5 ms·

Which is ironic since freedoms as specified in the american constitution are freedoms from. It does not grant people freedoms, instead it assumes as evident tha

Which is ironic since freedoms as specified in the american constitution are freedoms from. It does not grant people freedoms, instead it assumes as evident that people have those freedoms and imposes limitations on the government to infringe those freedoms.

PeterisP 9y ago
The problem is that it only imposes limitations on the government to infringe those freedoms; while an affirmative "freedom from X" guarantee applies to everyone who might infringe that freedom. Your fellow citizens can be just as harmful to your freedoms as the gov't; and actually maintaining any freedom requires actively limiting the freedom of other people to infringe on that, and enforcing that limitation.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  How? Less gov limitations? You cant have it both ways. Limits on government force are inverse to limits on it's people. The Bill Of Rights is a list of things we want to remember that the gov can never do (see it's preamble), it's a bit of a bug that it's called that. Gov is special, we _give_ it the ability to use violence to enforce the rules we set. Corporations don't get to use violence to enforce their rules (unless they buy the gov in a country without the 2ndA). It's a real difference. We are not forced to use a private service (which is why conservatives are so anti forced "health care"), nobody is required to use FB, or YT. Only confused (or ill) people think they are. A properly functioning system of exchange regulates this via monetary physics. FB is going to be myspace sooner or later. People learn from their mistakes if they have the freedom to make them.
  - rectang 9y ago
    You say that like the US government serves the interests of people-people and not corporation-people.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Anyone can incorporate. If that's the distinction, then it's meaningless.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      This kind of corruption in the case of the USA seems quite simple to solve. You've made it legal to buy politicians, how about changing that back? It's a start...
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        How do you propose to do it? Limit contributions by corporations? I don't see the distinction, corporations are people, I can become a one man corporation by clicking a few buttons. Money like code, is ultimately speech. I'll take that any day over the alternative limitations as long as we have legit voting and non-forced spending of money.
        fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > Money like code, is ultimately speech Money is speech and bribes are just conversations, right? "Money is speech" is a propaganda talking point pushed by those who benefit from having a lot of people eating it up. People like you. > I don't see the distinction, corporations are people Your idealogical zeal prevents you from seeing the distinction. Corporations have the buying power that people don't have, and are able to position themselves to take advantage of individual pieces of legislation to a degree that covers their politician buying plus profit. Isn't this obvious?
        jakeogh 9y ago
        If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. I could start throwing labels about your POV, but that would be a good indication that I don't have a real point to make. Saying corporations are different because they have buying power that people don't have is incorrect. There are plenty of people that can and do vastly outspend most corporations. They do this by making many corporations and using those to socially engineer the target population instead of contributing directly (this is why money is speech). It also ignores the point that corporations are made of people, and people have one vote. Politicians that do what a small group wants (a corp) vs their larger constituency get voted out (Cantored' in recent US lingo).
- rhacker 9y ago
  I definitely get this argument. In the US it is quite common for people to blast their music from their cars. It gives them "freedom to" blast their music. However it definitely takes away my "freedom from" having to hear that shit. And I think this is why young people are libs and older people are more conservative - probably the exact reason actually. When I was young I never blasted my music, but I also didn't care if others did. Now I'm older and I definitely hate hearing other's music blasting everywhere - no matter where I am. So I NOW want a government that would limit others blasting their music. It really sucks that simple things like are also things people go to war for. I'm not kidding, if the government tomorrow issued a decree saying that blasting music is punishable by 10 years in prison, the US would literally be at war and millions would die. Instead we settle for individual cities making noise ordinances and hoping that it's not challenged in court.
  - deong 9y ago
    It's interesting that, to my eye at least, we've flipped that dynamic completely. Generalizing a bit from stereos, you're talking about government limiting the rights of individuals to maintain a common good. To the extent that either end of the political spectrum can be said to support that, it's the younger, more liberal side. Modern conservatives are flying their Gadsden flags.
elcapitan 9y ago
Doesn't "freedom to" usually mean that you're enabled to do something (for example when you come from a less affluent background and the state helps you to make career with public universities). Not the "freedom to" do to other people whatever you want.

PeterisP 9y ago

The problem is that it only imposes limitations on the government to infringe those freedoms; while an affirmative "freedom from X" guarantee applies to everyone who might infringe that freedom. Your fellow citizens can be just as harmful to your freedoms as the gov't; and actually maintaining any freedom requires actively limiting the freedom of other people to infringe on that, and enforcing that limitation.

jakeogh 9y ago
How? Less gov limitations? You cant have it both ways. Limits on government force are inverse to limits on it's people. The Bill Of Rights is a list of things we want to remember that the gov can never do (see it's preamble), it's a bit of a bug that it's called that. Gov is special, we _give_ it the ability to use violence to enforce the rules we set. Corporations don't get to use violence to enforce their rules (unless they buy the gov in a country without the 2ndA). It's a real difference. We are not forced to use a private service (which is why conservatives are so anti forced "health care"), nobody is required to use FB, or YT. Only confused (or ill) people think they are. A properly functioning system of exchange regulates this via monetary physics. FB is going to be myspace sooner or later. People learn from their mistakes if they have the freedom to make them.
- rectang 9y ago
  You say that like the US government serves the interests of people-people and not corporation-people.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    Anyone can incorporate. If that's the distinction, then it's meaningless.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    This kind of corruption in the case of the USA seems quite simple to solve. You've made it legal to buy politicians, how about changing that back? It's a start...
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      How do you propose to do it? Limit contributions by corporations? I don't see the distinction, corporations are people, I can become a one man corporation by clicking a few buttons. Money like code, is ultimately speech. I'll take that any day over the alternative limitations as long as we have legit voting and non-forced spending of money.
      - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > Money like code, is ultimately speech Money is speech and bribes are just conversations, right? "Money is speech" is a propaganda talking point pushed by those who benefit from having a lot of people eating it up. People like you. > I don't see the distinction, corporations are people Your idealogical zeal prevents you from seeing the distinction. Corporations have the buying power that people don't have, and are able to position themselves to take advantage of individual pieces of legislation to a degree that covers their politician buying plus profit. Isn't this obvious?
        jakeogh 9y ago
        If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. I could start throwing labels about your POV, but that would be a good indication that I don't have a real point to make. Saying corporations are different because they have buying power that people don't have is incorrect. There are plenty of people that can and do vastly outspend most corporations. They do this by making many corporations and using those to socially engineer the target population instead of contributing directly (this is why money is speech). It also ignores the point that corporations are made of people, and people have one vote. Politicians that do what a small group wants (a corp) vs their larger constituency get voted out (Cantored' in recent US lingo).
rhacker 9y ago
I definitely get this argument. In the US it is quite common for people to blast their music from their cars. It gives them "freedom to" blast their music. However it definitely takes away my "freedom from" having to hear that shit. And I think this is why young people are libs and older people are more conservative - probably the exact reason actually. When I was young I never blasted my music, but I also didn't care if others did. Now I'm older and I definitely hate hearing other's music blasting everywhere - no matter where I am. So I NOW want a government that would limit others blasting their music. It really sucks that simple things like are also things people go to war for. I'm not kidding, if the government tomorrow issued a decree saying that blasting music is punishable by 10 years in prison, the US would literally be at war and millions would die. Instead we settle for individual cities making noise ordinances and hoping that it's not challenged in court.
- deong 9y ago
  It's interesting that, to my eye at least, we've flipped that dynamic completely. Generalizing a bit from stereos, you're talking about government limiting the rights of individuals to maintain a common good. To the extent that either end of the political spectrum can be said to support that, it's the younger, more liberal side. Modern conservatives are flying their Gadsden flags.

elcapitan 9y ago

Doesn't "freedom to" usually mean that you're enabled to do something (for example when you come from a less affluent background and the state helps you to make career with public universities). Not the "freedom to" do to other people whatever you want.