomed.

 

In almost all cases -- yes. In USA, there are about 300,000 state and federal prisoners and 100,000 jail inmates guilty of drug offenses. About 50,000 people a year in USA alone die from overdose. They all are against drug laws -- and thus they thought they could violate the law.

 

That can be the best option. Going to prison for 3 years for drugs is much better then dying from an overdose.