You are a wise woman.

If a person wants freedom, they have to take the responsibility for the consequences of their every thought and action.

they are scared SPITLESS to rely on the Judgment of their own Mind!
They think it is safer to let some Politician do their thinking for them,instead making the occasional Mistake on their own!

government doesnt do anyones thinking for them

people still choose their own path, and their own consequences,, whether its a consequence of nature or of nature and Government,,,

government doesnt do anyones thinking for them

people still choose their own path, and their own consequences,, whether its a consequence of nature or of nature and Government,,,

What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument. (An example and symbol of this attitude is Galileo.)

It is from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds—from the intransigent innovators—that all of mankind’s knowledge and achievements have come. (See The Fountainhead.) It is to such minds that mankind owes its survival. (See Atlas Shrugged.)


Foggy metaphors, sloppy images, unfocused poetry, and equivocations—such as “A hungry man is not free”—do not alter the fact that only political power is the power of physical coercion.


Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.


The issue is not slavery for a “good” cause versus slavery for a “bad” cause; the issue is not dictatorship by a “good” gang versus dictatorship by a “bad” gang. The issue is freedom versus dictatorship.


A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.


If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism.


During the nineteenth century, mankind came close to economic freedom, for the first and only time in history. Observe the results. Observe also that the degree of a country’s freedom from government control, was the degree of its progress. America was the freest and achieved the most.


Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.


These two—reason and freedom—are corollaries, and their relationship is reciprocal: when men are rational, freedom wins; when men are free, reason wins.

Do not be misled . . . by an old collectivist trick which goes like this: there is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free to murder; society limits your freedom when it does not permit you to kill; therefore, society holds the right to limit your freedom in any manner it sees fit; therefore, drop the delusion of freedom—freedom is whatever society decides it is.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freedom.html

Way to go Conrad !
Msharmoney you should re-read the above as you are always using that trick. saying: ( there is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free to murder;)

This is well worth mentioning again as people are forgetting the value of independence and the personal liberty required to achieve this independence. Kudos Conrad.

Murder has nothing to do with a right, nor have I ever said it did

what I have said, and perhaps others need to reread THIS

there is no absolute RIGHT that has NO EXCEPTION< because in a world of billions, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to give EVERYONE rights that would never end up infringing upon someone elses right

so, though I have the right to speak, I dont have the right to speak that which ends in someone being harmed

though I have the right to assemble with others, I dont have the right to assemble if I Am disturbing the PEACE of others,, thus that right becomes one to a 'peaceful' asssembly,, etc,,

and what many people , in my opinion, do , is to confuse a desire as a right

whatever I DESIRE,,, should be my right, short of murder or stealing

that is not the standard by which I want the culture I live in to lower themself to,, that to me is a CHAOTIC standard that leads to decline and diminishing of actual 'COMMUNITY'

and as Long as I can vote about issues that affect our CULTURE,,,I will vote in the ways that foster the type of culture I wish to bring my children up in

and until more people vote for that egocentric culture, than vote for a SOCIETY,,,,I plan to stay planted

when we start leaning more and more to the citizen being the center of the universe, damn the society or the culture,,,

than I can plan on adapting or moving to a more suitable culture for my desires

....as can everyone else,,,

A "right" is inherent. It is not "given" to you by anyone and that includes a society or a government.

I have a right to live. (Since I am not a slave, you cannot legally kill me. If I were a slave, you may be able to legally kill me, but it is immoral to do so.)

If you believe in a God, then I will say that our rights are God given. Society or government does not give me any rights. God does.

As far as abortion is concerned, you can say that abortion is immoral if that is what you believe. However, society says it is legal.

If that is the case, then we live in and support an immoral society.

if a 'right' has not been given, than how can it be taken away

its a vague idea that has no real definition from which we can have a discussion in that case,,,,

Rights are taken away by tyranny and criminal behavior.

If I have a right to live and someone kills me then my right has been taken away.

The right to live is inherent and given by God. That is why they will let a person die naturally rather than end their life with euthanasia.

God has not given 'rights'

where is that idea from?

God , for those who believe in God, creates 'life' in the womb,, yet MAN decides at what point that LIFE has a 'right to live'


we have ACTIONS and actions have consequences, no action is an absolute 'right'

no action is free from consequence, either natural or man made

I don't believe in your concept of "GOD" or that life is created in the womb.

I believe everything is alive and God is everywhere and infinite.

If rights are "inherent" they are yours when you are born.

A person does not inherit anything until they are actually born.

Murder has EVERYTHING to do with a right!...It is the deliberate malefic infringement on the RIGHT of another to live.



There is nothing whatever vague or undefined about it, except as you choose not to see the truth.

In the absence of harmful action, your rights are intact and you have them. IF your action causes harm to an other, then you have INFRINGED on a right that they have. You have a natural DUTY to honour the rights of the others in your society. Failure in that duty is a crime.

It's really quite simple; rights and duties go hand in hand; you can only claim a right that will be recognized and honoured by the other reasonable and compassionate people in your community. You can't claim the right to murder, because no reasonable or compassionate human being would recognize it. They would see it instead as a failure in your duty to observe the right of another and the infringement of that right s/he possesses.

You only have the rights you claim if they are recognized, but there are rights you don't have to claim because they are assumed to exist. These "natural rights" are "granted" by your society and need not be claimed...These are your inherent, or "natural rights" that we all have, owing to what might be called the "implied social contract", also known as "natural law."

Geeze!...What do I have to do?...Send some people back to kindergarten to learn the law?

IM well past kindergarten logic, and all the vague descriptions still do little to truly define a 'right'

what a 'reasonable and compassionate' person would recognize

rights that are 'granted' but need not be 'claimed'

all of this is vague and ambiguous, and not a clear definition of much of anything except that a right is apparently not an 'absolute' but something with quite a few qualifiers,,,,

IF they can afford it and if they don't have a record......it's not as simple as you make it out to be.......and that's not even counting the family side of moving. You make it sound so easy, but fact is it's not.

And to me citizen rights should be paramount. Just because you don't like what someone is doing doesn't give you or anyone else the right to tell them they can't so long as them doing so isn't infringing on your rights in so doing. You wanna talk about the citizen being the center of the universe? I think the idea that YOU can dictate another's behavior just cause you disapprove is more reflective of that than them just trying to live their lives how they choose to live them.

They aren't telling you how to live, but you are trying to tell them how.....so who is really ego centered here, the people that are just trying to live their life, or those trying to take power over others?

...Then you have absolutely no concept of, and are (willfully?) ignorant of the law...What is your excuse?...I'm pretty sure you have none.

when people can agree what a 'right' is, I will agree

but for now, I am adapted to and accepting of the society where the people, by democratic republic, decide what boundaries and societal guidelines they will enforce , support, or discourage,,,

another vague response

care to actually 'explain' what the 'law' is exactly,,,...which I supposedly dont have a concept of?

seems to me the whole debate centers around what some believe should be 'law' and what others dont

and what is actually the current WRITTEN and documented legislation,,,

then you accept the open slavery of others based on the whim of people who are more worried about what others are doing than what they are, and in the end you may be accepting slavery of yourself too, whether you believe it or not matters little.

and second, if people have to agree what a right is......then no rights exist, and you don't know what the term really stands for.