 |
Hello,
That's it. I want to know how YOU describe liberty. Who should be free? Who shouldn't be? That kind of stuff. Maybe we don't disagree. That would be cool. But, I think, perchance, we do.
I'll start. Sex offenders should be FREE from registration. Non violent drug offenders should FREED from prison. Once off supervision, ALL felons should be allowed to vote. Women's reproductive organs should be FREE from attack. The undocumented should be FREE to live here.
I have more.
excon
I'd put the 'women should be free from attack' in another discussion. That's more of a 'pursuit of happiness.' Won't women be less free from attack if sex offenders aren't registered, and so on. Overlapping freedoms! I would keep this thread to freedom from specific rules.
I agree - let the non-violent drug offenders go.
I partially agree about the sex offenders, even though states are getting better at having more categories, there are still too many men in prison for statutory rape, and countless free but labeled for life.
The undocumented should be free to stay, under certain complicated conditions!
Liberty is a dynamic, ever changing, as we get more population and more socialized. And more socialized we get, because people want EVERYTHING handed to them, even the people who think that it's only the ones on welfare and food stamps. They want their street plowed and sanded every 2 minutes or they will sue the city for running their Mercedes into a pole on an icy street. They want FEMA to pay them to rebuild on the ocean. They want their children to be raised and taught everything from the 3 Rs to ethics, financial responsibility, health care, and sex ed in school rather than all but the first at home.
Etc
Etc
Etc
I don't agree that the undocumented should be sent back. They are here and may have been here for years, established businesses, paid taxes, raised families, have been Americans except for that piece of paper. The INS needs serious overhauling.
I'm all for levels for sex offenders, with some offenses not considered to be in that class.
Maybe we need to train and license couples (married couples?) before they can become parents.
American education has to change, from pre-K up.
Hello joy:
I should have explained better.. I meant their reproductive organs should be free from attack.. >OP edited -WG<Quote:
I'd put the 'women should be free from attack'
In terms of the sex offender registry, in the first place it doesn't work. Every state grades sex offenders differently, and NOBODY administers them properly.. Therefore, a citizen who WANTS to protect themselves from predators, really has no where to reliably check. Besides, it's additional punishment for the offender.. IF an offender is so bad that the public needs to be WARNED about him, he should NEVER be on the streets in the first place.. I'm for letting a guy go FREE after you FREE him.
Excon
Hello again,
While we wait for our resident right wingers, here's what liberty is NOT:
In Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state’s citizens to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God--or risk 12 months in prison.
excon
I'll tell you what liberty is not .If you expect that the government will prevent you from making mistakes, rescue you if you make mistakes and provide for you if you fail, then you do not have liberty or freedom. You are no more free than a slave in chains. A free and liberated person would not expect others to pay for a safety net.
But if they have bailed me out in the past or helped me in some way, I'm willing to provide the safety net when they fall. They helped me pay for college by giving me a loan that I paid back so someone else could be helped through college.
Hello again, tom:
I don't disagree. I'm not in favor of bankruptcy. I DO make exceptions, though, for those who's situation ISN'T their fault. I'm GLAD to provide a safety net for them.Quote:
if you make mistakes and provide for you if you fail, then you do not have liberty or freedom.
For your information, I don't think getting sick is "making a mistake".
Excon
Whether you think government should or should not provide such services ,you should at least admit that the people who live under such a system do not have complete liberty . It could easily be part of what is called the social contract . But it is NOT liberty .
The founders provided a system where the government was granted limited powers . Granting the government more power to provide for things like safety nets ,and security and 'fairness ' comes at the price of liberty as Franklin famously opined .
Of course it's liberty. I offer my money and goods freely to help others, and they do the same for me. That's biblical (note Jesus' Second Greatest Commandment), and it's part of the social contract because we live amongst each other and want to succeed together, to build each other up for the good of all.
Umm no you are not offering freely if you are compelled to do so by the gvt.
Sorry, no. I offer freely. That's why I am not part of the 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And what of the rest who are compelled ? Do they have liberty ?
Their liberty is to stay in this country and be part of the tribe or to leave and go to a country that thinks like they do.
I don't mind that this question will be asked forever, and I hope it will, because if it stops, I would have to assume that we are all either zombie stepford men and women or are under some totalitarian regime so powerful that we don't argue back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Actually, social contract is very much bound up with the idea of liberty.
One can only exercise individual liberty in a society that has laws to grant rights.
Tut
Actually, social contract is very much bound up with the idea of liberty.Quote:
Their liberty is to stay in this country and be part of the tribe or to leave and go to a country that thinks like they do.
One can only exercise individual liberty in a society that has laws to grant rights.
Agreed... the social contract is a surrender of liberty . That is a given. To me where we have strayed is not in the social contract ,but in our abandonment of the Constititutional restraints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, this is inaccurate. The Founders were very much aware of the important relationship that existed between social contract and liberty.
Tut
I can't agree with this. The reason is that liberty stands alone. Once you get into the creation of classes with and without rights then you have division. Liberty is not about division. A society can create laws on the consequece of actions without stepping on the rights of anyone. Liberty is at the heart of freedom. It allows a person to choose what they will and do as they please. It doesn't come without responsibility. But to enjoy liberty it has always had a price to pay. Right now in America too many have decided that the price is too high. It is the root of what is screwing up this country. That is why we stand so divided.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
So your against liberty because it represents change to you? You would rather evict legal citizens then chase illegals from your boarders as all comers are welcome here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 AM. |