Free Country, Really?

[TheHammer]

Well, you are a Libertarian. And Libertarians don't know much about politics, but they know a lot about freedom...Because they are generally Nihilists. No offense.

One argument is, "Should you be forced by law to wear a seat belt" and Libertarians say no, because it infringes their Liberty. Then they *could* get into an accident, be in a hospital for years driving up millions of dollars in hospital costs and their families could be suffering for those years. One has to think, why didn't you just put your seat belt on instead of driving up the cost of health insurance and make your family worry so much about your well being?

Liberty is a compound word. Freedom isn't free. Nihilism is not a compound word. Nihilists hate seat belts.

Driving and riding in a vehicle on public roads and highways is not a right, it's a privilege. One can avoid seat belts by staying out of vehicles in such actions. The State has the power to regulate public safety.

 

[TheHammer]

If a 12 year old walks through the mall with an AR-15 equipped with a 100 round mag....who has the Liberty? The gun holder or the people trying to shop?

That would depend on who allowed the 12 year old into the mall with the AR-15, and what the 12 year old does with the AR-15. Malls are private property and can rightly be regulated by the owners and inanimate weapons in and of themselves can't commit crimes or prohibit anybody's liberty.

 

[TheHammer]

Every Heroin user in America agree's with your post. 'Merica

They agree with my right to ask questions?

 

[TheHammer]

I understand the desire to "be free"...to be able to do whatever one wants whenever one wants to (unless it hurts others)...

...but civilization and society need the social contract that is part of living life in a "free society"...or everyone will be "free" to decide what can and cannot be done while living in the society...which would be to the detriment of society.

Actually the question includes the “social contract.” You mentioned it yourself, i.e. (“unless it hurts others.”) The rule of law in the United States is the Constitution.

I think even the most LIBERTARIAN among us agrees to the need for traffic lights and traffic regulations. But the moment we get past the most essential, it becomes a desire for "chaos and anarchy if necessary in order to grant self-autonomy."

The State has the power and authority to regulate “public” property. Roads and highways are public property, one’s individual body is “private” property.

While I understand the Libertarian stand...I disagree in spades. And the pragmatic side of me tells me that individual freedom and individual privacy are essentially things of the past.

And that’s OK by you?

The problem for society right now, in my opinion, is not how to "get back" supposed freedoms and privacy no longer available...but rather how to show that "loss" of these things is not the horrible intrusion some people make of it.

I recognize that many intelligent, well-intentioned people disagree major league with me on that.

There’s a “horrible intrusion” we call the Drug War. It’s easily shown that it violates the 4th amendment and the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to conduct such a war on some drugs.

The Drug War creates huge tax-free profits for criminals and terrorist.

The Drug War causes corruption in law enforcement and politicians.

The Drug War causes violence along our borders and in our streets.

The Drug War clogs up our judicial and penal system.

The Drug War cost the American taxpayers billions annually for an unconstitutional totally failed operation that assumes government control over what American citizens can decide for themselves what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

 

[Frank Apisa]

And that’s OK by you?

This response was to my saying, "...the pragmatic side of me tells me that individual freedom and individual privacy are essentially things of the past."

Yeah, Hammer...by and large, it is OK with me. As humans decided to meld into "society"...more and more limits on individual freedom and privacy had to be put into place. Now...civilization has gotten to the point where what YOU and your fellow Libertarians seem to consider "individual freedom and privacy" are as dead as the dinosaur. And it is OK with me, because I consider the needs of society to be more important than the needs and desires of the individual.

There’s a “horrible intrusion” we call the Drug War. It’s easily shown that it violates the 4th amendment and the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to conduct such a war on some drugs.

The Drug War creates huge tax-free profits for criminals and terrorist.

The Drug War causes corruption in law enforcement and politicians.

The Drug War causes violence along our borders and in our streets.

The Drug War clogs up our judicial and penal system.

The Drug War cost the American taxpayers billions annually for an unconstitutional totally failed operation that assumes government control over what American citizens can decide for themselves what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

I spoke out publicly on the so-called drug war using my real name and address LONG BEFORE it became popular (and relatively safe) to do it. I had an op ed sized piece in the New York times...and an op ed piece in the largest New Jersey paper (where I stated publicly that I used)...LONG BEFORE it is was popular and relatively safe to do it. (In fact, it was dangerous to do it.)

It sucks...and I still oppose it, although because of a prescription drug I use, I no longer indulge.


But that has little to do with the thrust of the demand for "freedoms" I see coming from the Libertarians.

So what is your point?

 

[Henrin]

That's exactly what I'm pointing out, you want to have all the trimmings of a civilized society without a morsel of responsibility or accountability to it.

Why do I have to accept anything? What I always find interesting is that just by existing people think I have some kind of obligation to do what they want of me. Why is that the case? What exactly makes it so there will is somehow my obligation to give a **** about? How is it possible that just living in a certain land makes it so I have to give two ****s what some old men in an organization I never said I wanted to be member of think about anything? Why is it that I have to care what these people think? I never told them that I wanted them to lead me, and I sure as hell never said I gave two ****s what they think, so what the **** gives?

Anyway, if I'm looking for work, buying a house, or opening a bank account those are not activities that involve the government. I'm not out violating peoples rights by voluntarily doing business with them and they sure as hell are not violating mine by hiring me for work, selling me a house, or allowing me to open a bank account at their establishment. These are private transactions that harm no one and will only better the economy of the country.

Fact is you can't very well uphold the rights of man when you start from the premise that somehow people are bound to an organization that doesn't need their consent to rule them.

 

[sangha]

Are American citizens really ”FREE?”


Should American citizens be free to do whatever they want as long as they don’t violate anybody else’s rights to life, liberty, or property?


Do American citizens own their own bodies? Should they be free to own their own bodies?


Does government own your body? Should government own your body?

No, no, no, no, no and no

 

[TheHammer]

So what is your point?

If you don't know the point there's no need to discuss the rest of your thoughts and opinions. You're irrelevant to the principles of rights and freedom, you'd rather not be bothered with such tripe.

 

[Somerville]

Why do I have to accept anything? What I always find interesting is that just by existing people think I have some kind of obligation to do what they want of me. Why is that the case? What exactly makes it so there will is somehow my obligation to give a **** about? How is it possible that just living in a certain land makes it so I have to give two ****s what some old men in an organization I never said I wanted to be member of think about anything? Why is it that I have to care what these people think? I never told them that I wanted them to lead me, and I sure as hell never said I gave two ****s what they think, so what the **** gives?

Anyway, if I'm looking for work, buying a house, or opening a bank account those are not activities that involve the government. I'm not out violating peoples rights by voluntarily doing business with them and they sure as hell are not violating mine by hiring me for work, selling me a house, or allowing me to open a bank account at their establishment. These are private transactions that harm no one and will only better the economy of the country.

Fact is you can't very well uphold the rights of man when you start from the premise that somehow people are bound to an organization that doesn't need their consent to rule them.

So with no banking regulations, do you think it would be possible for a South American drug lord to open a bank account or two or three in a USA bank? How about ISIS (Daesh)?

Selling you a house that wasn't "built to code" because the government shouldn't interfere and you think you know enough about construction to determine the safety of the structure.

Every Libertarian I have ever read basically believes in punishment after the fact, no matter the cost, when any rational person knows that rules, regulations and laws are meant to prevent companies from selling toxic substances, selling unsafe vehicles, emitting pollution which affects people distant from the source of the pollution, etc etc, All of which in the long run end up saving money.

 

[sangha]

All of which in the long run end up saving money.

That's because political theory isn't the only thing that's wacked about libertarians

They're not too good with economics either

 

[Frank Apisa]

If you don't know the point there's no need to discuss the rest of your thoughts and opinions. You're irrelevant to the principles of rights and freedom, you'd rather not be bothered with such tripe.

As I said...I had the guts to fight for the things you are pretending to be fighting for...and I fought for them at time when I put my freedom on the line using my real name.

I didn't have the mask you have on to disguise who I was.

The "principles and rights of freedom" you pretend to be championing...

...I actually championed.

You ought to think about that before being so dismissive of me from behind that mask.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The second question answers your "depends" question. So you believe that the American government is leaving its citizens free within the confines of the Constitution, correct?

The Constitution does two things:

1. It grants certain powers to the Federal government, and

2. Restricts the powers of the Federal government.

Those restrictions are listed in the Bill of Rights, advocated by anti-Federalist activists during the ratification period because they were well-aware of the penchant of all government forms to try to expand powers at the expense of citizen liberties.

Government constantly tests it's limits and under the doctrine of Judicial Review, the Federal Courts (and State Courts for State laws in regards to State Constitutions) determine limits and violations.

Under the Incorporation Doctrine, Federal Courts can also determine limits and violations in State venues.

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't think the US is that tyrannical (yet) to venture into physical tyranny. Think of economic tyranny.

I would like to remind you that beginning a few years ago with several NDAA amendments, Habeas Corpus was nullified. Indefinite Detention is now an option of the Crown, I mean the Executive Branch.

 

[TheHammer]

As I said...I had the guts to fight for the things you are pretending to be fighting for...and I fought for them at time when I put my freedom on the line using my real name.

I didn't have the mask you have on to disguise who I was.


The "principles and rights of freedom" you pretend to be championing...

...I actually championed.

You ought to think about that before being so dismissive of me from behind that mask.

Unless you’re over 80 years old, I was on the front line fighting for rights and freedoms, before you ever thought about them. I petitioned for ballot access for some libertarian candidates. I wrote letters to editors of news papers. I wrote letters to, made phone calls to and championed the principles and rights guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights with politicians face to face. I used my real name and I never “pretended” anything about it, I was as serious as a heart attack!

You should have checked about that before you posted these unfounded, arrogant and holier-than-thou accusations!

 

[Frank Apisa]

Unless you’re over 80 years old, I was on the front line fighting for rights and freedoms, before you ever thought about them. I petitioned for ballot access for some libertarian candidates. I wrote letters to editors of news papers. I wrote letters to, made phone calls to and championed the principles and rights guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights with politicians face to face. I used my real name and I never “pretended” anything about it, I was as serious as a heart attack!

You should have checked about that before you posted these unfounded, arrogant and holier-than-thou accusations!

I'm 79...and I have had op ed pieces published in newspapers all over this country...and in England. I have put myself out there as me...just as I am doing right here and now.

I never said anything about what you have done in the past...so that indignation at what you suppose I said is baloney.

You are here as "TheHammer"...not as your real name being serious as a heart attack...and you ARE wearing a mask RIGHT NOW.

YOU, not I...raised the drug war thing. I am merely responding to what you raised.

As I said...using my real name...I fought that drug war nonsense back when it was not a safe thing to do.

March 4th, 1989 New York Times has an op ed sized article by me taking on A. M. Rosenthal, an influential Times columnist, about drugs...in which I said, among other things;

"I fine fault with the tendency of Mr. Rosenthal and others like him to hold all who use recreational drugs in contempt...There are many fine, intelligent, concerned, contributing members of society who occasionally smoke a joint or snort a line of coke...more than likely, many among the intellectuals Mr. Rosenthal..."

I took a lot of heat for that...got lots of hate mail.

June 20, 1997...The Star-Ledger (New Jersey's largest newpaper) an op ed piece where I specifically acknowledged smoking pot.

Took lots of heat for that.

Many more...some of which made headlines in local papers...that I took lots of heat for also.

None of this is offered as a "holier than thou" kind of thing, TheHammer...but rather as a reply to your dismissive, "If you don't know the point there's no need to discuss the rest of your thoughts and opinions. You're irrelevant to the principles of rights and freedom, you'd rather not be bothered with such tripe."

You say you have fought the fight. Great. I applaud you for doing so.

But I have also. BIG TIME. and I'll not have someone like you being dismissive of me on that account.

 

[TheHammer]

I'm 79...and I have had op ed pieces published in newspapers all over this country...and in England. I have put myself out there as me...just as I am doing right here and now.

I’ve also been in the public media “as me” promoting the Bill Of Rights and a Constitutional Convention. You hold no special position and apparently you’ve decided to give up the ship with statements questioning “the point” of such promotions by others as though unless it comes from you it’s “pointless.” Your arrogance is your major revelation.

I never said anything about what you have done in the past...so that indignation at what you suppose I said is baloney.

The “baloney” is revealed by the fact that you’ve touted your alleged heroism as an in-your-face, “as you” freedom fighter while submitting I hide behind a screen name. Now you deny ever having said anything derogatory about me. Your snobbery is only exceeded by your clueless arrogance.

You are here as "TheHammer"...not as your real name being serious as a heart attack...and you ARE wearing a mask RIGHT NOW.

Then you’ll produce a copy of your birth certificate proving you’re Frank Apisa and not hiding behind an alias, right? You’re not exactly a household name.

YOU, not I...raised the drug war thing. I am merely responding to what you raised.

You responded to ask “what’s the point” and I responded to that cluelessness by simply pointing out that if you don’t understand “the point,” further conversation would be unnatural and unnecessary.

As I said...using my real name...I fought that drug war nonsense back when it was not a safe thing to do.

Bully for you, who threatened your life?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I’ve also been in the public media “as me” promoting the Bill Of Rights and a Constitutional Convention. You hold no special position and apparently you’ve decided to give up the ship with statements questioning “the point” of such promotions by others as though unless it comes from you it’s “pointless.” Your arrogance is your major revelation.

I have no idea of why you dreamed up that, "You hold no special position and apparently you’ve decided to give up the ship with statements questioning “the point” of such promotions by others as though unless it comes from you it’s “pointless.” "

Did you have help with that...or is it your own invention?

The “baloney” is revealed by the fact that you’ve touted your alleged heroism as an in-your-face, “as you” freedom fighter while submitting I hide behind a screen name. Now you deny ever having said anything derogatory about me. Your snobbery is only exceeded by your clueless arrogance.

Yeah, it is a free country...and apparently some people do want to discuss that...but instead want to call others names.

Too bad that...although entertaining.

Then you’ll produce a copy of your birth certificate proving you’re Frank Apisa and not hiding behind an alias, right? You’re not exactly a household name.

Sure. Come on over and I'll produce the certificate...Mr. Hammer.

You responded to ask “what’s the point” and I responded to that cluelessness by simply pointing out that if you don’t understand “the point,” further conversation would be unnatural and unnecessary.

And I see you still did not explain what your point was or is.

Bully for you, who threatened your life?

Nobody...and I never said that. But people were going to jail.

Why not stop being so petty...and actually discuss the issue of the thread.

If you are able.

 

[TheHammer]

I have no idea of why you dreamed up that,

You got something right, “You have no idea.”

Sure. Come on over and I'll produce the certificate...Mr. Hammer.

Just have the New York Times post it in their next issue you do write op-eds for them, right?


BTW, I am Mr. Hammer.

And I see you still did not explain what your point was or is.

I see you still can’t even figure it out simply by the title of the OP. How intellectually astute of you.

Nobody...and I never said that. But people were going to jail.

Who went to jail for protesting the Drug War?

Why not stop being so petty...and actually discuss the issue of the thread.

If you are able.

I’m able, but you don’t know what “the point” of the thread is. Conversation with the clueless is an exercise in futility.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

All depends on what you mean by "free."

If you mean "absolutely free," as in of all controls and restrictions which limit individual action so that you can do anything you want? Then the answer is no.

If you mean "conditionally free," as in able to act freely within the bounds of rules and restrictions agreed upon by social contract? Then the answer is yes.

The real questions is, just how much freedom are we agreeing to restrict and how much control is being imposed on us by the tyranny of the majority?

That's the question I constantly ponder as I live under our changing society.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You got something right, “You have no idea.”

Well, you at least did not try to pretend you didn't just dream it up.

Just have the New York Times post it in their next issue you do write op-eds for them, right?


BTW, I am Mr. Hammer.

So...produce YOUR birth certificate.

I see you still can’t even figure it out simply by the title of the OP. How intellectually astute of you.

Still didn't do it.

Who went to jail for protesting the Drug War?

Nice diversion. You asked about a death threat.

I’m able, but you don’t know what “the point” of the thread is. Conversation with the clueless is an exercise in futility.

Then stop with the personal insults and do it.

I am far from clueless.

 

[TheHammer]

So...produce YOUR birth certificate.

I’ll have the New Your Times put it on the front page when I see yours there.

Nice diversion. You asked about a death threat.

So how long did you serve in jail for protesting the Drug War?

Then stop with the personal insults and do it.

What personal insults? I don’t do insults, I just tell truths and some people think they’re being insulted.

I am far from clueless.

Apparently you are you don’t know what the “point” is of the OP.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I’ll have the New Your Times put it on the front page when I see yours there.



So how long did you serve in jail for protesting the Drug War?



What personal insults? I don’t do insults, I just tell truths and some people think they’re being insulted.



Apparently you are you don’t know what the “point” is of the OP.

Hammer...I disagreed with a part of what you originally said...and apparently you are unable to handle disagreement in a reasonable way...so this nonsense is occurring.

Bottom line:I stand by what I said in post 32...and I am sorry that what I said has caused you to get so out-of-sorts.,

 

[TheHammer]

Hammer...I disagreed with a part of what you originally said..

What part? Make your case without the "What's the point" crap.

 

[Frank Apisa]

What part? Make your case without the "What's the point" crap.

I've already made my case, Hammer...in posts #32 and #55.

 

[TheHammer]

Yeah, Hammer...by and large, it is OK with me. As humans decided to meld into "society"...more and more limits on individual freedom and privacy had to be put into place. Now...civilization has gotten to the point where what YOU and your fellow Libertarians seem to consider "individual freedom and privacy" are as dead as the dinosaur. And it is OK with me, because I consider the needs of society to be more important than the needs and desires of the individual.

And what do you think needs to be further discussed?

So you like big government. You need government to tell you what you can and cannot put in to your own body. You enjoy being taxed for a failed unconstitutional Drug War. You don’t care that prohibition of some drugs causes incarceration of thousands of non-violent citizens, creates a huge tax-free market for terrorist and other criminals, corrupts law enforcement and politicians, clogs up our penal and judicial system and causes violence in our streets and along our borders.

In your own words “It’s OK with me.”