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 tomder55 on 07/06/04 11:19 am:
what is the difference between ''unbridled freedom 'and 'freedom, by its very nature, is limitless'? Laws place limits ;That is undeniable .

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/06/04 12:15 pm:
"the freedom of individuals in society requires some regulation of conduct, the first condition of freedom is its limitation; make it absolute and it dies in chaos." Durant

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/06/04 12:59 pm:
Ex, I know there just ain't a whole lot I can do about this situation, and it's really insignificant in the scheme of things. There's just also no way of determining absolutely what constitutes 'brushing another's nose.' To me, opening my window and being 'blinded by the light' qualifies, to him it doesn't, and I'm sure for a man with limited means to buy good lawyers, the courts wouldn't call it that either. 'Freedom' comes at a price you know...and I just can't afford it.

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 tomder55 on 07/07/04 9:28 am:
kindj, I meant to include this in my rating of your response:

It is a kind of a libertarian argument .The basic premise is that the original intention of the founders was based on libertarian principles .But it is hard to define it .Like most politica philosophies
everyone has their own wersion of them . Many use the 'original intent ' argument .Of course it is difficult to discern what the original intentions were . Both the Constitution and subsequently the Bill of Rights (and before them the Articles of Confederation were forged through a series of compromises .But it is clear that if the founders never intended the Declaration of Independence to have any legal status.

Jefferson said: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (Letter to S. Kercheval, 1816).

Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 07/07/04 11:11 am:
Excon,

Shows you how screwed up things have gotten when you have to form another party to show where the other two parties have dropped the ball and forgotten where this country came from.

I AM NOT a member of the Libertarian party. Actually, I'm not a member of ANY party, as I have yet to encounter ANY party, much less any individual, who thinks just like me, which is probably a good thing.

Anyway, here's just a short blurb from the LP's website:

"The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade."

They basically seem to think that the gov't should be totally hands-off, except on certain issues that simply MUST come from some sort of central gov't.

Some I agree with, some I don't. But on the whole, you and I think a lot alike, it seems. I do my thing, I'm not hurting anyone, and Big Brother can just leave me the hell alone.

DK

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