RE: Freedom in the 50 States

RE: Freedom in the 50 States (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:07:04 AM)
Just as long as you realize that your choices are not the choices for everyone. [;)] Its one of those silly little things that makes this country good... I would have said great... but we have dropped from that standing as seen by these 'studies'.

Nosathro -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:14:58 AM)
ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto ORIGINAL: Kirata Another magician trying to lead the audience's attention away from the topic. Can't you guys at least afford a pretty assistant? I think Kirata was referring to me as the "Another magician" fine with me, I admit it I have been to the Magic Club a few times. The Shows are great but the food dam..so little on one plate! I think that the consept of "questioning the source" is a bit much for some. California the most populated state with some 38,041,430 people came in at 48, New York with 19,570,261, just shows that freedom is relative.

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:22:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The "Map of freedom" is a fallacy designed by cherry picking only what they feel is pertinent. I understand from having been previously corrected in this regard that only your view is the truth. But if you'll forgive me for declining to subscribe to that doctrine, I would like to point out that it's not a "fallacy" to readers who agree with their choices. K. doesnt make sense that she dont get it! all she needs to do is add her choices to the list. after pointing out a cherry picked few to be true it will make an even stronger case if her additions are true as well.

MrRodgers -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:25:11 AM)
The problem arises when one can justifiably reason that the freedoms they seek are that of making the most money, paying the lowest wages, providing the fewest benefits and paying the lowest taxes. Fuck the environment, fuck you and fuck society at large, we are talking freedom baby.

Kirata -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:29:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Just as long as you realize that your choices are not the choices for everyone. That's rather strange advice considering the source. I never said that this map was the final word, or that it was incontrovertibly accurate. Yet so far, the acts in this entertaining little show have featured an indignant priestess scourging heretics for their "fallacies" and a couple of magicians trying to get the audience to watch the Koch Brothers instead of the rabbit. K.

Kirata -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:40:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The problem arises when one can justifiably reason that the freedoms they seek are that of making the most money, paying the lowest wages, providing the fewest benefits and paying the lowest taxes. Fuck the environment, fuck you and fuck society at large, we are talking freedom baby. Okay, that's a start. Or at least maybe it is. Which of their criteria would you cite in support of these claims? K.

tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:43:52 AM)
You asked what was wrong with it. I told you from the source what was wrong with it. Yet all you want to do is argue that there is nothing wrong with it because no one will point out exactly what is wrong with it. "In essence, what this study attempts to measure is the extent to which state and local public policies conform to this ideal regime of maximum, equal individual freedom.4 For us, the fundamental problem with state intervention in consensual acts is that it violates persons’ rights. To paraphrase Nozick, in a free society government permits and protects both capitalist and noncapitalist acts between consenting adults.5 Should individuals desire to “tie their own hands” and require themselves to participate in social insurance, redistributive programs, or paternalist projects, they should form communities by contract for these purposes." "We would also argue that freedom, properly understood, can be threatened as much by the weakness of the state as by overbearing state intervention. Individuals are less free the more they have reason to fear private assaults and depredations, and a useful government punishes private aggression vigorously. However, we focus on threats to individual liberty originating in the state. Therefore, we do not code the effectiveness of state governments in punishing rights violations. For instance, we do not include measures of the efficacy of state police and courts or measures of violent- and property-crime rates.6 Thus, our freedom index does not capture all aspects of freedom." Even they admit that do not cover all aspects of freedom. I dont think that is so complicated to understand that they pick and chose what aspects they do cover.

Kirata -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:53:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You asked what was wrong with it. I told you from the source what was wrong with it... Even they admit that do not cover all aspects of freedom. I dont think that is so complicated to understand that they pick and chose what aspects they do cover. Singing this little song over and over again doesn't prove that the choices they had to make are invalid, unjustified, or ill-considered. K.

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:57:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Not this nonsense again. Are they still defining having the right to negotiate a union shop as being a loss of freedom? Freedom lesson using the lay definition not the legal one. In other words [F]ree [F]rom [I]nterference instead of legally sanctioned franchise. This is how freedom [FFI] works. See Ken if you are on an island all alone you have absolute freedom. You can kill and eat anything you wish any way you wish any time you wish. Absolute indisputable sovereignty of the realm. Now some hot babe comes along and plants her cute ass within the boundaries of your island. Presuming you have some reasonable morality you would most likely contract with the woman and agree not to bar b que her. Now the second you agree not to bar b q her you just gave up certain freedoms because you might be starving and instead of having her for dinner you starve. In fact in lieu of the contract you have the obligation to starve! Now. There is the ancient prostitute joke. Where you ask someone "Would you fuck me for a million bucks", and most would say sure! Then how about for 10 dollars? After all its already determined that you would fuck for money now its just a matter of price. The moral of the story is that anytime you contract and agree to anything you gave up a right and created an obligation. It is the basis for ALL contract law and virtually all law is some form of contract and understanding. So when a group of people GRANT another group of people the right to negotiate a union shop that interferes with or tips the balance of power away from the individual in favor of the union hence creating an imbalance yes their rights have been violated due to the neglect of the GRANTOR to maintain [PROTECT] then equality [RIGHTS] by those who have the guns that gave the GRANT (of special privilege) to said contractors as well as those who negotiated the contract.

tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 10:58:35 AM)
Our definition of freedom presents specific challenges on some high-profile issues. Abortion is a critical example. By one account, the fetus is a rights-bearing person, and abortion is therefore an aggressive violation of individual rights that ought to be punished by government. By another account, the fetus does not have rights, and abortion is a permissible exercise of an individual liberty, in which case government regulation of abortion would be an unjust violation of a woman’s rights. Rather than take a stand on one side or the other (or anywhere in between), we have coded the data on state abortion restrictions but have not included the policy in our overall index. Another example is the death penalty. Some would argue that a murderer forfeits her right to life, and, therefore, state execution of a murderer does not violate a basic right to life. Others contend that the right to life can never be forfeited, or that the state should never risk taking away all the rights of innocent individuals by mistakenly executing them. State sentencing policies short of the death penalty could also be debated. We do not include the death penalty or incarceration rates in the freedom index, although we have coded the data and made them available online at http://www.statepolicyindex.com. Why does their definition prevent the inclusion of abortions of the death penalty? 1. We recognize that children and the insane must be treated differently from competent adults and also that some rights may not be alienated even by consenting adults. Yet isnt this all about the individual freedoms of consenting adults?

subrob1967 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:08:10 AM)
quote: We explicitly ground our conception of freedom on an individual-rights framework. In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.1 This understanding of freedom follows from the natural-rights liberal thought of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Robert Nozick, but it is also consistent with the rights-generating rule-utilitarianism of Herbert Spencer and others.2 In the context of the modern state, this philosophy engenders a set of normative policy prescriptions that political theorist Norman Barry characterizes as follows: Where does it say your "right" should trump mine?

tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:09:27 AM)
It doesnt. Nor does your definition of "freedom" trump my own.

Kirata -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:13:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Why does their definition prevent the inclusion of abortions of the death penalty? Why are you asking a question that they answered in the paragraphs you quoted? K.

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Our definition of freedom presents specific challenges on some high-profile issues. Abortion is a critical example. By one account, the fetus is a rights-bearing person, and abortion is therefore an aggressive violation of individual rights that ought to be punished by government. By another account, the fetus does not have rights, and abortion is a permissible exercise of an individual liberty, in which case government regulation of abortion would be an unjust violation of a woman’s rights. Rather than take a stand on one side or the other (or anywhere in between), we have coded the data on state abortion restrictions but have not included the policy in our overall index. Another example is the death penalty. Some would argue that a murderer forfeits her right to life, and, therefore, state execution of a murderer does not violate a basic right to life. Others contend that the right to life can never be forfeited, or that the state should never risk taking away all the rights of innocent individuals by mistakenly executing them. State sentencing policies short of the death penalty could also be debated. We do not include the death penalty or incarceration rates in the freedom index, although we have coded the data and made them available online at http://www.statepolicyindex.com. Why does their definition prevent the inclusion of abortions of the death penalty? 1. We recognize that children and the insane must be treated differently from competent adults and also that some rights may not be alienated even by consenting adults. Yet isnt this all about the individual freedoms of consenting adults? Taz a person is both flesh and blood and a state fictitious entity. the state version of person is not created until there is an official title given, that being the name on the BC. Even if you give your fetus a name it is not a person recognized by the state until it pops because it is handled by the state the very same way you would handle a calf or a kid goat. It does not become an asset to you until it is born. We do not have ecclesiastic law in the states so the living person inside the woman "technically" does not count. Hence abortions are not illegal. You can thank brit law and our wonderful legislators for throwing everything into one basket for you such that trusts, corporations, titles, and living people are all "persons" and equal under the law. You are and have the rights of a chattel fiction get used to it!

subrob1967 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:17:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It doesnt. Nor does your definition of "freedom" trump my own. You haven't given us your definition of freedom.

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:19:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It doesnt. Nor does your definition of "freedom" trump my own. which one is yours? absolute "free will" or "franchise to"

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:19:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Singing this little song over and over again doesn't prove that the choices they had to make are invalid, unjustified, or ill-considered. K. Yet you are singing an equally biased song yourself! The whole thing is extremely subjective and as such makes it completely invalid, biased, and also unjust.

tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Why does their definition prevent the inclusion of abortions of the death penalty? Why are you asking a question that they answered in the paragraphs you quoted? K. Possibly for the same reason you asked the following.... quote: Was there something you wanted to criticize in the criteria they use in their ratings? You know, like an actual intelligent comment addressed to the topic? I'm only asking because it may surprise you to know that some people consider personal liberty rather important. K. Even thought its also contained within. [;)]

tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It doesnt. Nor does your definition of "freedom" trump my own. You haven't given us your definition of freedom. You havent given us your definition of "right".

tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:22:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It doesnt. Nor does your definition of "freedom" trump my own. which one is yours? absolute "free will" or "franchise to" Neither and both. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02