“I am anti-freedom.”
You don’t want people to travel without restrictions - so you’re against freedom of movement. You don’t want people to immigrate without restrictions, so you’re against freedom of residence. You don’t want people to start businesses without a licence, so you’re against freedom of trade. You don’t want people to spend money that they earned, so you’re against financial freedom. You don’t want people to choose what food or drugs they consume, so you’re against the freedom to personal autonomy. You want to impose a mandatory minimum wage, so you’re against the freedom to contract.
Yet would you say it? You obviously believe it, but can you bring yourself to say those words and feel the bitter taste on your lips? If limiting people’s choices by force is so important to you, then go ahead and say it loudly:
“I am anti-freedom.”
Upvoted you
I rather tend to say ... "your freedom stops where mine begins".
I agree.
Your statement is incorrect and reeks of playing the blame game. What's your angle for this guilt trip, do you want reparations?
All those things are imposed by the government, not by me. If anything, the government is anti-freedom...
You've stated it's incorrect, but you haven't said why. The point is that most people will say they're for freedom, but they will make many, many exceptions, which they can't justify philosophically.
Yes, those things are imposed by the government, but a lot of the time they have public support. Yes, the government is anti-freedom, and that's definitely part of the point. However, many people support what the government does in those cases.
I clearly stated why, your generalizations do not apply to me. I have no say in what the government does.
The underlying message you are pushing appears to be advocating free unlimited immigration, without any regard for economics or security. Why put all this effort into guilting people into saying they are Anti-Freedom to get them to agree? Are you an immigrant, illegal immigrant, or liberal SJW just pushing a cause?
Okay, so you have no say in what the government does, and if you don't advocate any of these policies, then you're obviously not anti-freedom by the definition I gave in the text.
Free immigration tends to improve a country economically, so I definitely do have a concern for the economics. I don't know what you're concerned about exactly when you say "security".
Well, the idea isn't actually to get them to say that they're anti-freedom. The idea is actually to get them to decide that they like freedom more than they like limiting freedom, or at the very least, to state their views accurately so they can be accurately criticised.
I am an immigrant; I am an illegal immigrant. I'm not a liberal SJW, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. But all of those things are irrelevant to the principles at play here. Anything you can say about me personally does not add or detract any support from my position.
A free man does not require permission to travel.
Who is trying to cross your property here? Who is trying to take your tax money or influence government? Besides, shouldn't you be more concerned about who is taking your money, rather than what they do with it once it is taken from you?
I'm not sneakily trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm very upfront in saying that that it is normal and natural to disregard laws, as long as they are unjust.
You don't have any assurance that anybody is going to follow laws, whether they are born in your country or walk across some imaginary line. But being willing to walk across an imaginary line is no signal of intention to injure or steal from others, though you might imagine it is.
Why? What business is it of yours?
He does when he decides to cross my property, take my tax money, or try to influence the government or laws affecting me.
You are an admitted illegal alien, sneakily trying to convince readers that it is normal and natural to disregard a countries immigration laws... If you sneak into my country illegally what assurance do I have that you won't disregard all the other laws meant to protect society?
Illegals everywhere are pushing this message right now, during the election in an attempt to change how the country is run and makes policy. I am calling this BS out wherever I see it.
Immigrate legally or get out.
That's just it, I've witnessed and taken part of such ordeals where all of a sudden I'm saying "govt come fix this". Gotta take a step back and realize crying to mommy and daddy isn't working, it hasn't worked yet, and I don't see it working anytime in the foreseeable future while we remain in this profit based style of international economy.
I've come to realize I'm not so much against a government in general, I'm just against a government that's corrupted to shit passing laws in congruence with a giant corporate agenda. I'm not against taxation in general, I'm merely against my tax dollars being used to fund wars, and line the pockets of the bankers and super rich. I'll gladly contribute to a collective style account for societal benefits with my brothers and sisters, but giving up 45% of my wage plus additional taxes (gst, pst, carbon tax (newly added this year🙃) additional fees on alcohol and smokes, and many others that apply more specifically) for the same benefits they've been providing since... well essentially ever, seems to be a bit over the top to myself.
I see no reason why we can't have competing industries acting as governments existing on the blockchain. Throw a little capitalism in the mix instead of he bullshit monopoly that exists today. Just my two cents 😄.
Yes, sounds great. Are you familiar with https://bitnation.co/ ?
I sure am that's literally what I was referencing... Just right on par with me aren't cha ;-) lol. Oh Susanne :-)
If I'm playing a football (soccer) match, I want there to be rules in place so that the game can be played fairly and so it can be more fun. I want to restrict the freedom — No, you cannot pick up the ball and run with it...
I don't want a stranger to have the freedom to come into my living area without my permission, or pick up my toddler from daycare without my knowledge.
I am anti-freedom.
If you want to have the freedom to enjoy your own property without intrusions from strangers, and you want your daughter to enjoy the freedom of autonomy, freedom from kidnapping, you're actually pro-freedom. The people who would intrude into your house and kidnap your daughter are anti-freedom.
Is there a philosophical difference between "I don't want strangers moving into my house" and "We don't want strangers moving into our town" ?
Absolutely. Consider this situation:
You have a town of 100 people. These 100 people have not signed any contract to say that they agree to refusing strangers to enter.
99 of these people don't want a certain stranger to enter the town. 1 person does, and is willing to allow this person to stay at his house. In that case, are you pro-freedom - are you in favour of allowing this townsperson to do what he wants with his property? Or are you anti-freedom - are you in favour of refusing entry to the stranger, disallowing the townsperson to do what he wants with his property?
If they decide to refuse service to the stranger and the guy who invited him, there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes, and they're not infringing on the freedom of anyone else. All they're doing is exercising their own freedom in regards to whom they associate with, and whom they allow on their property.
I think that stranger is going to have a bad time if 99/100 townspeople don't want them there.
Suppose the stranger is someone known who likely would put the townspeople at risk. Should they not be concerned with who lives among them? There would be no need for a central authority to bar the stranger from the town, the 99/100 decide to get together and refuse service to the 1 and the stranger, essentially forcing them to go live elsewhere. Is that infringing on their freedom of residence?
I tend toward individual liberty, but only insofar as it suits me, not as a dedication to a philosophical truth that must be upheld in all circumstances but on a case by case basis. But that opinion is subject to change.
I think the basics would be "the moment you enter into a contract with someone you give up a certain amount of freedom to receive a benefit". Always gotta give something to get something.
I don't have to join with the 99 other townspeople but if I don't I lose the benefits of being part of their society but also keep the benefits of not being part of their society, if I do then I get the benefits of being part of a society while losing the benefits of being free of a society. it goes both ways, just depends what the certain individuals value, nothing else. Personally I'd rather go on my own without a govt and privately contract for everything, but I also have years experience with law specifically trust and contract law. Someone else may not find that path as appealing as I may, all a matter of opinion I find .
All I'm asking for is a govt that's not a piece of shit full of corrupt politicians bought and paid for.... That's not to much to ask is it?😉
Triggered