or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Free Speech Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Free Speech Thread - Page 4

post #121 of 360
Quote:

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #122 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post


I agree, it is a Bizarro World when self-labeled "liberals" and "progressives" think they actually are liberal and progressive.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #123 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I agree, it is a Bizarro World when self-labeled "liberals" and "progressives" think they actually are liberal and progressive.

Conservatives meanwhile uphold those fine hallowed traditions of the right of foreign corporations to buy elections and stomping on the heads of women.
post #124 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Conservatives meanwhile uphold those fine hallowed traditions of the right of foreign corporations to buy elections and stomping on the heads of women.

Really? Which ones?


P.S. So you don't deny that many self-labeled "liberals" and "progressives" actually are not liberal or progressive?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #125 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Really? Which ones?


P.S. So you don't deny that many self-labeled "liberals" and "progressives" actually are not liberal or progressive?

Internet logic! For when you want to win an argument on the internet.
post #126 of 360










無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #127 of 360
Thread Starter 
In the UK the T(ea)ories are cutting more money to those with disabilities than their "cutting"? from the banks. The burden should always fall on the disabled...that's big society and family values. Oh wait no it's not, it's bullshit, the same old bullshit.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #128 of 360
The All-Too-Real Menace to the Open Internet
Posted by Jay Stanley, Speech, Privacy and Technology

Quote:
We at the ACLU have a lot of respect for the Cato Institute and its principled and brave opposition to the expansion of the national security state and its powers. We do not always see eye to eye, however. Last week we released a report,Network Neutrality 101: Why The Government Must Act to Preserve The Free And Open Internet . Yesterday the estimable Julian Sanchez posted a civil but criticalreaction to our report on Cato's blog that warrants a response.

Sanchez agrees with the ACLU that the open, end-to-end nature of the Internet is "important enough that if it were systematically threatened, there would be a decent case for regulatory intervention." So we don't disagree over the crucialness of preserving the open Internet just whether there exist "systematic" threats to that openness. He argues that the Internet's open nature is "pretty resilient."

I'm not sure where he sees that resilience coming from, other than from the fact that net neutrality has by and large survived so far. As we argue in the report, that's the result of vigilance by a handful of loud public interest groups, combined with growing scrutiny by the Federal Communcations Commission (FCC), which has put considerable pressure on companies to play it straight. But that atmosphere cannot last forever the FCC's leverage totallyevaporated in April, and as soon as public vigilance falters, companies will quickly begin to exploit their control over network access. In the report we lay out some reasons the profit motive will almost certainly drive companies to do this. In addition, new technologies are making it easier and cheaper by the day for the broadband companies to mess with our communications in various ways. Things stay the same until they don't.

Sanchez concedes that broadband Internet is not very competitive, but the real policy question, he argues, "ought to be how to get enough competition in broadband markets that consumer choice" can protect against "pernicious" violations of neutrality.

Nobody disagrees that engendering genuine, lasting competition in broadband markets would be a good thing. The only problem is, it's not clear how that would happen. Broadband Internet appears to be a very utility-like market. That is, it has many or most of the characteristics of what economists call "natural monopolies": it is characterized by high capital or fixed costs (it costs a whole lot to build a network before you ever see a dime in revenue), and high barriers to entry (not anyone can up and decide to go into business selling broadband access). Like electricity, water, and telephone service, you are never going to have numerous parallel infrastructures providing a flourishing competitive marketplace and a wealth of different options to choose from. Of course, it is certainly possible that this economic analysis is wrong, or that new technologies will emerge that change these factors. But that isn't something that in our judgment we ought to bet the Internet on. Competition is not something we can be sure of, but the profit motive is.

Meanwhile, "common carrier" protections requiring neutral service are a centuries-old means of guarding the public interest from abuses by the owners of utility-like infrastructures. They do not represent some kind of drastic re-architecting of the Internet, as Sanchez suggests, but are merely a way of preserving the status quo.

In addition, as we point out in the report, even if true competition among broadband technologies emerges or could be created (through government policies, I assume that would mean), the need for open access would remain. Passenger trains were never freed from common carrier obligations just because people could also drive or fly to their destination and in fact the highways and airlines are also subject to open-access rules. The law recognizes that even if alternative facilities are broadly available, in many specific situations only one is practical for a given customer. And it recognizes that an openness mandate is necessary because such a broad variety of far-flung markets, activities, and social functions depend upon these facilities, or receive crucial inputs from them.

So, the bottom line in our view is:

Financial incentive + technological ability + insufficient competition = a systemic threat.

A few final points:

Quote:
Sanchez also argues that some of our examples of abuse by telecoms are not on point. Here, Sanchez makes a fair point namely, that some of the examples we cite are not violations of Internet network neutrality in the strictest sense. However, they do speak to the motives, intent, and trustworthiness of major telecommunications firms in treating the speech of their customers fairly and thus merit concern. Sanchez to his credit does concede that there are other cases that "may or definitely do count as potentially troubling neutrality violations," and that some may justify regulatory action.

Quote:
Sanchez also wonders "why the ACLU is weighing in on this at all." I could wax poetic about the ACLU and Internet and free speech but I will simply note that 1) We have been engaged on this issue for at least a decade; 2) defense of free speech was the founding mission of the ACLU and has remained at the core of our organization; and 3) the Internet is, as a practical matter, where most people exercise their right to free expression today.

By the way, if you agree with the ACLU on net neutrality, you cansend a message to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski telling him to reclassify broadband connectivity services in order to provide strong network neutrality protections, as we call for in our report.

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #129 of 360
Thread Starter 
Liberty for blacks, gays, muslims etc...no wonder the dems are called "liberal", they're for liberty!
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #130 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Liberty for blacks, gays, muslims etc...no wonder the dems are called "liberal", they're for liberty!

Well I won't deny that they support some liberty for some people. But for them to claim that they are widely in support of liberty is simply a lie. Modern "liberals"/"progressives" are as opposed to liberty in other areas as some conservatives are on different issues.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #131 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well I won't deny that they support some liberty for some people. But for them to claim that they are widely in support of liberty is simply a lie. Modern "liberals"/"progressives" are as opposed to liberty in other areas as some conservatives are on different issues.

You mean paying taxes?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #132 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You mean paying taxes?

Taxes are only one example. I bet if you give it some careful and open-minded thought you'll begin to see other areas in which so-called "liberals" actually oppose liberty.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #133 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well I won't deny that they support some liberty for some people. But for them to claim that they are widely in support of liberty is simply a lie. Modern "liberals"/"progressives" are as opposed to liberty in other areas as some conservatives are on different issues.

Bush/Cheney "liberated" Iraq from it's evil leader. They instituted government healthcare and lobbied for profit sharing in Iraq. This is extremely liberal stuff and all with our taxes. They also grew government more than any other administration before them.
Those liberals suck.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #134 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Bush/Cheney "liberated" Iraq from it's evil leader. They instituted government healthcare and lobbied for profit sharing in Iraq. This is extremely liberal stuff and all with our taxes. They also grew government more than any other administration before them.

Yes they did.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #135 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Taxes are only one example. I bet if you give it some careful and open-minded thought you'll begin to see other areas in which so-called "liberals" actually oppose liberty.

I'm not so sure that dems are liberty takers. Tea party liberty and repub liberty has a big "limited" sign next to it in comparison to dems. Real liberty includes an education, healthcare, housing etc... My moneys on the dems. Liberty to pollute and confiscate wealth...that's on repubs.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #136 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm not so sure that dems are liberty takers. Tea party liberty and repub liberty has a big "limited" sign next to it in comparison to dems. Real liberty includes an education, healthcare, housing etc... My moneys on the dems. Liberty to pollute and confiscate wealth...that's on repubs.

Since it appears that we are at odds with what "liberty" means and since you appear to be convinced that "confiscation of wealth" is something that only one group desires to do, I suspect further discussion of this topic would be fruitless and frustrating for both of us.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #137 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Since it appears that we are at odds with what "liberty" means and since you appear to be convinced that "confiscation of wealth" is something that only one group desires to do, I suspect further discussion of this topic would be fruitless and frustrating for both of us.

I don't think we are. Liberty.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #138 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I don't think we are.

Well I disagree. But you're free to provide your definition of liberty and perhaps we can see where we're in agreement and where we're in disagreement.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #139 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well I disagree. But you're free to provide your definition of liberty and perhaps we can see where we're in agreement and where we're in disagreement.

Liberty means the freedom to persue your actions without being stopped for reasons pertaining to your sex, class, race, sexuality, etc.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #140 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Liberty means the freedom to persue your actions without being stopped for reasons pertaining to your sex, class, race, sexuality, etc.

Should I infer from this definition that there are other reasons or characteristics (besides your sex, class, race, sexuality) that you can and/or should be stopped from doing something? If so, what are those reasons or characteristics?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #141 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Should I infer from this definition that there are other reasons or characteristics (besides your sex, class, race, sexuality) that you can and/or should be stopped from doing something? If so, what are those reasons or characteristics?

No.

Liberty is and should be for all, whoever they may be.

I'm fortunate enough (though unfortunate under US tax law) to have US and EU citizenship. In my view, so long as the law is upheld, all people should have equal access to any land mass.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #142 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No.

Liberty is and should be for all, whoever they may be.

OK. So you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Liberty means the freedom to persue your actions without being stopped for reasons pertaining to your sex, class, race, sexuality, etc.

You have further clarified that there are no other characteristics that should be used to restrict someone's "freedom to persue your actions without being stopped."

Now here's where things might get tricky again:

1. Are there any limits that should logically be put upon someone's liberty? What restrictions are these and why?

2. If a person has liberty as an individual (and or restrictions on their liberty) would those same liberties (and restrictions) apply to a group of individuals acting as a group?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #143 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. So you said:



You have further clarified that there are no other characteristics that should be used to restrict someone's "freedom to persue your actions without being stopped."

Now here's where things might get tricky again:

1. Are there any limits that should logically be put upon someone's liberty? What restrictions are these and why?

2. If a person has liberty as an individual (and or restrictions on their liberty) would those same liberties (and restrictions) apply to a group of individuals acting as a group?

1) Of course liberty can and must be limited when it encroaches on others liberty.


2) Groups should have equal liberty. Perhaps you know of circumstances where they shouldn't. Provide those instances and I'll take a look.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #144 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

1) Of course liberty can and must be limited when it ecroaches on others liberty.

OK. Good. I agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

2) Groups should have equal liberty. Perhaps you know of circumstances where they shouldn't Provide those instances and I'll take a look.

OK. Good. I agree. Should groups also be restricted/limited from exercising their "liberty" in the same way as individuals would (i.e., when the exercise of their liberty would be encroaching on the liberty of others)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #145 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Good. I agree.




OK. Good. I agree. Should groups also be restricted/limited from exercising their "liberty" in the same way as individuals would (i.e., when the exercise of their liberty would be encroaching on the liberty of others)?

Yes...what's your beef here?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #146 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yes...what your beef here?

OK. Good. I don't have "beef" here. What do you mean by that?

So, summarizing:

Quote:
Liberty means that everyone has the right to do what they want as an individual or group up to the point where what they do (as either an individual or a group) encroaches on the liberty and rights of other individuals or groups.

Is that a pretty good summary?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #147 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Good. I don't have "beef" here. What do you mean by that?

So, summarizing:



Is that a pretty good summary?

It is.

Beef, what you got.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #148 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It is.

OK. Good. This is great.

Now we simply need to settled what the rights are that people have which, morally and ethically speaking, cannot/should not be encroached or infringed upon by other individuals or groups.

I think we have already established that people have a right to liberty (with the noted logical limit). I think it would also be safe to say that individuals have a right to their own life and bodies. Is that correct?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Beef, what you got.

Huh?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #149 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Good. This is great.

Now we simply need to settled what the rights are that people have which, morally and ethically speaking, cannot/should not be encroached or infringed upon by other individuals or groups.

I think we have already established that people have a right to liberty (with the noted logical limit). I think it would also be safe to say that individuals have a right to their own life and bodies. Is that correct?




Huh?

Bodies and life...absolutely...i'd even advocate not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle if the rider didn't want to wear one. Life...not quite sure what you mean...but sounds very plausible

Beef...you seemed to have an opinion on certain violations.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #150 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Bodies and life...absolutely...i'd even advocate not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle if the rider didn't want to wear one. Life...not quite sure what you mean...but sounds very plausible

OK. Good. I think we're in pretty solid agreement. By life I mean, you own yourself, your body, your thoughts, your life, etc. You have a right to not have these taken from you. You have the right to use them as you see fit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Beef...you seemed to have an opinion on certain violations.

Well I do. Don't you? Do you have an opinion about one person (or group) violating the liberty and rights of another person?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #151 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Good. I think we're in pretty solid agreement. By life I mean, you own yourself, your body, your thoughts, your life, etc. You have a right to not have these taken from you. You have the right to use them as you see fit.




Well I do. Don't you? Do you have an opinion about one person (or group) violating the liberty and rights of another person?

You know I do, but I asked you for an instance of this.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #152 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You know I do, but I asked you for an instance of this.

An instance of what? Of these basic liberties and rights being violated?


Let me ask a couple more questions to get some of the groundwork laid:

1. Do you believe that among the liberties that all people have would include the right to associated (or not associate) with whomever they choose for whatever reason?

2. Do you believe that, given a person's basic right to their own life and body that they have the right to produce things and trade these things (or not trade these things) including their labor with with whomever they choose for whatever reason?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #153 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

An instance of what? Of these basic liberties and rights being violated?


Let me ask a couple more questions to get some of the groundwork laid:

1. Do you believe that among the liberties that all people have would include the right to associated (or not associate) with whomever they choose for whatever reason?

2. Do you believe that, given a person's basic right to their own life and body that they have the right to produce things and trade these things (or not trade these things) including their labor with with whomever they choose for whatever reason?

1) Yes. These freedoms are ours in so much as they're available within the confines of liberty for all.

2) Same applies to here too.

No worries, don't worry about the "beef".
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #154 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

1) Yes. These freedoms are ours in so much as their available within the confines of liberty for all.

2) Same applies to here too.

No worries, don't worry about the "beef".

OK. Sounds good. So in summary:

Quote:
Liberty means that everyone has the right to do what they want as an individual or group up to the point where what they do (as either an individual or a group) encroaches on the liberty and rights of other individuals or groups. The liberty includes the right to associate with (or not associate with) whomever they want for whatever reason they want. The basic rights each individual has include their right to life and to their own body, thoughts and intellect and they, logically, have the right to use their body, thoughts and intellect to produce things which they then have the right to trade with (or not trade with) whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

Can you think of any way that the various laws, policies and actions proposed, advocated and supported by Democrats and so-called "liberals" (and "progressive") violates the liberty and rights of individuals as defined this way?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Sounds good. So in summary:



Can you think of any way that the various laws, policies and actions proposed, advocated and supported by Democrats and so-called "liberals" (and "progressive") violates the liberty and rights of individuals as defined this way?

No, but that's not to say there aren't any. Perhaps you have some? I suspect you have many! Not sure I'd agree with all your reasoning behind those instances but they may nonetheless have some truth to them.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #156 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No,

Perhaps you should read and think about that definition and think carefully about the various positions held by so-called "liberals."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Perhaps you have some?

How about the minimum wage laws? How about laws that prevent private employers from discriminating? How about laws that require someone to buy health insurance? How about laws that prevent certain individuals from entering certain professions unless certified or licensed by the state? How about laws that prohibit individuals from buying products or services from others based on the geographic location of those individuals? How about laws that take property from one individual to given directly to another? How about laws that require an individual to wear certain things or use certain safety devices? How about laws that mandate companies to include certain features in the products or services they sell? How about laws that deny individuals the right to ingest certain things into their bodies?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #157 of 360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Perhaps you should read and think about that definition and think carefully about the various positions held by so-called "liberals."




How about the minimum wage laws? How about laws that prevent private employers from discriminating? How about laws that require someone to buy health insurance? How about laws that prevent certain individuals from entering certain professions unless certified or licensed by the state? How about laws that prohibit individuals from buying products or services from others based on the geographic location of those individuals? How about laws that take property from one individual to given directly to another? How about laws that require an individual to wear certain things or use certain safety devices? How about laws that mandate companies to include certain features in the products or services they sell? How about laws that deny individuals the right to ingest certain things into their bodies?

I think there's a lot there I'd agree with you on! Thanks for pointing out some examples of where liberty isn't a legal option.

Some complexities there though. Should the government always prop up business so that people can afford healthcare etc. Compromise is sometimes essential at the extremes.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #158 of 360
To all you VETERANS---THANK YOU











FT---USAF '66-'70
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #159 of 360

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #160 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Persuasion vs. Force

I clicked.... I opened my mind.....I read.....

.....as far as the first sentence where those doom-laden accursed words that should never be uttered in any intellectual discourse and which render any rational discussion null and void:

Ayn Fucking Rand.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Free Speech Thread