Something like yelling "fire" in a crowded room where there is no fire is fraud.Blue Hobgoblin said:Freedom of speech should only be limited if the speech is clearly something that can cause someone to be hurt, like making a death threat, or actively trying to incite violence, or yelling fire in a crowded room.
Who exactly is "we"? How can you define what is in the best interest for everyone? The answer is, it's not possible.globalvision said:we can not allow people to publish articles who's sole purpose is religious hatred, nor can articles calling for terrorist attacks be allowed. where we draw the line however is harder then you can imagine.
globalvision said:i have not leaned yet how to include quotes in here but what the hell
i am certainly not against people having there views on any matter and everyone should have the opportunity to say as they wish, this must however be within limits. would you really stand by if Hitler was ranting in central park saying that all Jews should die and that the Aryan nation is superior to all else.
we must surely have limits on what be publicly said in certain situations. we, me, i, us whatever.
I would laugh at him, then wonder why parks are owned by stupid government officials, then take a picture, then go home and email it to everyone I know.globalvision said:would you really stand by if Hitler was ranting in central park saying that all Jews should die and that the Aryan nation is superior to all else.
As long as it doesn't violate anyone else's life, liberty, or property, it should be perfectly legal. But if they go so far as to communicate fraud, its illegal.globalvision said:we must surely have limits on what be publicly said in certain situations. we, me, i, us whatever.
Naughty Nurse said:Absolutely agree. But just where are those limits?
Congratulations!globalvision said:well i will be damned hopefully i may be able to put a quote it
who should set them is the million dollar question, there should be limits, but who sets the limits, um tough aint it.
Gabo said:Each individual owns their body, actions, and products of labor.
.
Gabo said:There is only one concept needed as a limit.
That is the concept of self-ownership.
Each individual owns their body, actions, and products of labor.
Anyone who violates those rights without the persons consent is breaking the law.
globalvision said:well naughty nurse. i think that i should be in charge of what can and cannot be said. well thats that solved then aint it.
:rofl . Go get 'em!globalvision said:thanks naughty nurse, you my first supporter, now all i need is GOD on my side and the americans are all mine. evil plan is underway
The products of your labor are anything you put time and energy into.globalvision said:what is your products of labor (as u spell it over there) how do we value your labour.
Your employment to a company is a CONSENTED exchange of product/service, which makes it perfectly legal. Violation of rights is only illegal when achieved by FORCE.Naughty Nurse said:If you're employed you do not own the products of your labour, and you do not completely own your own body - there are regulations about what can be done with your body after you die, for example. In many parts of the world there are quite restrictive laws about the types of sexual activity you can indulge in. There are few absolute rights in this word!
Taxes are simply a way to...globalvision said:but we can not own the products of our labour. surely then taxes are an infringement upon us. without taxes though we would all be a hell of a lot worse off.
Not only should physical harm be prohibited, but any harm done to an individual's or group's natural rights.globalvision said:u cannot go around doing whatever you wish there are laws that prevent you from doing certain actions, or should we be permitted to do anything as long as it does not physically harm anyone else.
Children are under the legal guardianship of their parents. This means their parents can (and often do) make many or all of their decisions for them. The child, however, should be free to renounce the guardianship at any time if they would rather be self-serving and self-sufficient.globalvision said:do children own there own bodies, should they be allowed to do whatever they wish to themselves of should they be of a certain age and have the mental faculties to understand what they are doing. what about the mentally incapable?
Gabo said:The products of your labor are anything you put time and energy into.
They are what many people define as 'property'.
Your employment to a company is a CONSENTED exchange of product/service, which makes it perfectly legal. Violation of rights is only illegal when achieved by FORCE.
Taxes are simply a way to...
1) allow government to give away our hard earned money to special interests
2) provide a product/service publicly that could be provided just as well or possibly even better if done privately
3) redistribute wealth
Each of these things do not make our lives "a hell of a lot" better. In fact, lots of what the government does with our taxes actually make our lives worse.
There is no such thing as a cookie cutter lifestyle that will fit everyone. Each individual has their own belifs, wants, needs, personality, and preferences. Government is most beneficial when it allows each individual to create their own cookie cutter instead of trying to squish the general public into a cookie cutter of its own making.
Self-interest service allows for a variety of cookies, both good and bad. But most of all, people are allowed to be themselves, and run their own lives.
Not only should physical harm be prohibited, but any harm done to an individual's or group's natural rights.
There is no reason to limit people beyond this point, as everyone is unique and prefers a different lifestyle than everyone else.
Children are under the legal guardianship of their parents. This means their parents can (and often do) make many or all of their decisions for them. The child, however, should be free to renounce the guardianship at any time if they would rather be self-serving and self-sufficient.
Also, mentally incapable is a different story. If the person wasn't always mentally incapable, they could create a contract allowing them to be put under the guardianship of someone should they become incapable. A sanity will, if you get what I mean.
But, should they fail to create a contracted agreement, they are free to stay individual and on their own. If they break the law, they should be treated just the same as everyone else.
Of course its a tool of the people. The difference between our views is that you believe it should serve the people on a majority rules basis, while I believe it should serve ALL people's interests equally.anomaly said:Governement is not an 'evil' as you seem to think. It is a tool of the people.
I have no problem with the redistribution of wealth to help the unfortunate get back on their feet and have a second chance with something.anomaly said:The redistribution of wealth is a way to give money to those who need it, it is a 'safety net' created with the idea that everybody deserves a second chance. I happen to agree with this, I can't understand why you don't.
Free markets may fluctuate sometimes, but they ultimately create higher efficiency, lower costs, and create new ideas.anomaly said:This is the theory on government ownership of production: The state can manage economic affairs of its own constituency, eliminating or minimising the severe fluctuations that are otherwise part of the trade cycle.
State intervention is the biggest causer of unemployment, which in turn creates more poverty.anomaly said:State intervention can also minimize poverty and unemployment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?