100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why do People Vote Against Freedom? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
So you think, but if you can't see........that's not my problem. You'll realize one day.......  The fact that msharmony disagrees with you doesn't mean that she "can't see". Let me explain thing in "Star Trek" terms. At times, the needs of the community outweigh the desire of the individual to have absolute freedom. When you live in a community, you bear some responsibility for maintaining what the community needs. Otherwise, if you receive benefits from the community without helping the community maintain its needs, then you are a free-loader. If you don't want to be a free-loader, and yet, you want to have absolute freedom, then you should live as a hermit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People vote against freedom because they prefer being told what to do by people they don't like and don't respect either because they think there's something in it for them, because they never grew up enough to parent themselves, or because slavery is all they've ever known and they fear the vast and unknown expanse called liberty. people vote for a civil, safe, and equal environment people who feel those things should be sacrificed for the sake of being 'free' to do whatever they want,, call it voting against freedom Ayn Rand sacrifice is a part of life as is compromise, the man who tries to live without it wishes to live against the laws of survival, in a fantasy where the universe revolves only around himself,,,, msharmony Except those taking don't WANT compromise, they want total power, and they'll get it because of people like you who won't stand up against them and tell them no when they step too far. It's one thing to make sacrifices in a moment that will benefit you in that moment, done rationally. It's another to give up thing after thing after thing blindly, not asking why or questioning those asking for it. Guess which side you're on? assume and generalize much? who are the 'they' I dont stand up against? and what is it Im supposed to be 'against'? when I compromise or sacrifice, I know exactly why, its not done blindly at all... So you think, but if you can't see........that's not my problem. You'll realize one day....... and if you don't know who the "they" is or what you should be against......I'm not gonna waste my breath trying to explain, not worth it. You figure it out. I will take the continued generalization as not being able to actually answer the question, I believe any 'they' I need to stand up to is my own business, I stand up for whatever I believe in or is important to me, just like most people that its not important to me to live in a society where everyone does ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they wish that doesnt 'harm' (how vague a standard is that) doesnt mean I dont stand up for the things that are important assumptions to the contrary and leaps of logic that I dont stand up are flawed,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you live in a community, you bear some responsibility for maintaining what the community needs. Otherwise, if you receive benefits from the community without helping the community maintain its needs, then you are a free-loader. That's what the welfare hos do and folks, Gubament got no money, still give 'em money to sit on they a$$es and play on the computer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ignorance , it isnt just for 'hos'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welfare hos only think of what they want and need. They will vote according to that idiotology.
They could give a rat's a$$ how the community is just as long as the gibmemo programs thrive. That is a very good reason only property owners should be allowed a vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welfare hos only think of what they want and need. They will vote according to that idiotology. They could give a rat's a$$ how the community is just as long as the gibmemo programs thrive. That is a very good reason only property owners should be allowed a vote. As I see it, libertarian extremists can also be prone to thinking only about what they want and need. I discovered that fact during the short time that I was a members of the USA's Libertarian Party. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 03/29/13 08:59 PM
|
|
So you think, but if you can't see........that's not my problem. You'll realize one day....... The fact that msharmony disagrees with you doesn't mean that she "can't see". Let me explain thing in "Star Trek" terms. At times, the needs of the community outweigh the desire of the individual to have absolute freedom. When you live in a community, you bear some responsibility for maintaining what the community needs. Otherwise, if you receive benefits from the community without helping the community maintain its needs, then you are a free-loader. If you don't want to be a free-loader, and yet, you want to have absolute freedom, then you should live as a hermit. \ Is clear you fail to see as much she does...........but that's your progorative.....just don't blame those that tried to open your eyes when you realize what you've bought into. You're either free to live as you choose in your personal live, or you are a slave to someone elses whims, can't be both. Sorry if that bursts your utopian bubble but it just can't happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People vote against freedom because they prefer being told what to do by people they don't like and don't respect either because they think there's something in it for them, because they never grew up enough to parent themselves, or because slavery is all they've ever known and they fear the vast and unknown expanse called liberty. people vote for a civil, safe, and equal environment people who feel those things should be sacrificed for the sake of being 'free' to do whatever they want,, call it voting against freedom Ayn Rand sacrifice is a part of life as is compromise, the man who tries to live without it wishes to live against the laws of survival, in a fantasy where the universe revolves only around himself,,,, msharmony Except those taking don't WANT compromise, they want total power, and they'll get it because of people like you who won't stand up against them and tell them no when they step too far. It's one thing to make sacrifices in a moment that will benefit you in that moment, done rationally. It's another to give up thing after thing after thing blindly, not asking why or questioning those asking for it. Guess which side you're on? assume and generalize much? who are the 'they' I dont stand up against? and what is it Im supposed to be 'against'? when I compromise or sacrifice, I know exactly why, its not done blindly at all... So you think, but if you can't see........that's not my problem. You'll realize one day....... and if you don't know who the "they" is or what you should be against......I'm not gonna waste my breath trying to explain, not worth it. You figure it out. I will take the continued generalization as not being able to actually answer the question, Oh I could answer the questions, but it'd be wasted on the likes of you, because anyone who has tried to wake you up has not been heard. No point. You stay in your fantasy world if you want, I've pretty much stopped caring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 03/29/13 09:10 PM
|
|
Oh and I am not someone who is wanting to state to pay me anything......I don't think ANY of us should be dependent on the state, for money, for rights, for the ability to tell us what to do, or anything else. I am for personal responsibility.......I know that's a dirty term I know.....but that's what I support. Government needs to do one thing and one thing only, SERVE its' public. Dictating and making people dependent on them is not serving, that's controlling.
Frankly, you say I should be a hermit if I want absolute freedom? Maybe that's not a bad idea......cause it's easier to pull away from everyone than have to deal with ignorant people all the time......... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People vote against freedom because they prefer being told what to do by people they don't like and don't respect either because they think there's something in it for them, because they never grew up enough to parent themselves, or because slavery is all they've ever known and they fear the vast and unknown expanse called liberty. people vote for a civil, safe, and equal environment people who feel those things should be sacrificed for the sake of being 'free' to do whatever they want,, call it voting against freedom Ayn Rand sacrifice is a part of life as is compromise, the man who tries to live without it wishes to live against the laws of survival, in a fantasy where the universe revolves only around himself,,,, msharmony Except those taking don't WANT compromise, they want total power, and they'll get it because of people like you who won't stand up against them and tell them no when they step too far. It's one thing to make sacrifices in a moment that will benefit you in that moment, done rationally. It's another to give up thing after thing after thing blindly, not asking why or questioning those asking for it. Guess which side you're on? assume and generalize much? who are the 'they' I dont stand up against? and what is it Im supposed to be 'against'? when I compromise or sacrifice, I know exactly why, its not done blindly at all... So you think, but if you can't see........that's not my problem. You'll realize one day....... and if you don't know who the "they" is or what you should be against......I'm not gonna waste my breath trying to explain, not worth it. You figure it out. I will take the continued generalization as not being able to actually answer the question, Oh I could answer the questions, but it'd be wasted on the likes of you, because anyone who has tried to wake you up has not been heard. No point. You stay in your fantasy world if you want, I've pretty much stopped caring. people cant open my eyes when theres are only looking at the spot directly in front of them and the question cant be answered, beause there is no actual answer if there was, we would be discussing specific things people have voted for,, instead of the emotionally vague topic of voting 'against freedom' the bottom line is that what is 'harmful' is a standard that people dont agree on and when your only standard is that people just not 'harm' one another, there is no way to be specific without being totally subjective as the standard of 'harm' is,, totally subjective,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and I am not someone who is wanting to state to pay me anything......I don't think ANY of us should be dependent on the state, for money, for rights, for the ability to tell us what to do, or anything else. I am for personal responsibility.......I know that's a dirty term I know.....but that's what I support. Government needs to do one thing and one thing only, SERVE its' public. Dictating and making people dependent on them is not serving, that's controlling. Frankly, you say I should be a hermit if I want absolute freedom? Maybe that's not a bad idea......cause it's easier to pull away from everyone than have to deal with ignorant people all the time......... or one can take the good parts from people instead of dwelling on the doom and gloom and snubbing their nose at differences in opinion,,, in no world will everyone agree, if that means those who dont agree with us are 'ignorant',, than maybe it is better for everyone if we do live in a solitary bubble,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frederick Douglass learned that there Consequences to listening and not listening to the advice of others. In his Autobios, the Advice he often got from other Slaves was that Running Away wasn't a Good Thing because Only Master Could Provide; he rejected that advice, and we all give thanks that he did. He was told Not to Name Names in his First Autobio, he did and had to Flee to England to remain Free, from where his Freedom was bought and he was given the money to start his own Paper; against the advise of his Fellow Abolitionist. He was advised to "Trust the Better Educated Abolitionist", even that of the Black Abolitionist who Grew Up in the North and attended the Universities; he Turned Down that Advice and became one of the Most Powerful Advocates Against Slavery & Jim Crow. There were times he paid a steep and painful price for Not Listening to the Advice given by others, even lost some Dear Friends over it; But he Moved Mountains by Deciding for Himself how to Live His Own Life. One thing about Douglass, he made a lot of Abolitions upset with him because he would speak out against their "Now, Now Little Runaway, You Just Sit Back and Let Us Take Care of You" attitude; the same sort of attitude that's behind today's Welfare & Nanny State. Because Douglass was his own man, many Abolitionists Mock, Ridiculed, Belittled and made Fun of the him; as I look around, the only Douglass-Like Men I see Standing out in the Black Community are Herman Cain and Dr. Ben Carson along with a few others, and they're getting the same Treatment. It is amazing what one learns from Reading Books; Life & Times of Frederick Douglass, by Frederick Douglass is less than a $1 as a E-Book and well worth the read; if more Blacks would Read Douglass, and Booker T. Washington, the Jessie Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world would be Ignored. People do read about frederick douglas and some people do 'ignore' jessie jackson and al sharpton however, others realize that even all three of these different men would have agreed on some things,, and choose to listen to what makes sense and discard the rest, regardless of who is speaking,,,, People only read Douglass' First Autobio (A Good Read) Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass; he wrote two others, after he had a shift in his Political Beliefs and altered his argument; which made a lot of his Abolitionists Friends turn on him while he was becoming even more effective in fighting Slavery. People don't read "My Bondage My Freedom" or "Life and Times of Frederick Douglass" (Both Books are only $1 as an E-Book and well worth the Read) which he wrote After Declaring the U.S. Constitution is One of the "Greatest Anti-Slavery Document Ever Written" that he had Ever Read; I wonder why that isn't taught in Schools? You should have heard the Outrage when my son wrote a Book Report on Life & Times as his History Teacher was Spitting Mad that My Son wrote a Report on the Wrong Book by Douglass; but he wrote it about 10yrs before he died and it was his Final Autobio. If Frederick Douglass was alive today, and I'm basing this on his Autobios, he'd be calling the Welfare State Slavery; Jackson, Sharpton, and the NAACP would be giving him the same Treatment as Herman Cain & Ben Carson. Herman Cain and Ben carson are no frederick douglas,,, Would Frederick Douglass be welcomed by the persons of the Black Community as it is now is, or would he be called an Oreo, an Uncle Tom, a Sellout, and all the other names that are thrown around by the Political Left; just as Douglass was Ridiculed and Mocked in his own day when his views on the Constitution took a 180 because he took the time to read it, Madison's notes on the Convention, and the Federalists Papers? If some Sky Spirit sent Douglass back to live among us, The Jackson, Sharpton, & the NAACP would set out to Discredit Everything he Ever Did for Civil Rights & the Ending of Slavery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frederick Douglass learned that there Consequences to listening and not listening to the advice of others. In his Autobios, the Advice he often got from other Slaves was that Running Away wasn't a Good Thing because Only Master Could Provide; he rejected that advice, and we all give thanks that he did. He was told Not to Name Names in his First Autobio, he did and had to Flee to England to remain Free, from where his Freedom was bought and he was given the money to start his own Paper; against the advise of his Fellow Abolitionist. He was advised to "Trust the Better Educated Abolitionist", even that of the Black Abolitionist who Grew Up in the North and attended the Universities; he Turned Down that Advice and became one of the Most Powerful Advocates Against Slavery & Jim Crow. There were times he paid a steep and painful price for Not Listening to the Advice given by others, even lost some Dear Friends over it; But he Moved Mountains by Deciding for Himself how to Live His Own Life. One thing about Douglass, he made a lot of Abolitions upset with him because he would speak out against their "Now, Now Little Runaway, You Just Sit Back and Let Us Take Care of You" attitude; the same sort of attitude that's behind today's Welfare & Nanny State. Because Douglass was his own man, many Abolitionists Mock, Ridiculed, Belittled and made Fun of the him; as I look around, the only Douglass-Like Men I see Standing out in the Black Community are Herman Cain and Dr. Ben Carson along with a few others, and they're getting the same Treatment. It is amazing what one learns from Reading Books; Life & Times of Frederick Douglass, by Frederick Douglass is less than a $1 as a E-Book and well worth the read; if more Blacks would Read Douglass, and Booker T. Washington, the Jessie Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world would be Ignored. People do read about frederick douglas and some people do 'ignore' jessie jackson and al sharpton however, others realize that even all three of these different men would have agreed on some things,, and choose to listen to what makes sense and discard the rest, regardless of who is speaking,,,, People only read Douglass' First Autobio (A Good Read) Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass; he wrote two others, after he had a shift in his Political Beliefs and altered his argument; which made a lot of his Abolitionists Friends turn on him while he was becoming even more effective in fighting Slavery. People don't read "My Bondage My Freedom" or "Life and Times of Frederick Douglass" (Both Books are only $1 as an E-Book and well worth the Read) which he wrote After Declaring the U.S. Constitution is One of the "Greatest Anti-Slavery Document Ever Written" that he had Ever Read; I wonder why that isn't taught in Schools? You should have heard the Outrage when my son wrote a Book Report on Life & Times as his History Teacher was Spitting Mad that My Son wrote a Report on the Wrong Book by Douglass; but he wrote it about 10yrs before he died and it was his Final Autobio. If Frederick Douglass was alive today, and I'm basing this on his Autobios, he'd be calling the Welfare State Slavery; Jackson, Sharpton, and the NAACP would be giving him the same Treatment as Herman Cain & Ben Carson. Herman Cain and Ben carson are no frederick douglas,,, Would Frederick Douglass be welcomed by the persons of the Black Community as it is now is, or would he be called an Oreo, an Uncle Tom, a Sellout, and all the other names that are thrown around by the Political Left; just as Douglass was Ridiculed and Mocked in his own day when his views on the Constitution took a 180 because he took the time to read it, Madison's notes on the Convention, and the Federalists Papers? If some Sky Spirit sent Douglass back to live among us, The Jackson, Sharpton, & the NAACP would set out to Discredit Everything he Ever Did for Civil Rights & the Ending of Slavery. is there some reason that the 'black community' would all have to welcome douglas or any other person some would agree with him and some wouldnt, some would be civilized about it and some would behave ignorantly,,, and I dont know of anyone whom jackson, sharpton, or the naacp has tried to discredit 'everything' they have done ,,,,,people agree, people disagree,,,'the black community' is full of people like any other,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Fri 03/29/13 11:10 PM
|
|
people cant open my eyes when theres are only looking at the spot directly in front of them and the question cant be answered, beause there is no actual answer False. The question can't be answered to you satisfaction because (for whatever reason) you refuse to look at the answer. if there was, we would be discussing specific things people have voted for,, instead of the emotionally vague topic of voting 'against freedom' It is only "vague" in your mind. Most other people see it quite clearly. the bottom line is that what is 'harmful' is a standard that people dont agree on I think every rational mind can agree on what constitutes "harm"...Killing somebody simply because you didn't like him/her is universally recognized as murder, a form of "harm" Burning ants with a magnifying glass to watch them fry is also causing harm, as is picking a posey to simply sniff it and toss away. These are ALL forms of "harm", but only the first is universally considered a crime. It seems most people consider causing unnecessary suffering & death to another organism for selfish purposes as inconsequential. I do not consider it so...I have too much respect for life for that, even though I used to fry ants as a kid, and picked & sniffed flowers with reckless abandon. I know better now, so I don't do it anymore. (I still kill things, but only when necessary - like to eat) While there are undoubtedly a few devout buddhists in the US, I dare say they are few enough in number as to not persuade congress that there should be a statute forcing people to sweep the ground before them as they walk, so as not to negligently kill innocent insects. and when your only standard is that people just not 'harm' one another, there is no way to be specific without being totally subjective as the standard of 'harm' is,, totally subjective,,, As noted above, there is nothing subjective about "harm." The only thing that's subjective is the cutoff point on the slippery slope that divides "notable" harm from "inconsequential" harm. That cutoff point is entirely subjective and unique to the individual. It is based on the degree of an individual's ignorance, negligence, and/or hypocrisy. whether notable or inconsequential, it is still "harm." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 03/29/13 11:19 PM
|
|
people cant open my eyes when theres are only looking at the spot directly in front of them and the question cant be answered, beause there is no actual answer False. The question can't be answered to you satisfaction because (for whatever reason) you refuse to look at the answer. if there was, we would be discussing specific things people have voted for,, instead of the emotionally vague topic of voting 'against freedom' It is only "vague" in your mind. Most other people see it quite clearly. the bottom line is that what is 'harmful' is a standard that people dont agree on I think every rational mind can agree on what constitutes "harm"...Killing somebody simply because you didn't like him/her is universally recognized as murder, a form of "harm" Burning ants with a magnifying glass to watch them fry is also causing harm, as is picking a posey to simply sniff it and toss away. These are ALL forms of "harm", but only the first is universally considered a crime. It seems most people consider causing unnecessary suffering & death to another organism for selfish purposes as inconsequential. I do not consider it so...I have too much respect for life for that, even though I used to fry ants as a kid, and picked & sniffed flowers with reckless abandon. I know better now, so I don't do it anymore. (I still kill things, but only when necessary - like to eat) While there are undoubtedly a few devout buddhists in the US, I dare say they are few enough in number as to not persuade congress that there should be a statute forcing people to sweep the ground before them as they walk, so as not to negligently kill innocent insects. and when your only standard is that people just not 'harm' one another, there is no way to be specific without being totally subjective as the standard of 'harm' is,, totally subjective,,, As noted above, there is nothing subjective about "harm." The only thing that's subjective is the cutoff point on the slippery slope that divides "notable" harm from "inconsequential" harm. That cutoff point is entirely subjective and unique to the individual. It is based on the degree of an individual's ignorance, negligence, and/or hypocrisy. whether notable or inconsequential, it is still "harm." not exactly, the question cant be answered because there is no detail to respond to,,, the question is too vague to have an answer as it is a loaded question much like 'when did you stop beating your wife?' the question is leading with an assumption that something is true without any room for discussion about whether the assumption is correct in the first place,,, since noone has stated that we should do no 'notable' harm,,,,,,the term harm by itself remains vague,,,,in the context of a discussion on what constitutes freedom the argument that people should be free to do whatever they wish that doesnt 'harm' another, is therefore not specific in whether the restriction only applies to notable or incosequential harm leaving us back at the beginning, because even if it did specify which, it would be a SUBJECTIVE standard by which to set cultural values and laws,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Fri 03/29/13 11:56 PM
|
|
people cant open my eyes when theres are only looking at the spot directly in front of them and the question cant be answered, beause there is no actual answer False. The question can't be answered to you satisfaction because (for whatever reason) you refuse to look at the answer. if there was, we would be discussing specific things people have voted for,, instead of the emotionally vague topic of voting 'against freedom' It is only "vague" in your mind. Most other people see it quite clearly. the bottom line is that what is 'harmful' is a standard that people dont agree on I think every rational mind can agree on what constitutes "harm"...Killing somebody simply because you didn't like him/her is universally recognized as murder, a form of "harm" Burning ants with a magnifying glass to watch them fry is also causing harm, as is picking a posey to simply sniff it and toss away. These are ALL forms of "harm", but only the first is universally considered a crime. It seems most people consider causing unnecessary suffering & death to another organism for selfish purposes as inconsequential. I do not consider it so...I have too much respect for life for that, even though I used to fry ants as a kid, and picked & sniffed flowers with reckless abandon. I know better now, so I don't do it anymore. (I still kill things, but only when necessary - like to eat) While there are undoubtedly a few devout buddhists in the US, I dare say they are few enough in number as to not persuade congress that there should be a statute forcing people to sweep the ground before them as they walk, so as not to negligently kill innocent insects. and when your only standard is that people just not 'harm' one another, there is no way to be specific without being totally subjective as the standard of 'harm' is,, totally subjective,,, As noted above, there is nothing subjective about "harm." The only thing that's subjective is the cutoff point on the slippery slope that divides "notable" harm from "inconsequential" harm. That cutoff point is entirely subjective and unique to the individual. It is based on the degree of an individual's ignorance, negligence, and/or hypocrisy. whether notable or inconsequential, it is still "harm." not exactly, the question cant be answered because there is no detail to respond to,,, the question is too vague to have an answer as it is a loaded question much like 'when did you stop beating your wife?' the question is leading with an assumption that something is true without any room for discussion about whether the assumption is correct in the first place,,, since noone has stated that we should do no 'notable' harm,,,,,,the term harm by itself remains vague,,,,in the context of a discussion on what constitutes freedom the argument that people should be free to do whatever they wish that doesnt 'harm' another, is therefore not specific in whether the restriction only applies to notable or incosequential harm leaving us back at the beginning, because even if it did specify which, it would be a SUBJECTIVE standard by which to set cultural values and laws,,,, First specify exactly what question you are asking and i'll try to answer it as best I can. In the meantime I'll try to expound on the comments you just made: the question is leading with an assumption that something is true without any room for discussion about whether the assumption is correct in the first place,,, That is called a self evident truth...That is an assumption taken to be so intuitively true that it is considered a SELF EVIDENT truth. If it is not provable in logical terms, it is an AXIOM, which is basically a Gödel sentence. Provable axioms aren't axioms at all, they are theorems derived from axioms. That which is considered self evident might be either a theorem or an axiom. Are you trying to disprove what might be an axiom (impossible), or trying to disprove a logical theorem (also impossible), or are you just being obstinate to keep an argument going? the term harm by itself remains vague,,,,in the context of a discussion on what constitutes freedom What's so tough? You are perfectly free to get up in the morning and go about your day without interference or obstruction of any kind aren't you?...That's freedom. It comes with a price though. The price is your DUTY to not interfere with ANYONE else trying to go about their daily business. Doing so causes them harm and is an infringement of their right to liberty, which would make you liable to damages and possibly criminal charges. that people should be free to do whatever they wish that doesnt 'harm' another, is therefore not specific in whether the restriction only applies to notable or incosequential harm The restriction applies to ALL harm, though most people are hypocritical enough as to discount the harm they do. In more technical terms, you might not like somebody burping at the table, but he is causing no harm by doing so...unless you were having your boss over for dinner and he did it for the malicious purpose of deliberately causing you to lose out on a probable promotion. At that point he is causing you harm by simply burping at the table...You could have recourse in the courts if you can prove damages (based on a preponderance of the evidence). One might say that the facts will determine whether or not "harm" is either notable, inconsequential, or non-existent. it would be a SUBJECTIVE standard by which to set cultural values and laws You have to remember that the culture itself (the society in which you live) dynamically determines its cultural values & "laws". The "standard" is set by the attitude of the majority without respect to so-called "government laws", which may or may not reflect the values of the society. Any government that does not respect the will of the people in making its "laws" is an illegitimate one and a tyranny that should be deposed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/30/13 12:21 AM
|
|
we could edit that to two points that sum up exactly what I was sayin
If it is not provable in logical terms.......(which it isnt) Any government that does not respect the will of the people in making its "laws" is an illegitimate one and a tyranny that should be deposed. I agree wholeheartedly especially since 'the people' are made up of hundreds of millions of people, its not expected that EACH INDIVIDUAL in that group we call 'the people' is going to have their 'will' catered to,,,, but back to a more debatable question,, what freedom exactly have people voted against? and how is it ascertained that they were giving a negative vote to 'freedom' as opposed to giving a positive to something else? for instance, as an extreme hypothetical If there were a vote between either allowing children to go to school with an education that included shooting guns properly,, or not allowing them an education I would be voting for the education, not because I am in SUPPORT of shooting ghuns, but because I am not in support of the absence of any education,,,,, so people vote issues, and whether someone else percieves the issue to be about 'freedom' doesnt mean that was the basis of the other persons vote,,,,more of that 'compromise' and sacrifice adults sometimes have to make in life the nature of an environment where 'the people' have a vote, contradicts the idea of being a 'slave',,,slaves just serve, with no vote,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what freedom exactly have people voted against? and how is it ascertained that they were giving a negative vote to 'freedom' as opposed to giving a positive to something else? If they have voted for the illusion of safety as a result of overblown paranoia-generating propaganda (encouraged by a for-profit military Industrial complex that sells arms and needs wars to make money say), for instance, they might vote for a government that promises to protect them from all the enemies they have made starting wars of aggression for profit. With the people footing the bill for their own "protection" (and to subsidize the aforementioned corporations to boost their profit even more), there are bound to be some people more than a little bit unhappy about their taxes going up so more "enemies" could be killed around the world, all for the sake of profit that the people themselves never even see. They might even get more upset when they are told the enemy is practically hiding under their bed, waiting to kill them (enemies are everywhere paranoia). I can see why some might get upset when they are told they can't trust anyone, whether friend, neighbour, or even family...anyone could be a "terrorist", so everyone must be watched and it becomes your civic "duty" to inform on others for doing just about anything "out of the norm" (which of course includes saying anything bad about the "Fearless Leader", who is, after all, only trying to protect everyone from finding out about the MIC kickbacks.) Of course, if nobody is to be trusted, and the country is now infested with "rebels" (people who care and value freedom), "sovereign citizens" (people who know that it is the people themselves who are supposed to be in charge and that everyone capable should be self-governing), murderous criminals (an MIC supporting intelligence or policing agency), and... I could go on & on...Do I have to?...Surely by now you get the point that a vote for "safety" is a vote against freedom, and that ol' Ben franklin was right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberals don't care about liberty just as long as there are the gibmedat programs.
As if the world owes them something.  Want a life? Get off yer a$$, off the computer and get out and hustle up a life. Quit depending on others to do it for you. Dumba$$ libs. Gotta' esplain everthang to 'em. How old is too old to abort libs? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 03/30/13 05:09 AM
|
|
People vote against freedom because they prefer being told what to do by people they don't like and don't respect either because they think there's something in it for them, because they never grew up enough to parent themselves, or because slavery is all they've ever known and they fear the vast and unknown expanse called liberty. people vote for a civil, safe, and equal environment people who feel those things should be sacrificed for the sake of being 'free' to do whatever they want,, call it voting against freedom Ayn Rand sacrifice is a part of life as is compromise, the man who tries to live without it wishes to live against the laws of survival, in a fantasy where the universe revolves only around himself,,,, msharmony Only the Collectivist Creed can demand that you jump into the sacrificial Furnace of your own free will,and build the Furnace yourself as well! Look around you,and see what that creed has brought you! http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html |
|
|
|
|
