Whats Up With America?!?

[b.k. barunt]

Roll your eyes all you want, but why were those people killed? For speaking their mind. You see...they could not be stopped from speaking their mind because they had the will to do so.

One might say that they no longer have the will to do so.


Honibaz

[Phatscotty]

Well umm, i've been band from here a few times . . . just sayin . . .


Honibaz

[Snorri1234]

PYes the Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). It also includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th Amendments- the most important being the 2nd, 9th and 10th imo, not the 1st (freedom of speech, assembly and religion) which is easily trampled without the protection of the 9th and 10th... and 2nd.

There are plenty of healthy democracies that don't need guns to remain democracies. Also, state lines are utterly arbitrary. I can see the desire for more local control, but most states are just as corrupt as the federal government.

Then move to one of them. Leave our rights alone.

Again, I am not a lawmaker. I'm not threatening your rights, I'm debating their existence.

Indeed, this point is almost always missed. The "but the Constitution!!!" argument is circular.

[Woodruff]

Roll your eyes all you want, but why were those people killed? For speaking their mind. You see...they could not be stopped from speaking their mind because they had the will to do so.

One might say that they no longer have the will to do so.
Honibaz

That falls under the "consequences" I mentioned earlier, and does not at all detract from the fact that they had the ability to speak their minds while alive.

Roll your eyes all you want, but why were those people killed? For speaking their mind. You see...they could not be stopped from speaking their mind because they had the will to do so.

Yes, that's absolutely what it's like when trying to have any sort of a logical discussion with you, Jay.

[jay_a2j]

Roll your eyes all you want, but why were those people killed? For speaking their mind. You see...they could not be stopped from speaking their mind because they had the will to do so.

Yes, that's absolutely what it's like when trying to have any sort of a logical discussion with you, Jay.

Logic would require the knowledge that if you have consequences for an action, that there is no freedom to do that action. But this concept obviously, for some unknown reason, escapes you.

[natty dread]

Logic would require the knowledge that if you have consequences for an action, that there is no freedom to do that action. But this concept obviously, for some unknown reason, escapes you.

That is utterly untrue.

You can do whatever you want. You don't need to do anything you do not want, and nobody can force you. However doing or not doing things often have consequences, but if you are prepared to face those consequences then there's nothing you can't do or not do.

The whole free will thing again I guess.

[Woodruff]

Roll your eyes all you want, but why were those people killed? For speaking their mind. You see...they could not be stopped from speaking their mind because they had the will to do so.

Yes, that's absolutely what it's like when trying to have any sort of a logical discussion with you, Jay.

Logic would require the knowledge that if you have consequences for an action, that there is no freedom to do that action. But this concept obviously, for some unknown reason, escapes you.

That actually doesn't even make basic sense. There are consequences for EVERY action, including taking NO ACTION.

That's what life IS, in fact...choices followed by consequences.

[john9blue]

Using Woody logic, I can go around killing people in America. He's just being a literalist.

[jay_a2j]

Logic would require the knowledge that if you have consequences for an action, that there is no freedom to do that action. But this concept obviously, for some unknown reason, escapes you.

That is utterly untrue.

You can do whatever you want. You don't need to do anything you do not want, and nobody can force you. However doing or not doing things often have consequences, but if you are prepared to face those consequences then there's nothing you can't do or not do.

The whole free will thing again I guess.

"Freedom" is an accepted behavior. Years ago there was no freedom in this country to have an abortion. BUT a woman could STILL go in a dark alley with a Dr. or a coat hanger. Now, women have the freedom to get abortions. Just a few years ago we were free to smoke in bars.... no longer. There are no "free" societies, just some that are freer than others. But to say that China is as free as the US is asinine.

[b.k. barunt]

"Freedom" is an accepted behavior. Years ago there was no freedom in this country to have an abortion. BUT a woman could STILL go in a dark alley with a Dr. or a coat hanger. Now, women have the freedom to get abortions. Just a few years ago we were free to smoke in bars.... no longer. There are no "free" societies, just some that are freer than others. But to say that China is as free as the US is asinine.

We can still smoke in bars here in Louisiana. We haven't joined the other pusssies. Yet.


Honibaz

[jay_a2j]

"Freedom" is an accepted behavior. Years ago there was no freedom in this country to have an abortion. BUT a woman could STILL go in a dark alley with a Dr. or a coat hanger. Now, women have the freedom to get abortions. Just a few years ago we were free to smoke in bars.... no longer. There are no "free" societies, just some that are freer than others. But to say that China is as free as the US is asinine.

We can still smoke in bars here in Louisiana. We haven't joined the other pusssies. Yet.


Honibaz

A city not too far from me has proposed a bill banning smoking outside restaurants. The proposed bill would also ban outdoor smoking near small parks, schools, bus stops and city buildings.

Ithica hates smokers

First they came for my cigarettes.....

[Phatscotty]

The author of the title seems to have completely dismissed the reality that all across America, at every single tea party in every state that allows handguns to be carried, Millions of gun-owners assembled peacefully for over a year now, without a single shot being fired. The author just is not with reality.

[jay_a2j]

The author of the title seems to have completely dismissed the reality that all across America, at every single tea party in every state that allows handguns to be carried, Millions of gun-owners assembled peacefully for over a year now, without a single shot being fired. The author just is not with reality.

But they're RACIST!

[jonesthecurl]

Using Woody logic, I can go around killing people in America. He's just being a literalist.

Nobody ever does that of course.

[Woodruff]

Using Woody logic, I can go around killing people in America. He's just being a literalist.

You do realize, of course, that you CAN "go around killing people in America". You simply have to accept the consequences of that action.

(Why is this such a difficult concept for you guys to understand?)

[john9blue]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that you and the others aren't on the same page. They would probably agree with you if they knew what you meant.

[Woodruff]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that you and the others aren't on the same page. They would probably agree with you if they knew what you meant.

I would certainly hope so...but I don't see how it could be much clearer.

[MarshalNey]

I think that using "freedom" and "rights" as interchangeable ideas is silly. Freedom of action and consequence are not the same at all as "rights". The former simply describes, as Woodruff says, the business of life. As such there is nothing particuarly informative about the topic, unless you don't believe in free will (which is another philosophical debate entirely).

Assuming that everyone agrees that free will exists, then one question that can be posed is, "What qualities of life is every single living person on Earth entitled to enjoy?"

This is the concept of natural rights, which was a conerstone of the Declaration of Independence (based off of earlier philosphers of course- Locke, et al.). Thus, the famous phrase "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which had in an earlier time been phrase "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property" (included this as a shout out to the Libertarians), and later was embodied in French ideals as "Life, liberty and fraternity."

So yes, the Constitution- to bring the argument back to the actual question- is simply a piece of paper with writing on it.

It cannot give rights.

It can't protect them.

It can only, as with any document, enumerate, illuminate and symbolize.

The Constitution is basically an argument- a proposal for a system based off of the philosophy of natural rights.

Natural rights are believed to be God-given, that is endowed by the Creator upon humanity as an elemental part of their being. They are, in other words, "inalienable". This point is crucial. As one individual put it,

"If rights are based on man-made documents they are not rights, they are privileges. What man makes, man can change... Only if rights come from God is it illegitimate for man to take another's rights."
-- Michael Farris, founder of Patrick Henry College

So, to defend my "stance", such as it is... I philosophically believe in the existence of natural rights. I further believe that the Declaration of Independence got it pretty spot-on, although there certainly is room for debate on both topics. The Constitution, being a blueprint for institutions, cannot represent or substitute for the values it lauds- the Constituion can merely seek to provide a comfortable environment for the flourishing of those values. I think it wasn't a bad attempt. And on the subject of militia, I think the Bill of Rights was speaking from the voice of experience and the lessons of history.

So there it is. Debate natural rights, debate the "lessons of history", but please everyone don't start conflating two separate ideas into some confused Franken-freedom argument.

[Woodruff]

I think that using "freedom" and "rights" as interchangeable ideas is silly. Freedom of action and consequence are not the same at all as "rights". The former simply describes, as Woodruff says, the business of life. As such there is nothing particuarly informative about the topic, unless you don't believe in free will (which is another philosophical debate entirely).
Assuming that everyone agrees that free will exists

That appears to be a huge assumption: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=115562

[MarshalNey]

Yes, I'm reading that now and it's silly (sorry to be disparaging... but... wow). All that talk and none of them actually get to the heart of the issue. Which is that there is no clear "reality" here. Scientific evidence does not exist as to the nature of existence.

That's the purview of philosophy- yet these clunkers yammer on as if there's some way to "reason it all out" rather than acknowledging that's it a matter of personal perspective. I'm not saying that all of the reasoning that they're doing is bad; I'm saying that it's all half-assed and that none of them has carried it through to the end (that goes for the free-will advocates as well).

Bottom line: If one doesn't believe in free will, one buys into Skinner's idea that we're all just chemical machines following a program, or the idea that we're all characters in a play written by Fate. Following the former idea we can be conditioned and shaped according to a recipe of environment and genetics, or the opposite is true and we are unshapeable and unchangeable and doomed to play our part- and either way the idea of "human spirit", "love" and "soul" end up as a bunch of bunk.

For me that, my friends, would mean that I was born into Hell. The point of existence is...? It's too dark, too nihilistic and too easy.

Living, loving and excersing one's will in the face of the large, outside forces that toss us about is very, very hard work. It also defines the sum of the moments that let me sleep at night.

So, for all of the "free-willy" and "robot-humanity" advocates out there, let me state that yes, I am a romantic. I believe in the existence of mystery, true love and the unknowable. I believe in limits to my mental powers and perception, and, at the same time, no limits to the possibilities of my life and my choices. I acknowledge that this perspective could be false, but I hold it because I choose to see life as a miracle. I do not choose this because I dispute the possible absolute validity of other perspectives, but rather because it is the only choice that makes life worth living.

[jay_a2j]

Using Woody logic, I can go around killing people in America. He's just being a literalist.

You do realize, of course, that you CAN "go around killing people in America". You simply have to accept the consequences of that action.

(Why is this such a difficult concept for you guys to understand?)

You can go out and kill as many people as you want but you don't have the FREEDOM to do it. You will be ARRESTED, TRIED, and CONVICTED.

You have the FREE WILL to do anything.

LAWS give you the FREEDOM to do things. (or not)


In the US and Iran you CAN kill your wife for infidelity.

In the US you will go to jail.

In Iran your life will carry on as usual.

[Frigidus]

LAWS give you the FREEDOM to do things. (or not)

Wait, I thought it was guns that gave you the freedom to do things. So is it the threat of violence that ensures rights? Or is it the written form of the government's will that ensures rights?

[jay_a2j]

LAWS give you the FREEDOM to do things. (or not)

Wait, I thought it was guns that gave you the freedom to do things. So is it the threat of violence that ensures rights? Or is it the written form of the government's will that ensures rights?

It's guns that ensure the people we will KEEP our rights.

[MarshalNey]

I think you're confusing "freedom" with "rights" (which are sometimes in political goobledygock referred to as "freedoms") and both of those with "legal rights".

Here's how I understand the terms:

Legal rights are the things that one can do without breaking the laws under which one labors. This is cultural and relativistic in nature and varies in the blink of an eye, historically speaking.

Rights, in the strong sense, are natural, inalienable, immortal and have nothing to do with laws.

Freedom, in nearly any sense of the English language, is the capability to act. While that does not precisely equate with "free will", it does exist irrespective of consequences or any other subsequent events. Freedom can be circumvented through various means- one's capabilities to act will necessarily become limited by imprisonment or bondage, for instance. Even "free will" can be impaired with drugs, etc. But neither of these two things has any direct correlation with the law at any given point in time.

Topical arguments seem to be a waste of time, as arguing definitions simply blurs understanding. So, if you simply care to define your terms explicitly, I'll be more than happy to abide by the usage you've laid out for the duration of the discussion.

[MarshalNey]

LAWS give you the FREEDOM to do things. (or not)

Wait, I thought it was guns that gave you the freedom to do things. So is it the threat of violence that ensures rights? Or is it the written form of the government's will that ensures rights?

The former, actually. And "ensures" is not quite the word I'd choose. "Defends" is more accurate, since violence would only be necessary when one's rights are violently threatened. And please note that I do not propose that the threat of violence is the only way to defend one's rights; it is simply the most expedient.

What I find more interesting is the implication that in "civilized" countries the threat of violence is absent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rule of law, and indeed the will of a government, are enforced in large part through the threat of violence. Imprisonment is violence (if you don't agree, try resisting arrest). Taxes, fines, etc. can be described as theft for those who would not pay if they did not feel forced to under the threat of violent reprecussions.

Violence (and the threat of violence) is a part of any culture that adheres to the idea of enforcing societal laws upon any given individual. So if one believes in the active rule of law (as opposed to some sort of honor-based system for instance), one acknowledges the need for violence (and/or the threat of violence).