Man arrested for wearing "Peace" shirt at mall

[David Floyd]

We the free people.

As opposed to me, the unfree person.

Our common property is used to do what we the free people believe it is best used for.

Which basically means that >50% of people who hold power or force get to decide what to do and how to run things. Sounds a lot like slavery and absolutism, not freedom.

When our property that is part of our freedom is stolen by disgusting libertarian slaves like yourself

Let's see, the person who supports taking my money and letting the majority of power holders do as they please is calling me a thief? Interesting.

Otherwise we're no freer than you are

Well, you got that part right - under Libertarian ideals, we are all equally free.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by David Floyd
As opposed to me, the unfree person.

There's no such thing as individual freedom. Don't mix up freedom with liberty.

Let's see, the person who supports taking my money and letting the majority of power holders do as they please is calling me a thief? Interesting.

A pure majoritarian system will not provide fredom for most groups, and I far from suppotrt one- I think strong groups have way too much relative power in today's society. Don't put words into my mouth, honey.

Anyway, you have the choice of supporting freedom or being a moneyed slave. I know which one I'd rather be.

Well, you got that part right - under Libertarian ideals, we are all equally free.

Yup- entirely unfree. Whatever dictator so choses can run ramshackle over your freedom, and you can never rule over yourself. Pitiful.

[David Floyd]

There's no such thing as individual freedom. Don't mix up freedom with liberty.

The dictionary might disagree.

freedom:
1)The condition of being free of restraints.
2)Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3)Political independence. b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4)The capacity to exercise choice; free will:
5)A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference

Synonyms:
liberty, license

liberty:
1)The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
2)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control
3)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference

Hmmm.

So apparently, an individual CAN be free, AND be in a state of liberty.

Don't put words into my mouth, honey.

My apologies.

Anyway, you have the choice of supporting freedom or being a moneyed slave. I know which one I'd rather be.

I would certainly agree with the position that I am currently unfree in many ways. However, the Libertarianism is synonymous with freedom and liberty, which are the ultimate goals of Libertarian ideals

[cinch]

Obi:

"quote:
Can some one tell me why large tracts of the country are overrun with religious lunatics who want to legislate interference into others' private lives? (-Agathon)


How different from Canada, Agathon?"

Do we really have much of a problem with that here? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious. I'd like to learn about it.

I mean, aside from maybe "God keep our land" (which would be much better as "Let's keep our land", I think), I can't think of much I've seen publicised about the Canadian government pushing religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Boris, the Cali law:

It is the intent of the board of supervisors to prohibit nudity in public places, places open to the public, and places open to public view whether such places are publicly or privately owned

Malls are open to the public, btw, so I assume that it could be subject to legislation. Is there a law saying that people have freedom of speech in private areas open to the public? (the 1st Amendment would not apply, because that prevents the federal government and the states, because of the 14th Amendment, from passing laws restricting free speech.... though states are free to say private areas open to the public cannot restrict free speech).

[SirTweek]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Well, you got that part right - under Libertarian ideals, we are all equally free.

I'll let you know how free I feel when the nutbar libertarians seize power and I'm paying a toll every 10' of private sidewalk I need to walk on.

Of course the nutbar libertarians will never seize power so I'm not to worried.

[Buck Birdseed]

So basically, David, you conveniently chose to ignore definition 3, I conveniently chose to ignore definition 1, except in the "free from disease" sense, as well as definition 5, we both interpret definitions 2 and 3b differently and definition 4 is metaphyiscal rather than political.

You have to accept that many people have different traditions of defining freedom, and what may seem illogical and inconsistent under one makes perfect sense under another. I see freedom as something groups, or the citizenship as a whole, have in relation to the state, in the sense of "a free people", and I only see individuals as having freedom by being active citizens in such a system. You've got a much more basic, negative definition of freedom. There's also communitarian believers in freedom who see it as the freedom to achieve certain goals. And, probably, others who see it as something entirely different, and yet others who don't desire it at all. My real point is that you can't make statements like "irrational" and "hypocritical" about someone's beliefs before understanding their system of discourse.

[SirTweek]

Originally posted by cinch

Do we really have much of a problem with that here? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious. I'd like to learn about it.

I mean, aside from maybe "God keep our land" (which would be much better as "Let's keep our land", I think), I can't think of much I've seen publicised about the Canadian government pushing religion.

God keep our land was included in the anthem to appease french catholics. As are the creation of psuedo-public Catholic schools. The history of Canada, appeasing catholics.

[cinch]

Oh yes, the Catholic schools... Doh. How could I forget?

And there's no way to stop it, right? What with the amendments being near-impossible and all? That's good to know.

[David Floyd]

So basically, David, you conveniently chose to ignore definition 3,

Actually I think we interpret it differently.

I see freedom as something groups, or the citizenship as a whole, have in relation to the state, in the sense of "a free people", and I only see individuals as having freedom by being active citizens in such a system.

I don't agree with the concept of "group rights" or things of that nature - rights are something that by their nature belong to individuals. A bunch of people in a group each possess the same individual rights, but the fact that they are in a group has no bearing upon the presence of those rights. The group might or might not provide an effective method of defense, of course, but that is separate from the basic presence of individual rights.

I only see individuals as having freedom by being active citizens in such a system.

So you basically believe that the system grants the rights? Which is another way of saying "relativism", right? (I'm not being a smartass here, I'm actually asking).

You've got a much more basic, negative definition of freedom.

How is saying that each individual possesses the right to life, liberty, and property negative?

And, probably, others who see it as something entirely different,

My mom, for example, used to believe that freedom was the power to do what one ought, and no amount of philosophical arguing could change her mind. So I pulled out Webster's dictionary, and she changed her mind then

My real point is that you can't make statements like "irrational" and "hypocritical" about someone's beliefs before understanding their system of discourse.

I understand what you are saying, but my position is that one's "system of discourse" to use your term, has no bearing upon the presence or absence of certain individual rights. Further, systems that don't rely on absolute truth are problematic because of reasons I've touched on here and pointed out in the "Gods and Generals" thread - without absolute truth, there is no way to say that the Holocaust is wrong.

[axi]

AFAIK there are no laws preventing you from determining what people are allowed to wear on your own property.

But then there are no laws ALLOWING you to supress individual rights in your property. So what comes firsts, individual rights or private property?

I was 100% certain, just as I read the title of the thread that, instead of a public denunciation, based on common sense, of what is essentially phenomena of the fascizing process that your society is undergoing, I would be reading the same old yankee-libertarian crap arguments about private property e.t.c. American conservatives are so predictable after all.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18


How different from Canada, Agathon?

I don't see them banning the teaching of evolution in schools here.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by SirTweek


God keep our land was included in the anthem to appease french catholics. As are the creation of psuedo-public Catholic schools. The history of Canada, appeasing catholics.

Bullsh!t!

The Protestants wanted the word "god" in the anthem just as much as the Catholics. Recent attempts to remove the word have resulted in a storm of complaints from religious leaders from all groups.

The history of Canada is not about appeasing the Catholics anymore than the Protestants.

Take you anti-Catholic crap someplace else.

[Felch]

Originally posted by SirTweek
The history of Canada, appeasing catholics.

After conquering them and stealing their land, and expelling the Cajuns who refused to convert to the religion of the British Crown.

[Urban Ranger]

It might be a private property, but it is a public space.