I hear people talk about their individual freedom and how it has been so severely curtailed here in the U.S. This comes from all political points of view, particularly libertarian and the right, but also from the left.
I am interested in hearing what individual freedom you personally have not been able to exercise. I don't mean hypothetically. Tell us what you, in your own life, have wanted to do but could not do because the government, or some other entity, would not allow it.
We all have individual liberties. However, there are laws which we must abide by-this is part of living in a civilized society. We must work and live with others in a mature and coherent fashion, pure and simple. There are some people among us who strongly believe in doing what THEY want to do without regards to other people at all.
Anarchy and/or forms of self-government is never going to work at this stage in society because many people are not evolved emotionally, mentally, nor spiritually to live in harmony with others and to live ethically. At this stage in society, anarchy and/or self-government is only going to lead to disorder, mayhem, increased lawlessness, and chaos. We need laws to contain the majority of people into civilized behavior.
True, but how many incarcerated people are there for "victimless" crimes?
Marijuana, or prostitution, for example? Crimes only in the sense that the real criminals, writing and voting for the laws, don't like to see done by anyone whether they hurt others or not.
There is nothing in America that one cannot do within socially acceptable paramiters ! Being a nation of laws for everything imaginable , almost everything we do is contractual ! Capitalism , with its many downfalls , allows for much freedom !
Here are the things that have affected me when I've been to the US, mainly Florida: One cannot board an aircraft without molestation. One cannot use cannabis for medical nor recreational use. One cannot own an animal with the ability to protect one's home. One cannot book a flight without taxation that might double the price. One cannot pay for any good or service un-inflated by the Fed. One cannot pay for any good or service made more expensive by regulation.
There is not a single action one can make that is not molested in some way by the government.
"One cannot board an aircraft without molestation." But, aren't you entering into a voluntary contract when you buy a ticket to fly, including agreeing to the price and undergoing security measures? By the way, I have yet to be be searched before boarding an aircraft.
"One cannot use cannabis for medical nor recreational use." This, I agree is a freedom that one cannot exercise in most states.
"One cannot own an animal with the ability to protect one's home." You cannot have a guard dog? I've never heard of that restriction.
"One cannot book a flight without taxation that might double the price. One cannot pay for any good or service un-inflated by the Fed. One cannot pay for any good or service made more expensive by regulation." I don't see these as a restriction on your individual freedom since you are not required to purchase goods or services.
It is not the airlines themselves stipulating in their contract that you have to be searched by the TSA - it is the government violently interfering in that contract. I believe it should be left to the airlines or airports, who will have to secure their aircrafts in a way that pleases their customers, who will then have the ability to choose between them for the best service.
Pitbulls are illegal dogs in Florida, which creates a black market that exacerbates the problem of vicious dogs, and prevents honest people from owning dogs that they believe will protect their home and children. It's a good option, especially with the inevitable increase in gun control legislation.
" . . . since you are not required to purchase goods or services."
Where does one begin with this? Firstly, how can you agree that cannabis prohibition is a violation of individual liberty? One isn't required to buy cannabis. There are even alternatives to cannabis for medicinal uses. This is like saying that banning emigration isn't a violation of individual freedom because you're not required to emigrate. I don't even see your reasoning.
When you buy a good or service from someone, you are engaging in a voluntary exchange contract with them. When the government comes in and taxes and regulates the transaction, and inflates the price, it is committing violence against those two individuals. The seller can not sell as many products, and the buyer cannot buy as many, thus reducing the productivity of both of them. Of course this is a violation of individual liberty.
"It is not the airlines themselves stipulating in their contract that you have to be searched by the TSA - it is the government violently interfering in that contract. I believe it should be left to the airlines or airports, who will have to secure their aircrafts in a way that pleases their customers, who will then have the ability to choose between them for the best service."
I, as a citizen, want government oversight over services that are provided to me that I have neither the time nor the knowledge to know are performed safely. This includes airlines, bridge construction, food preparation, automobile manufacturing, and a host of other products and services. If you consider that to be violence that is your right, but again, most citizens are happy to know that someone is watching out for their safety, even if it is not perfect. Government interventions did not occur in a vacuum; they were instituted in response to gross misconduct on the part of private companies who were putting profit above safety. They were instituted because the citizens demanded them. Again, you have the freedom NOT to fly or, as someone else pointed out, buy your own plane. Also, you have the freedom to opt out of the system if you don't like it.
"Pitbulls are illegal dogs in Florida, which creates a black market that exacerbates the problem of vicious dogs, and prevents honest people from owning dogs that they believe will protect their home and children. It's a good option, especially with the inevitable increase in gun control legislation."
Apparently, the people of Florida wanted this law or at least elected those who voted for it. If they don't want it, they will repeal it. In the meantime, other breeds can be used as guard dogs. I hardly see how your freedom is curtailed from owning a dog that can guard your home. Sure, you cannot own a particular breed, but if you want a pitbull that badly you can move to a state where they are legal.
" . . . since you are not required to purchase goods or services."
Where does one begin with this? Firstly, how can you agree that cannabis prohibition is a violation of individual liberty? One isn't required to buy cannabis. There are even alternatives to cannabis for medicinal uses. This is like saying that banning emigration isn't a violation of individual freedom because you're not required to emigrate. I don't even see your reasoning. "
I am not an expert on drug laws here in the U.S., but I believe that federal law still prohibits the use of cannabis for medical purposes, even though some states have legalized it. You're right about an inconsistency in my argument, but that is exactly what government is about, representing the will of the people. Some people approve of regulating cannabis; others do not. I view it as an unnecessary regulation, which is why I called it a violation of individual freedom. Someone else mentioned motorcycle laws as a stupid regulation. Most people want some regulations; we just differ on how much anarchy we want to give up in exchange for some security.
"When you buy a good or service from someone, you are engaging in a voluntary exchange contract with them.bhen the government comes in and taxes and regulates the transaction, and inflates the price, it is committing violence against those two individuals. The seller can not sell as many products, and the buyer cannot buy as many, thus reducing the productivity of both of them. Of course this is a violation of individual liberty."
Again, I do not see this as a violation of my individual liberty; I see it as an agreement between the citizens and their government. Granted, as I said above, there will always be disagreement on what needs to be taxed and regulated and how much, but most of us who live under a government are happy to do so.
The fact that you or the majority of citizens want something does not grant you the right to impose that upon others. 'Choosing' not to fly, buying my own plane or moving to a different country is not an acceptable compromise. If the owners of the airline don't want excessive security measures, and the customers don't want excessive security measures, what right does the government have to interfere with this arrangement? It violates my right to engage in a voluntary contract, which is by definition, regardless if you think it is or not, a violation of individual liberty. The people, and certain special interests, may have wanted it, but it doesn't change definitions. You cannot change reality through democracy.
The principle is the same in the case of 'dangerous' dog laws and prohibition. I want to be able to own a dog to protect my own property. This act does not violate anybody's rights. But, apparently, Florida has a problem with that. They want to prohibit an action that will not affect anybody accept those who attempt to trespass on my property. This is a violation of individual liberty - you don't believe it is. But somehow, the prohibition of cannabis is a violation of individual liberty. What's the difference? Again, it's an action that will affect nothing except myself, violating nobody's rights, yet there are others who wish to stop me from doing it. Do individual rights change when it comes to the type of property you wish to own? Of course not. Only when you believe the law to be 'unnecessary' do you believe it to be a violation of individual rights. Which basically means you like to use 'individual rights' when it suits you because it sounds nice, when you actually don't care about them. You justify dangerous dog laws by saying that majority wishes it so. So what? It is a violation. Government is sacrificing individual rights for a little security, right? Why pretend otherwise?
"Most of us believe" was never an acceptable argument for anything.
On the contrary the rights of the majority to safety when they fly, or when their children play in a park supersedes the rights of the minority to not be subject to a search or to own dangerous dogs.
It is the ultimate in pure selfishness to place the inconvenience of the minority before the safety of the majority and it is simply not a just way to run a nation.
"The people" as a whole have the right to choose the conditions that affect all of them not "a person".
I am all for allowing all liberties so long as they do not endanger and negatively affect others, both those things do that.
Given the incredible backlash towards the TSA and their almost abusive practices, it is likely that airlines would, responding to the demands of their customers, find a way to create a more balanced security system that respects the passengers yet is comprehensive enough to keep them safe. Those airlines that do not meet those demands would be shunned. In our current scenario, the customer does not have this power, but is subject to an entity that is not responsive to them. Although some have, in response to the outrages of the TSA, it is quite another story to shun flying altogether.
Similarly, parks can and do have rules that limit what kinds of dogs are allowed, and this is fine. Legislation that governs what an individual can do on their own private property, on the other hand, is a violation of individual liberty. One cannot deny that the simple act of owning a pitbull is not a violation of anybody's rights, and does not directly endanger anyone.
That is because flight security does not only affect the customers of airlines, it affects those whom those planes may be flown into and those on the ground that may be affected by a crash, besides I would never feel comfortable trusting my security to a company which is trying to make customers feel welcome and comfortable, I have no doubt that should flight companies be allowed to run their own security all one would have to do to hitchhike or bomb a plane is fly first class and one would not be searched so as to encourage repeat flying and thus endangering everyone else on the plane, I believe most people realize this which is why most people favor proper searches as they are conducted and this thread would seem to back that belief.
The fact of the matter is dogs escape etc. which makes it unsafe to have them in the area at all.
Think about how epically disastrous it would be for any airline if it was responsible for a terrorist attack. Reflecting on this, wouldn't it be in the airline's interest to ensure that their security is ultra-tight? There is a balance an airline can make that is completely lost on the TSA. "most people realize this" is ad-populum, again.
Epically disastrous? Not at all.
BP did massive damage to the environment and cost thousands their livelihoods, their stocks are up.
United Fruit Massacred thousands of peaceful protesters, they simply changed their name and all was forgotten.
Coca Cola killed hundreds of union organizers and contaminated the water sources of tens of thousands of people, it is one of the most successful companies in the world.
Corporations are able to throw some money around find a low level scape goat (search employe did his job wrong) and move right on.
That you wish to carry a bomb onto the airplane flying over my house, in "my" airspace, is unacceptable.
Either go through airport security and prove you don't have one or don't fly.
That you've resorted to such an assertion reveals your unwillingness to engage in civil debate. Thanks for your time.
Actually, he was projecting an honest fear: that doing away with airport security so that you can have your "liberty" could result in his or someone else's death.
This is the real world.
It's the same as arguing that arguing for the right to due process means you just want to be a criminal and get away with it. Grade school debate tactics.
I didn't say his tactics were "fair." I was merely interpreting what he wrote to show that we all want security and sometimes we are willing to trade some freedom for that security. He can correct me if my interpretation was wrong.
I live in the real world. I already admitted that my positions about individual liberty are based upon my own desires for security versus freedom. That is the case for everyone, whether they will admit it or not. We each have our own view of what is the proper place to draw the line when trading a little individual liberty in exchange for security.
You say you are an anarchist, yet you are not willing to live your life that way. To me, you are an anarchist in theory but not practice, which means you are either cowardly or a hypocrite or both. I'm not saying those things to insult you, but I'm trying to show you that it is impossible to live 100% by intellectual principle without regard to feelings and especially ignoring the human need for safety and security.
Right. Let me get this straight: individual liberty means whatever you want it to mean, depending on what you want at the time. And principles are all well and good, except when it's inconvenient.
I've never heard such a cop-out in my life. You're basically admitting that I'm right but you don't care.
So, are you living your principles? 100%?
You mean, am I living l some hill-billy shack in the wilderness without any government contact at all? Well, if that's what you believe living by libertarian principles means, then no, but I don't buy that at all. Just as I don't buy the argument that socialists who have a job in the capitalist system aren't real socialists and RBE (Resource Based Economy) people aren't legit because they still use currency.
As I see government as inherently violent, continuing to pay taxes and receive government services is not agreeing to those things in principle, but conceding to power. Just as you would think being enslaved is wrong, but you won't run away simply because you'll get shot if you do. Does not running away mean you're agreeing with slavery? Obviously not.
Ultimately, the number one principle is non-violence. Am I committing violence or lending my voice to violent causes? No. Therefore, I am living by my principles 100%.
Actually it is providing funds to a system and group you categorically oppose and believe is tyrannous which is incredibly immoral, there are many steps you can take to stop doing so, living outside of civilization is just one, unlike the salves no one will shoot you should you leave.
Since taxation is theft and I am likely to end up in prison for not paying, I don't consider paying taxes providing funds of my own volition.
But you are because you could simply not live in conditions where you provide those funds (ie. make less than the minimum tax quantity in your respective jurisdiction) or you could just leave. Instead you hypocritically stay and enjoy the benefits of this system you supposedly hate while contributing to that system, there is nothing ideologically or morally sound about that.
Perhaps because you realize life will be much harder should you move to a place without those systems in place. Fundamentally you are compromising your values for comfort.
I didn't ask if you are a real libertarian. I asked if you are living by your principles, 100%. I am a real Mom, for example, and I have certain principles that I try to abide by, but I am human and don't always do so, sometimes for convenience, sometimes because my emotions get the best of me, sometimes because I am lazy, and sometimes because I simply screw up.
To me, the mere fact that you say you are living by your principles 100% tells me you are naive and deluded. I admit to my failings because I have been around the block a few times and know that I am imperfect.
Then you're going to have to be specific because we are talking about individual liberty, and I hold by the non-aggression principle. Do I kill, assault or steal from anyone? Nope.
I do have other principles unrelated to political philosophy that may be less objective that I may not hold to all the time, but that's a completely different topic.
I didn't realize that libertarianism had only one principle.
"Am I committing violence or lending my voice to violent causes? No. Therefore, I am living by my principles 100%."
When you participate in society by paying taxes, aren't you contributing to the government which is committing violence (your characterization)? There are many ways you can live without paying taxes; they might require discomfort on your part, but I would think it would be worth it for you. You have such an abhorrence of violence committed by government, or at least you say you do.
Individual liberty means absolute freedom unless it can negatively affect others, if it can it becomes a matter of choice for the community. It's as simple as that, you don't get to juggle with the lives of others without consulting them.
Individual liberty, to the libertarian, means absolute freedom of self and property, unless it does negatively affect others. We see 'can', as meaning: 'anything under the sun'.
That is a very opinion specific definition (one not shared by the person you were accusing of making up their own) and ultimately an illogical definition, this is easily proved by a simple thought experiment.
If I place a bomb on the edge of my property which has a 50% chance of going off it most certainly affects my neighbors and they have every right to have a say in that. By the same token if a I place a dangerous animal in my yard which has a chance of escaping my neighbors and community have the right to a say in that decision.
When you think about it, anything 'can' be dangerous. It is such a loose definition it can be interpreted in any way, which is why it has to be rejected. You can't possibly build a society that way.
Yes, your neighbours have a say in both of those instances as they directly affect themselves and their property. However, if none of those neighbours wish to make an issue of it, what right does an outside agency have to interfere with this arrangement? None, says the libertarian.
Government as chosen by my community and neighbors in local instances is the actor of that opinion.
Which is why many local governments ban dangerous animals in their communities, because it can affect them.
Obviously when defining "can" there is an element of reasonable and demonstrable risk to be accounted for and we do that democratically so we decide as a community what is sufficiently concerning and dangerous to require action to protect the community.
Unfortunately true. Any time 2 or more people live in close proximity to each other (which today might mean within 1000 miles) there will be freedom lost. Or lives - take your choice.
Of course you can board a plane without molestation. Buy your own, rather than contracting to use someone else's if that's what you want.
You may certainly own an animal, although some (big cats, for instance) are restricted in order that those that don't care won't destroy the species. One is also responsible for controlling that animal and preventing damage to innocent people - is that a problem?
Never had a plan ticket with as much tax as the ticket, and doubt that you have, either. Would you rather have the cost for the airport, traffic controllers, etc. built into the general tax rate so that others can share in the cost of your trip?
Yes, the Fed will always collect their pound of flesh from every purchase you make. How else can the maintain the welfare payments? And of course, we could do away with the ADA, EEOC, OSHA and other regulations that increase the cost, but I somehow doubt you would approve of that.
Why is the government claiming a monopoly over the security on these airlines? What if one of them decides that they don't want to molest me? The government is then interfering in a voluntary contract by force.
The problem with animal laws is down to the tragedy of the commons. In short, countries that allow ownership of endangered species often find increasing numbers because the owners have a vested interest in their property, and take steps to protect it. I don't have any problem with laws against property damage and not taking steps to make sure they're not attacking innocent people because those actions are violations of liberty of others
I live in the UK and I promise you every trip I make the actual cost of the ticket is about the same as the tax that is added on to it. I would rather have no tax at all.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist! Of course, I would do away with the Fed, and all of those regulations.
I take it you're counting shareholders dividends and company profits as tax then?
Public transport in the UK by and large, though privately owned, is heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
The govt. probably claims authority over airport security because it has far more information available to it (homeland security in the US) and has the resources to do the job. Smaller airports would likely do without, an unacceptable solution.
Some owners of exotic animals take care of them, many do not. And of those that do, all too many do a poor job of it.
Interesting about the tax - I don't fly much, but doubt that more than 10-15% of the total is tax.
The financial sector, and other volatile markets that need security, do perfectly fine without comprehensive knowledge of terrorist activity, and work it out with the customers and others who enter their buildings, and use their transport.
The statistics suggest otherwise: states that allow private ownership of nature reserves find that upkeep and species count are much better than government-owned reserves. You're supposed to be capitalist aren't you? Do the laws of economics change when it comes to animals?
Not too many of those other markets have had their property hijacked and flown into buildings. That makes the security applicable to only that company and it's employees (who may choose to work elsewhere); not to the general population. The population that had nothing to do with the airlines whose property took their lives.
I believe that you may own a private nature reserve. You will, of course, be inspected by govt. to be sure the endangered species are not being further endangered (or sold illegally) on your preserve. I have no problem with that; all too many species have vanished as a direct result of man's greed for a few dollars.
Where is your reference for this? They are not illegal in the area I live. The only county I know of, and it has possibly changed or been restricted, is Miami-Dade. Pitbulls are not the only dog which can be used as a guard dog.
I've never been touched at the airport going through security.
by SparklingJewel 12 years ago
December 19, 2009Gratitude: Looking Back Strength, Courage and Illumination: Looking Ahead Will We The People do What is Necessary to Save America? The Articles of Freedom: a Wake-up Call Dear Friends of We The People Foundation and We The People Congress, As we enter into this Holy Week that is so...
by SparklingJewel 9 years ago
I do believe that what is needed is greater discussion of what individualism means.American exceptionalism is greatly misunderstood...individual freedoms are not upheld for oneself let alone for another"The initial US's "exceptionalism" is the cure for this kind of thinking. People...
by LoliHey 5 years ago
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences." I beg to differ, though. You're supposed to be able...
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison made the following point during debate on the length of Senator's terms:"In framing a system which we wish to last the ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which the ages will produce."The "system" he is talking about,...
by taburkett 9 years ago
Do you believe that the government has the right to dictate immoral beliefs to everyone includingdegenerative morals of irrational personality disorder individuals that demand that their immoral acts overrule those of the moral individual. While many politicians speak loudly and proudly of...
by James Smith 9 years ago
Modern conservatives claim that their ideology rests on these principles: individual liberty, small government, fiscal conservatism, a strong national defence and the rule of law. I'd just like to focus on the small government part, seeing as that may as well not be in there considering the...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|