Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
What the US is all about!	excon	07/06/04
Hello Wingers: I have quoted the following political philosophy in many of my questions. What surprises me, is that many of you disavow the sentiment in its entirety. Frankly, that blows me away. In the first instance because most of you don’t understand it (you think it means anarchy), and in addition to not understanding it, you don’t even realize that it forms the basis of OUR legal system in THIS country – the country in which you live. In a free society, my freedom ends where your nose begins. That means that I have the right to act in any manner I choose as long as my action does not interfere with anybody else’s right to do the same. I didn’t write it. I didn’t think it up. I learned it – in high school civics. Was my teacher a commie? Or do I just not understand how this country works? excon
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/06/04 10:02 am: Hello again, And if I don't have your blood boiling yet, I’m going to add this little ditty: Freedom - Most of you don't understand that word. Webster says it's "having liberty", "not controlled by others". I, personally, don't know what's so hard to understand. Freedom means no controls - no limits - limitless. That's what the word means. It really does - look it up. I didn't write that either. When I say freedom, by its very nature, is limitless, I'm not making it up. You're either free, or not. There's no in-between. It's like pregnant, You are or you're not. Now, I'm not saying that's our system. I'm saying that's what the word means. I suggest that in order to have any meaningful discussions here, one needs to operate with the same vocabulary as everybody else. excon Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/06/04 1:16 pm: Tom.... There is no difference. Both accurately define the word 'freedom’. I only disagree with your suggestion that I think our freedoms should be ‘unbridled’. I don’t. I’m not an anarchist. I’ll betcha we disagree on what the word sovereign means, though. Elliot: You won’t find specific rights listed in the Constitution no matter how hard you look. The founders knew that if the rights the people had were listed, then the government could say “well, that specific right isn’t listed” (kinda like you say). No, what they did instead, was tell the government what it could do, in the first part of the Constitution, and then listed specifically what THE government COULD’T do, in the Bill of Rights. All other rights, ALL (there’s that word again) belong to the people. They’re not listed anywhere. Do you have the right to flammabag a dooteloz. You bet you do. Steve: Indeed. Freedom ain’t free. excon Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 07/06/04 4:10 pm: Excon, I'm not quite sure how to "flammabag a dooteloz". It sounds like fun, though. Could you teach me? You are partially right about what the Constitution says: that it lists what the federal government may do. The 10th Amendment then states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." States OR the people, not simply the people. In this case, it is regulated by the various state Constitutions. Now if you wish to change those constitutions, you are free to try to do so within the political framework. But until then, those powers rest with the state governments. And that means that in NY gay marriage is illegal. Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/06/04 4:46 pm: Elliot: Well, I've never personally engaged in flammabagging myself but, according to our system, I have the right to do so if I choose. Plus, I have the right to do more than simple flammabagging. And wouldn't you like to know what the next level of flammabagging is called. Well, I'm not telling. excon Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/07/04 12:14 pm: And lastly, Elliot: I’ve saved the best for you. >>>"My freedom ends at the tip of your nose". And he was wrong. Your freedom ends as soon as it affects any other person in society in any way, shape or form. From that moment on, the LAW takes over and regulates to what degree you may effect others in society.<<< Nope! Wrong! Buzz! Whoever said it, was dead on!!!! Most of the things you and I do effect other people in many shapes and forms. None of these people have a right NOT to be effected. I can publish a dirty book. It affects you. Notwithstanding my effect on you, I have the right to publish a dirty book. Gay people can’t now get married (but soon will). You maintain that their marriage will affect you. It doesn’t effect you, if offends you. You don’t have a right to not be offended. You are right about the law taking over these disputes. But if more people understood the legal distinction between a right being violated or not, we’d be much better off. People sue because they think they’re not responsible if they burn themselves on hot coffee. People sue because they think their neighbor should paint their house a different color. People sue because somebody is selling birth control pills. People sue because they weren’t promoted. People sue because they’re teaching sex education. People sue because they slipped. People sue because somebody is doing abortions. People sue because they’re poor. Yup, all of that BS would end if people understood that your freedom does indeed, end at your nose and not one centimeter further. excon
Answered By		Answered On
ETWolverine		07/06/04
Excon, The ONLY freedoms we are guaranteed are "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS". Therefore, you are free to be alive and it is illegal for people to kill you. You are free to be as liberated as you wish, and to not have any outside soveriegn power control you. And you are free to pursue happiness as far as you can... with no guaratee that you will find it. Those are the ONLY "freedoms" guaranteed by the Constitution. I think it was Jefferson who said that "My freedom ends at the tip of your nose". And he was wrong. Your freedom ends as soon as it effects any other person in society in any way, shape or form. From that moment on, the LAW takes over and regulates to what degree you may effect others in society. So while freedom may by its nature be limitless in concept, the Constitution itself limits what freedoms we are guaranteed. "Freedom" is not a license to do anything you want. Freedom DOES have limitations. In fact, the very statement that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose" is itself a limitation. Who says that my freedoms have to end where they begin to hurt you? Why can't my freedoms be limitless, even if they have an adverse effect on you? That too is an artificially-created limitation on freedom... one created to protect society as a whole. So even under your interpretation, freedom is not as limitless as you would have us believe in your question. Or as Spiderman (or Spider-Man, depending on which school of comic book thought yoyu belong to) might say, with freedom comes responsibility. In this case, the responsibility is to uphold the laws that protect society... even if they limit your freedoms. Elliot

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!