100 years ago today

[PLC1]

If you feel I am infringing upon your "liberty", that is covered by tort law. Take me to court and let the justice system determine if I have wronged you by meeting the tests of "intent, act, result, and causation".

That way, I can have the liberty to use fireworks or carry a loaded gun in my car without the police arresting me.

Do I have to wait until you set my house on fire or shoot me before filing suit?

 

[Hobo1]

Do I have to wait until you set my house on fire or shoot me before filing suit?

Yes! That is how liberty and freedom works. It assumes I am an all around nice guy, with a brain and wouldn't have the slightest desire to set your house on fire!

Would you have a cop follow me around all day just to make sure I don't hurt you? That is NOT how a free society works. Did you miss that day in 5th grade?

 

[PLC1]

Yes! That is how liberty and freedom works. It assumes I am an all around nice guy, with a brain and wouldn't have the slightest desire to set your house on fire!

Would you have a cop follow me around all day just to make sure I don't hurt you? That is NOT how a free society works. Did you miss that day in 5th grade?

That's the issue: Not everyone is an all around nice guy. Some of us wish harm on our fellows, others are just nuts.

How about having a cop arrest any idiot who is setting fires, whether he actually burns down my house or not?

Or stopping the random shooter before I'm shot? After might be a little bit late, after all.

Can the police protect us from idiots without us losing our liberty?

 

[Hobo1]

All I can say is in my lifetime; and from stories I heard from my father, our liberties are quickly eroding. Congress is a body that makes laws, and rarely rescinds them. Thank God we have the Supreme court that generally sides with the maintenance of our liberties.

When the day comes when I can once again walk into an airport and directly board an airplane is the day I will be happy. Having to throw out your shampoo because you forgot to take it out of your carry on luggage is crazy. I will be a very happy man when the Patriot Act is thrown out.

And I hope you like the idea of being FORCED be buy health insurance or pay a penalty. I will fight forever to keep my liberties. And, you really should give up the idea the idea that some is going to burn down your house, or shoot you in the street. That didn't happen even in the most lawless Western towns.

 

[PLC1]

All I can say is in my lifetime; and from stories I heard from my father, our liberties are quickly eroding. Congress is a body that makes laws, and rarely rescinds them. Thank God we have the Supreme court that generally sides with the maintenance of our liberties.

When the day comes when I can once again walk into an airport and directly board an airplane is the day I will be happy. Having to throw out your shampoo because you forgot to take it out of your carry on luggage is crazy. I will be a very happy man when the Patriot Act is thrown out.

A lot of different issues there. Mostly, I agree with what you've said. the government is getting bigger and more powerful, and our freedoms are at risk.

Also, few people seem wiling to pay the price for liberty: eternal vigilance.

And I hope you like the idea of being FORCED be buy health insurance or pay a penalty. I will fight forever to keep my liberties.

Well, no, I don't like that idea. I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay for people who don't have insurance, either through taxes or higher premiums.

And, you really should give up the idea the idea that some is going to burn down your house, or shoot you in the street. That didn't happen even in the most lawless Western towns.

Now, you have to be kidding. People are gunned down on the street every day in this great nation of ours. Not only are people killed and injured through deliberate violence, but also by drunk drivers, and by idiots of all stripes doing what comes naturally to them: Idiocy.

No, as the Declaration says, the purpose of government is to protect our liberties.

Not to protect me from myself, as so many seem to suppose, but to protect my rights from the other guy.

 

[TruthSeeker]

A lot of different issues there. Mostly, I agree with what you've said. the government is getting bigger and more powerful, and our freedoms are at risk.

Also, few people seem wiling to pay the price for liberty: eternal vigilance.

Well, no, I don't like that idea. I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay for people who don't have insurance, either through taxes or higher premiums.

Now, you have to be kidding. People are gunned down on the street every day in this great nation of ours. Not only are people killed and injured through deliberate violence, but also by drunk drivers, and by idiots of all stripes doing what comes naturally to them: Idiocy.

No, as the Declaration says, the purpose of government is to protect our liberties.

Not to protect me from myself, as so many seem to suppose, but to protect my rights from the other guy.

Some people live in a fantasy world where everybody holds hands and sings Kumbaya. They are usually the ones who get gunned down in the streets, or get their homes burglarized and/or torched.

These same people are usually the ones who also believe that 9/11 was an "inside job", Cuba has a better health care system than the USA, Bush is a war criminal, and inanimate objects are capable of killing people.

 

[GenSeneca]

Unless they have some way to close off their ears, of course they're forced to hear a deafening sound.

Yet you claimed he wasn't forcing anyone... I showed that he was and you now agree.

All of the examples I've given involve a violation of rights.

You are the one claiming rights can be violated without the use of force. Offering examples of rights being violated with the use of force does not support your claim. I have asked repeatedly for an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force (or fraud). Do you have one?

 

[GenSeneca]

People are gunned down on the street every day in this great nation of ours. Not only are people killed and injured through deliberate violence, but also by drunk drivers, and by idiots of all stripes doing what comes naturally to them: Idiocy.

No, as the Declaration says, the purpose of government is to protect our liberties.

And where in the declaration, or the Constitution, does it say we should restrict the liberty of all based on the actions of a few?

 

[TruthSeeker]

And where in the declaration, or the Constitution, does it say we should restrict the liberty of all based on the actions of a few?

Precisely, GenSen! THAT is the age-old question, and THAT simple question is one that will forever be left unanswered, because politicians use the actions of a few people to instill restrictions and requirements on everybody else.

The actions of a few are the basis for gun control advocates, motorcycle helmet advocates, seatbelt advocates, and all other advocates of "people control".

 

[Hobo1]

Well, no, I don't like that idea. I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay for people who don't have insurance, either through taxes or higher premiums.

What did people do for thousands of years and do they still do in many countries around the world where going go a doctor is not some sort of "human right". I'll tell you if you don't know. If someone is sick and poor, the family tried to help if possible. A whole group of people worked as "healers", using techniques handed down from generation to generation, to help heal the sick. Eventually, everyone will die. The question is not, "should society keep people alive", the question is "how long should society keep them alive".

 

[PLC1]

Yet you claimed he wasn't forcing anyone... I showed that he was and you now agree.


You are the one claiming rights can be violated without the use of force. Offering examples of rights being violated with the use of force does not support your claim. I have asked repeatedly for an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force (or fraud). Do you have one?

It all depends on what you mean by "use of force."

Is someone who is driving under the influence on a public road using force?

Is someone setting hazardous fires using force?

How about the nutters using freeways as their private racetrack, use of force, or not?

 

[GenSeneca]

It all depends on what you mean by "use of force."

Since we are talking about the relationship between the violation of rights and force, the physics definition of force seems the most applicable:

Force (Physics): A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.​

 

[PLC1]

Since we are talking about the relationship between the violation of rights and force, the physics definition of force seems the most applicable:

Force (Physics): A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.​

That is a totally different meaning of the word "force" than you have been using. To clarify:

Is someone who is driving under the influence on a public road using force?

Is someone setting hazardous fires using force?

How about the nutters using freeways as their private racetrack, use of force, or not?

 

[GenSeneca]

That is a totally different meaning of the word "force" than you have been using.

I think it is you who has been using a totally different meaning of the word... In fact, I'm inclined to believe you were equating "force" with physical contact. This is why you thought the main street sharpshooter, so long as he didn't actually strike anyone, wasn't actually using force.

Tell me, at what point in the following example is force being initiated?

Example: You and I are in a canyon. You are standing at the top of a cliff while I'm standing at the bottom. There is a boulder at the edge of the cliff. You begin to push the boulder until it rolls off the cliff, at which point it falls, crushes, and kills me.

To me the answer is clear... The moment you began pushing on the boulder, you initiated the use of Force: A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.

Thus, by applying force to the boulder, you initiated the use of force against me and violated my rights.

I'd like to now go back to an earlier comment of yours:

I've already said, the right to life, liberty, and property. Reckless actions put all three in jeopardy...
...
They don't have to use "force" in order to jeopardize my liberty and yours.

Have you been using the word "force" as a synonym for physical contact?

Is someone who is driving under the influence on a public road using force?

Is someone setting hazardous fires using force?

How about the nutters using freeways as their private racetrack, use of force, or not?

Yes, yes, and yes. It is impossible to undertake any physical action without using force. However, using force against someone else is not the same thing as using force in the presence of others. Force is required for every physical action and only through the use of force can rights be violated. Only actions that actually violate, not just "jeopardize", the rights of others should be punished as crimes.

 

[PLC1]

I think it is you who has been using a totally different meaning of the word... In fact, I'm inclined to believe you were equating "force" with physical contact. This is why you thought the main street sharpshooter, so long as he didn't actually strike anyone, wasn't actually using force.

Tell me, at what point in the following example is force being initiated?

Example: You and I are in a canyon. You are standing at the top of a cliff while I'm standing at the bottom. There is a boulder at the edge of the cliff. You begin to push the boulder until it rolls off the cliff, at which point it falls, crushes, and kills me.

To me the answer is clear... The moment you began pushing on the boulder, you initiated the use of Force: A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.

Thus, by applying force to the boulder, you initiated the use of force against me and violated my rights.

I'd like to now go back to an earlier comment of yours:

Have you been using the word "force" as a synonym for physical contact?



Yes, yes, and yes. It is impossible to undertake any physical action without using force. However, using force against someone else is not the same thing as using force in the presence of others. Force is required for every physical action and only through the use of force can rights be violated. Only actions that actually violate, not just "jeopardize", the rights of others should be punished as crimes.

So, does that mean you agree that the examples I gave are violations of our rights, or not?