What Country Grants The Most Freedom to Citizens - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-01-2005, 07:13 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 PM
Then you are one of the millions of little people who have no rights whatsoever and get hacked to pieces/starved/raped/murdered by the warlords, simple.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 07:18 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Well if your a warlord then you are free to do what you like, and your massive numbers of militiamen ensure that you have nothing to fear.
Well if that's the criteria, I'll take media mogul in NYC thanks. All the benefits of the above, but a kick arse penthouse apartment over Central Park.
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 07:20 PM   #18
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 08:26 AM
And do you think that is peachy-keen and fine-and-dandy? Or do you believe "I'm a bad mother, so I'd be a big bad warlord, and to hell with everyone else"? Which would make you a bully, and bullies are the last people you want to discuss freedom with; the kind who only understand the freedom-to part, and who will never understand the freedom-from part.

I've only lived in one country, so I can't really say ....

Perhaps there are some people here who have lived in several countries who can compare?
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 07:37 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 PM
It is called sarcasm, perhaps you have heard about it, the latest thing on the continent and it might not have caught on to the colonies yet

Of course I don't consider violent anarchy to be the ideal system, I think that warlords are the lowest form of human organisation that is essentially tribal in nature.

The ideal system is one where an individual can engage in whatever they aspire too provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of another person. Government by it's very nature suspends some rights for the 'greater good', the least bad form of government is the limited government; with taxation (the price we pay for civility), a legal system to protect the rights of citzens, a security service to protect the citizens and a few other key elements to keep society from collapsing.

The worst forms of government are ones where the state has control and the citizens are subservient to the state, this ranges from soft socialism which could be considered weak authoritarianism to hard communism and fascism which are either a strongly socialist economic system or in the case of the latter a combination of welfare statism and nationalism.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 07:43 PM   #20
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 08:26 AM
'xcuse please. It's sometimes hard to tell when you see only type, and can't hear a voice, which may be the cause behind many of the mutual flame sessions on message boards....

'sides it's been a bad %#$@*&! day, and I probably jumped on it for lack of a better target...sorry.

think i'll go have a drink....
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 09:13 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:26 AM
possibly the Netherlands
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-01-2005, 09:36 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The ideal system is one where an individual can engage in whatever they aspire too provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of another person
Funny. That's secular humanism right there, and precisely why America was founded on that premise. Religion has a nasty habit of infringing on everybody's rights.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 09:40 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Funny. That's secular humanism right there, and precisely why America was founded on that premise. Religion has a nasty habit of infringing on everybody's rights.

Melon
Agreed on both counts, however not all religion is equal in the damage that it causes at any given time.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 10:04 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Agreed on both counts, however not all religion is equal in the damage that it causes at any given time.
But we can agree that it causes damage; that much is certain. And that's why government must be kept pure from religious corruption.

All one needs to do is remember the history of Quebec and the damage any religion wields when given any worldly power.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 10:20 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 PM
Yes, I agree with that generally.

But I also must consider the rights of the individual to practice religion.

I have no opposition to people who's ethics are governed by religion to hold public office, provided that in fufiling their duties they do not unfairly harm the rights of others with their beliefs. There are definitely areas where the Bush administration lets religion interfere, such as stem cell research lines and funding.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 10:27 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Yes, I agree with that generally.

But I also must consider the rights of the individual to practice religion.

I have no opposition to people who's ethics are governed by religion to hold public office, provided that in fufiling their duties they do not unfairly harm the rights of others with their beliefs. There are definitely areas where the Bush administration lets religion interfere, such as stem cell research lines and funding.
And Howard and euthanasia.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 10:42 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But I also must consider the rights of the individual to practice religion.
And that was never under question. Americans are fully free to be members of the KKK, if they so very please, and it is fully 100% legal. But, rightfully so, most Americans laugh right in their face for believing in irrational, bigoted falsehoods.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 10:45 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 PM
No, the KKK as an organisation infringes on the rights of other people and hurts them, that should not be 100% legal.

Freedom of speech likewise should not extend to inciting violence.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 11:01 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No, the KKK as an organisation infringes on the rights of other people and hurts them, that should not be 100% legal.

Freedom of speech likewise should not extend to inciting violence.
Well, you are from Australia, so I'll have to forgive our "speech paradox." But in case you haven't figured it out:

1) In Europe / Canada, sex speech is seemingly protected, while hate speech is outright banned.

2) In America, hate speech is protected, while sex speech is often deemed "obscene" and severely censored/banned.

Amongst American liberal and conservative academics alike, the general consensus is that hate speech should be protected. Liberal academics argue that it is better to have the hate out in the open, so one can know their enemy, which is easier when they aren't underground.

As for what I think, I don't know; but I'm of the opinion that religion here has become little more than generators of hate speech.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-01-2005, 11:18 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 PM
I think that there is a line, actually calling for murder and inciting it must not be protected speech.

Now talking about racial superiority or how Hitler was right seems fine, it can be identified. But it is quite another thing to declare that Jews should be lined up and shot by your followers. I am thinking along the lines of the latter as criminal behaviour and not free speech.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com