When America was free . . .

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by Fizzly, Aug 26, 2015.

  1. #41 VikingToker, Aug 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2015
    No, I act as if your ideal world is one that is not reachable, just as the communist utopia is unreachable, just as the nazi thousand year reich is unreachable, so too is the state of total and true freedom.


    There will always be wicked and intelligent and ambitious and cunning people looking to exploit the system, and unless you place bars on them from doing so, they will dominate you.


    We're talking in circles, and you're throwing word salads at me. The reality of your nation is that excess freedom (the freedom of the powerful to influence politics monetarily) has directly resulted in a reduction of everyone's freedom. You say that people could unmake those billionares and undo the whole process, and I say sure that's humanly possible - but doesn't seem to be the working case. And that a smarter, more world-observant approach is to limit the amount of money you can give to politics.


    (Edit: Hence the crux of my argument: Limiting freedom, while against your political ideology, is the clearly observed wiser choice for collective freedom)
     
  2. you are right we are talking in circles. And mainly because you keep putting words in my mouth.

    I don't know what to say for now.so peace

    -Yuri
     
  3. This is beyond terrifying. As someone who falls probably in the agnostic/atheist sphere this appalls me. How can people really think that this is a good government policy? It literally goes against the grain of the establishment clause by saying atheism is not a respected religion in my opinion. It blows my mind how people are dumb enough to believe that in order to be a good leader you need to believe in something that has zero evidence or proof. Faith is the dumbest human concept ever invented. You shouldn't have faith in something so strongly where you control others lives when you have absolutely no proof to support your own positions.

    Just read an article that says the policies haven't really been enforced any time recently, and the Supreme Court ruled the practice illegal. I guess it's just some constitutional language that they were too lazy to ever remove or didn't feel it necessary. Either way it's pretty funny that several state constitutions still have language that bans atheism in public office in their constitutions even if it's not enforced. I would bet a large percent if not all the states who have these atheist clauses were also some of the holdout states strongly opposed to gay marriage and integration policies.
     
  4. Well I would have to strongly disagree there. You say its dependency to have some kind of universal healthcare or education system, or some form of slavery. Well let's look at the alternatives a purely capitalist market. I would say that someone having to work their entire life or go into life crushing debt simply because they got sick with a disease often out of pure chance is much closer to indentured servitude or slavery than a government providing important civil services that are ripe for abuse in a private market. I guess I'm just a statist kool aid drinker though. I don't disagree with your stance about many nonviolent offenses because I think we have too many laws pertaining to that and we should cut back. Laws should be aimed to stop people from hurting one another not themselves, as I've said before.

    That being said I think it is a fallacy to imply that someone in a capitalist society is truly free and that a social democracy is inherently anti freedom. As for your point about 10 mile per hour speed limits its about practicality. That would make car travel inefficient, plus it wouldn't do much to stop speeding most likely which is why it's not an effective or reasonable policy. I understand your point about the farm, and I think there is some validity which is why nonviolent offenses are often bullshit, but the problem is you're using an extreme analogy that is just not appropriate. If the government provides healthcare it's not going to suddenly stop all business and control every aspect of American lives. It's not like people who live in Netherlands or Norway are mindless zombies without any freedom because there government provides them decent higher education/healthcare. In fact one could argue that there are many countries which are more free than America (less of a police state, less corruption in politics, better criminal justice systems) yet operate politically to the left of America which is inconsistent with the notion that left wing policies inherently curb freedom. I would say drug laws are much more harmful to freedom than providing a sick person with adequate treatment. Risk behaviors that are enjoyable like skydiving, drugs, and other shit should be allowed as long as it doesn't have major potential to cause harm to others. If it will only cause harm to yourself then there shouldn't be a law about it, pretty much period.
     
  5. Sunday. Monday.
    Happy days.
    Tuesday. Wednesday.
    Happy days.
    Thursday. Friday.
    Happy days.
    Saturday.
    What a day.
    Groovin all week with youuuuuuuuuu
    No fizzly, I'll take modern America over old America any day. And I'm sure many minorities outside my race will also agree.

    Except for the ones willing to conform to escape the possible risk of -gasp- being treated like every other minority.
     
  6. Hear, hear.


    I mean, just the freedom that comes with educating yourself no matter how rich your parents are is way more important than whether or not you can wear seatbealts or buy a Double Fatboy or whatever the soda thing is called in NYC. Ridiculous, I think, entirely lacking in perspective, entirely lacking in a sense of priorities.


    I say the American Dream lives here. Become whatever you want to become by way of civic opportunity, live safely and happily, vote in a functioning representative democracy and prosper materially.
     

Share This Page