Grokmaster
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 9,613
- Reaction score
- 2,735
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Why do We the People of the United States put up with the government violating our constitution and violating our rights? For instance, the First Amendment gives us freedom of speech and yet the government will punish people for saying stuff. Why do we put up with that? We are allowed to say whatever we want without repercussions.
Please cite who is being prevented from saying anything.
Our rights end, where other peoples' rights begin.
What about threatening to kill someone unless they give me all their money? What about calling in a (false) bomb threat or claiming you committed a serious crime, even to the point of lying in court to get you convicted?With the 1st Amendment comes freedom of expression. That being said, if I decide to express myself by saying I would like to smash so and so's head like a watermelon I shouldn't get in trouble for saying that.
No...
you also can't break the law for "good"
I could go on but you must get the point. Free speech (any freedom in fact) can’t be unconditional.
Government doesn't create the conditions, we do - government is jut the representatives of the people after all. Now if that system doesn't work properly (as you can certainly argue), that's a different problem to address.Here is the problem. When we allow the government to put conditions on our rights and freedoms than they can add any and all sorts of conditions until the rights become practically non existent, which is not much different than not even having the rights in the first place.
We did have those conditions, in law and later (arguably still) in practice but people pushed back against that. It's far from perfect but perfection is impossible. You didn't actually address my questions but surely they demonstrate that the free-for-all your position implies would be much worse than were we are now.For instance, lets say we allow the government to put conditions on the right of free speech or any of the other rights in the BOR, that way they can make conditions such as that the right only applies if you're white or it only applies if you're a man or it only applies if you're name is Alfred E. Neuman or, you get the point.
:bs If this ^^ even happened, no way the police had any way to do anything.Well I do know of a case of a boy getting in trouble with the law for telling a bully he was going to kill him. This bully in school was constantly harassing the boy until finally the boy said, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" The boy got in trouble not only at school but also with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully.
Because if you oppose them, they kill you?
Because people have been brainwashed to believe the government is good and necessary?
Because people are retarded and believe without a slave master they'd be less free?
While it's a really nice fantasy that an anarchistic society could work, it's folly and goes against basic human nature. Even if you had such somewhere for a time, eventually someone would murder folks or steal things, or a harvest would be bad one year and there's be shortages or a famine, and what then? In human society the strong always subjigate the weak. The survival instinct in time of famine too, people will always fend for their own first. Hoarding of goods, thieving, murder for lands, fearing others not like you or unknown to you. it's all basic human nature. No society could survive without a way to defend against such. No, I'm not arguing that government is always great or even good sometimes, but at least to a large degree it allows for some basic order, without which we couldn't have prospered or advanced so far as we have.
Mankind in and of itself is neither good nor bad, we are only the dominant species on the planet currently, we can choose to be "good" or ":bad", but slefishness and self interest complicate things. Human nature in reality is much too "game of thrones" for the governmentless fantasy to ever be more than childish folly.:roll:
It would be just as wrong of me to demand that you be an anarchist, or be part of some anarchist society, as it is for you to demand that I be part of your government. My goal is to point out the immorality of your position, and ask to be left alone due to that. That's called panarchism.
It's not about demands, it's about power, who has it, who wields it and how, always has been always will be, despite our protestations of what is "right or wrong" what is, simply is, like it or not.
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?