Sacrifices to save liberty? (middle east, generations, independence, terrorism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, the law that makes it illegal to throw your garbage in the street is a restriction on your liberty but it protects the rest of us from living with your trash.
As Adam Smith said, "Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."
When we live in a society, there are common rules that we all must live by in order to better our collective lives. Some think that any restriction on their liberty is an unreasonable restriction on their liberty. It just isn't so. Your right to wave your arms stops at my nose.
Which goes hand in hand with your personal liberty, ends at my personal liberty.
Common Law and the laws of nature, working as designed.
My liberty has a choice to confront you or not, if your liberty infringes on mine.
Which goes hand in hand with your personal liberty, ends at my personal liberty.
Common Law and the laws of nature, working as designed.
My liberty has a choice to confront you or not, if your liberty infringes on mine.
That's precisely why we have laws and government, so that I don't have to confront you and you don't have to confront me.
Yes, the precedence was set long ago and holds true today.
Remember the father that recently caught his employee, molesting his daughter?
He beat the man to death. No charges filed.
Okay...I've asked the same question a number of times, and you seem to be avoiding it like the plauge.
Your example (and I do remember it) was where the father walked in on the employee molesting his child. He witnessed it and acted to defend his child as the crime was happening. We have already clarified that you are in favor of self defense several times. Answering a different question over and over doesn't inspire confidence.
What I have asked several times is what happened if the criminal was not caught in the act?
If they found out days, or even weeks, later with conclusive evidence it happened. In your OP you derided legal punishment because it happened after the fact. So if the father did not catch the employee in the act of trying to molest his daughter...how do you go after them if punishment after the fact is against liberty?
I am just using this one example to keep a focus on the question. It can be used anywhere where a victim is not able to defend themselves. Such as your house burned down or robbed while you are away, a child abducted on an empty street, or shooting of a hunting buddy in the woods in the back without anyone nearby. In each of these the victim cannot fight back directly at the time of the commission of the crime, and reading your OP the victim would be at fault and the criminal would get away without punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
I know you don't understand Common Law v. Statutory Law.
That is why we are having this debate about liberty and what it is.
Education is always a good thing to have during a debate.
My education and experiance is tested and proven to what the world agrees as standard measures. Your opinion of what these terms and ideals differ significantly from the rest of the worlds. I am trying to clarify what would happen with your ideals in other scenarios, but you aren't educating anyone...you are avoiding the question.
Please answer what would happen to a criminal if the victim cannot defend themselves, or they don't have some one to defend them, during the commission of the crime. Quit avoiding the question.
The rules of nature have been there since the beginning of time.
Liberty for all is just that, or it isn't.
Statutory Law is used to take and control liberty, with intervention.
Common Law is liberty.
Okay...I've asked the same question a number of times, and you seem to be avoiding it like the plauge.
Your example (and I do remember it) was where the father walked in on the employee molesting his child. He witnessed it and acted to defend his child as the crime was happening. We have already clarified that you are in favor of self defense several times. Answering a different question over and over doesn't inspire confidence.
What I have asked several times is what happened if the criminal was not caught in the act?
If they found out days, or even weeks, later with conclusive evidence it happened. In your OP you derided legal punishment because it happened after the fact. So if the father did not catch the employee in the act of trying to molest his daughter...how do you go after them if punishment after the fact is against liberty?
I am just using this one example to keep a focus on the question. It can be used anywhere where a victim is not able to defend themselves. Such as your house burned down or robbed while you are away, a child abducted on an empty street, or shooting of a hunting buddy in the woods in the back without anyone nearby. In each of these the victim cannot fight back directly at the time of the commission of the crime, and reading your OP the victim would be at fault and the criminal would get away without punishment.
My education and experiance is tested and proven to what the world agrees as standard measures. Your opinion of what these terms and ideals differ significantly from the rest of the worlds. I am trying to clarify what would happen with your ideals in other scenarios, but you aren't educating anyone...you are avoiding the question.
Please answer what would happen to a criminal if the victim cannot defend themselves, or they don't have some one to defend them, during the commission of the crime. Quit avoiding the question.
What happens after the act is committed. Justice is still served if your liberty infringed on another individuals liberty. Revenge is one way, or the courts with a jury of peers.
Caught in the act and caught with evidence and observations, you are still caught. One buys time over the other. Revenge is justice, one way or another.
Think about it this way. It is not illegal until you get caught.
What kind of sacrifices are you willing to make, to save liberty for all Americans?
Can you describe liberty?
Every law made, is a restriction placed on individual liberty.
Why just Americans? liberty is an idea for everyone, not just Americans. The USA is a country that perhaps suppose to represent ideas like liberty, but while liberty will always remain a constant, the ideas America represents can slowly change over time; that is why it is dangerous to have allegience to a country, not an idea.
Laws are made/should be made, to protect liberty. The only debate there should be is what is liberty; one person's liberty may be another person's burden. Also, there is the issue that some peoople do not like some shapes or form of liberty, and are comfortable lving under authoritarianism in some form, and do not mind at all trying to make others do the same.
Defending ones personal liberty is all about choice.
Rape, murder, and pedophilia ... Think about that. Think about courts, for after laws are broken.
What about the second it happens.
The laws of nature have always been with us. Do you know the difference in Common Law v. Statutory Law?
The US Constitution is based upon the laws of nature. Why do you think we became the strongest nation in the world? The strong survived and the weak were culled. It was up to them to survive, not their king.
What should be the consequences of someone who rapes a two year old? Nothing if that person is not
caught in the act? How can a two year old defend their 'personal liberty'?
I would never, ever want to live in the world that you envision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
Just trying to clarify.
- So if a parent catches some one trying to rape their child, they are allowed to murder them.
- If the parent isn't there, the child deserves it because they are weak (like the issue with the priests molesting kids).
- Laws are terrible because they are after the fact, and should be repealed.
No, I don't understand your version of Common Law v. Statutory Law because it's unique to you. This ideal is certainly not in any agreed upon definition of the terms. Every time I try and clarify you just insult me and tell me I don't know your version of that difference that exists only in your head. I am not sorry that I am not a mind reader, and don't just accept your version of what should happen just because.
Because it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
What happens after the act is committed. Justice is still served if your liberty infringed on another individuals liberty. Revenge is one way, or the courts with a jury of peers.
Caught in the act and caught with evidence and observations, you are still caught. One buys time over the other. Revenge is justice, one way or another.
Think about it this way. It is not illegal until you get caught.
What happens after the act is committed. Justice is still served if your liberty infringed on another individuals liberty. Revenge is one way, or the courts with a jury of peers.
Caught in the act and caught with evidence and observations, you are still caught. One buys time over the other. Revenge is justice, one way or another.
Well, a court can't convict you of something not against the law. If you think laws impinge on liberty, and should be done away with, how can you convict people of breaking what doesn't exist? That doesn't make sense.
Vigilante behavior happens when the government is ineffective at enforcing the law in the first place. It's proved to be bad at chosing between the guilty and the innocent (certainly against Hardel Haynes liberty), and often fueled by extreme passions. So instead of a legal force of professionals, you want individuals and mobs to go around exacting justice on people with impunity? Seriously?
That sounds like we are going back before frontier days. Even in the frontier days they had loosely organized law enforcement, due process, and legal systems. Revenge is not justice, it just begets more violence...which is why every civilized society ended it in favor of a lawful society. There is nothing in liberty about exacting revenge after and real, or perceived, injustice by others.
All this diversion begs to question, what kind of sacrifices are you willing to make, to save liberty for all Americans?
Are you able to answer your own question? I am willing to give up sugar for liberty, but then that would be an infringement on my liberty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
