As I write this I am eating a couple of sausage biscuits from McDonalds. Bring on the pork!
Nope nope - you are correct, sir. We are, perhaps, more tolerant now than at any point in our history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yendii
The American Revolutionary War was the herald of one of the largest changes in the concept of a national government in the history of the world. A nation determined that it would no longer have hereditary rulers, would no longer have a single religion, would no longer have social castes created by legislation, and would hereafter form its government and its policies based on the collective will of the people.
Very radical. It took the rest of the world centuries to catch up with us; a lot of current nations don't meet the standards we set in 1776.
But ... I have a feeling, and maybe it is only my own, that we are no longer the leaders in tolerance. We have stopped advocating tolerance and acceptance, and have started down the sticky path of trying to 'define' what it means to be American, and 'shape' what is proper and improper for an American citizen. And we are doing it through the only legal method of force we have, through politics, law, and the courts.
You don't speak english? Who gives a fuck!? Welcome to America. If you want a job in San Antonio you best be speaking Spanish.
If personal rights concerning drugs, abortion, suicide, homosexuality, tolerance for race, tolerance for religion, social tolerance, environmentalism, social protections, and political position are considered competitive virtues of a tolerant society, well, we aren't winning the gold in any category.
You are correct again, but I'm not really trying to redefine freedom in its current context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yendii
I think I mentioned in an earlier post that freedom is a one-word oxymoron. If a person has total freedom, they have the ability to do what they want whenever they want, and that would include forcing their will on other people. Ergo, for one person to have total freedom they must have the power to subjugate another person. To have true and total freedom you must have the power, ability or authority to deny someone else total freedom. This is called a dictatorship. It's not a very good starting point.
These days, when we use the word 'freedom', we generally refer to achieving, reclaiming, or winning lost 'rights' from a person or social group. The Protestants won their religious freedom from the Church of England; the slaves won their freedom from their masters; Women's Suffrage gave females the right to vote. Our history of the word 'freedom' is the history of gaining new rights that were (unlawfully?) denied us.
We have a growing culture in the United States that feels the need to define what it means to live in America.
You can't have a handgun because handguns kill people.
You can't have an abortion because they are immoral.
You can't watch violent movies because they are unhealthy.
You don't need to play paintball because it is unnecessary.
You don't need to ride a motorcycle because they are dangerous.
You can't pray in school because it is offensive.
You can't be a married homosexual because we've never allowed that.
You can't listen to explicit lyrics because they are dangerous.
You can't be nude in public because that is offensive.
You can't dive off a bridge because you might hurt yourself and then sue the city.
You can't be certain you have any rights at all because if I can successfully pass legislation I can take them away from you.
The list of things that people are trying to legislate, regulate or outlaw is ENDLESS, and is successful or unsuccessful depending on where you live. The U.S. constitution doesn't have adequate ammendments to protect a citizen's freedom of self and property.
So, if we use the word 'freedom' as gaining a freedom from an oppressor, then I say I want to gain freedom from oppressors who want to legislate what I can or cannot do. With this freedom comes responsibility, because I am responsible for myself and I am not allowed to harm, hazard, or interfere with others.
Libertarians define the foundation of freedom as the right to do what you want with your own property, beginning with your own mind and body, with freedom stopping at the point that it causes harm, hazard (or possibly aggravation) to others.
This is not a fully realized concept. Like the words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", it has no body of law to support it. But I support the idea, and that's what this conversation is all about.
Failed analogy. It's not that she was cool and sexy, it's just that she was a great person. Everyone liked her, she was always happy, always funny, always very sophisticated, always very polite. She was genuine, the embodiment of a sweetheart, it was always a comfort to work with her and I had very few words to sum up how much I liked her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yendii
We will never know if the ash-print on her forehead was the only thing that the customer disliked about her, but it was definitely the root of the argument. I knew her (and I also knew that many of the customers were ready to kill the guy), and so I can't imagine it was anything else.
You have to decide for yourself if I am objective.
Columbine. A criminal act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yendii
The root cause of death at Columbine was not religion, greed, avarice, failed parental responsibility, or access to guns - it was anger. People want to legislate responsibility so that this doesn't happen again - impossible, so we get wild stabs at gun laws and a ban on black trench coats. Fucking ridiculous, why don't we legislate what weather is acceptable so that we don't have class 4 storms hitting the Florida coast.
You can't legislate someone making fun of someone else. You can only decide for yourself if you believe that it is acceptable, and you can voice your opinion.
I can't. I don't believe in a right or wrong, I believe in a certain set of values, values which don't exist anywhere in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yendii
How can I declare the rightness of something that doesn't exist?
Were the Romans right to conquer the Greeks, ending the Greek concept of citizenship by ancestry? Was Charlemagne right to negotiate the existance of Islam and request fair treatment of Christians in Muslim countries (against the will of the Catholic Church?) Was Martin Luther right to nail his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenburg church? Was America right to start the revolution and declare independence from England, creating the foundation for American democracy? Were the Irish coal miners right to rebel against the English laws that legally tied them to the coal mines?
These are concepts that changed how we viewed our responsibilities to our fellow man. Hey, although it was legal, was it right for a man to beat his wife in 1910? Well, by today's standards, NO. But it was considered fine at the time.
I can't claim a basis of 'rightness' - I'm pushing forward a concept that doesn't exist in any national law anywhere in the world. I want to advance the idea of your own personal freedom as a worthy and correct way to move into the next centure.
I'm going to step back from saying I'm 'right' - I have nothing to measure 'rightness' against. I'll call this my crusade, though, and I do want to crusade. The banner I am carrying is twofold: It says that you, and no one else, are responsible for yourself, and that you are free to do what you want with all that is yours.
I don't support the business, within my own principles - I doubt I would shop there, and I doubt I would choose them for whatever products they offer. The flip side of that is that I cannot say the business is right or wrong, just like I'm not likely to say that a topless nightclub is right or wrong, or that Chippendale dancers are right or wrong. It's not * my * business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yendii
I do believe, though, that the business has a right to declare how their business is supposed to be run and how their employees are supposed to behave. Again, the WOMAN WAS NEVER TOLD TO NEVER EAT PORK, NOR WAS SHE TOLD SHE COULDN'T EAT PORK FOR LUNCH. She was asked not to eat pork in the fucking company lunchroom, a piece of property not owned by her.
I remember a store in Pennsylvania that catered to Amish customers - the supplies and goods were amazingly ... uh, Amish. And the place was busy. The owners weren't Amish, and less than a quarter of the employees were Amish, but there was no radio playing in the store, and the employees all wore plain, modest clothes with no buttons. The female employees all wore long skirts. They did this so as not to offend the Amish, who were their targeted customers.
Did the owner of that store have the right to dictate dress code based on the religious values of his/her customers? WHO FUCKING CARES, IT'S HIS/HER BUSINESS!
[Small subnote: The Amish are decendents of the Anabaptists, a devoutly religious sect that first put forth the idea of the seperation of Church and State. Many Anabaptists were jailed or executed because they believed that political figures, and especially judges, needed to severe all ties with church or religion before they assumed their political offices. The first Amish to hold political office in the American-English colonies were not allowed to attend their own church services, and were not allowed to speak to religious figures. Their only contact with their faith was permission to read the Bible to themselves.]
Btw, for people who think religion is the root of all the world's problems, and that we would be safer and more rationale without religion, well... China, Russia, South Korea and Cuba all declared religion illegal and jailed or executed people who were defiantly religious. In the US we've always called that behavior 'oppression'.
Do you really want improve the world through a form of social engineering? Thats what the Nazis wanted to do.
Isn't it more true that you wish that the people who call themselves Christians didn't spend so much time doing the evil and oppressive shit they are currently doing? Isn't it more true that a bunch of evil hypocrites have taken up the term 'Christianity' and pretty much fucked it into the ground for their own gratification?
It's really not for me to say. This is my crusade, if you will, and crusaders march forth based on beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yendii
I believe in the United States. I believe in the guarantee of the maximum freedom possible for the individual, and I believe that barring any artificial or political definition of freedom, freedom should begin with the individual and his property.
I believe that these freedoms should be guaranteed, and should stand impervious to politics or opinion. We live in a political democracy - did you really believe that a democracy equals freedom? Democracy has nothing to fucking do with freedom - if 300,000,000 devout muslims moved to the United States, they would be within their perfect democratic rights to legislate an Islamic state and repeal women's rights and rule by the Koran.
I will deny them that. I will deny anyone the right to dictate to anyone. But that's just me. I speak only for myself, fully proclaiming that I can prove nothing, but also ready to point out that all the other emporers are wearing the same clothes as me.
-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) ©™
P.S. Everyone needs something to believe in. Just be certain that what you believe in pure, because the Devil is looking to taint anything that is right and good and reasonable.
