3 ms·

I find it strange compare the laws of a state to others and say things like, "It's pretty good compared to..." They are different government types, founded on

I find it strange compare the laws of a state to others and say things like, "It's pretty good compared to..." They are different government types, founded on different laws, containing different people, and so on. The United States was founded on the idea of "freedom" so, it seems strange to require anything on you, unless it impedes others freedoms.

bgilroy26 12y ago
If you found a nation on an idea, the specifics of the idea are going to be hammered out. Both the idea of "freedom" and the idea of impeding others' freedoms have been specified in US legislation and in the case history of the US court system. Without going through and clarifying what freedom and impeding freedom mean in different situations, the US economy could not exist at its present size. Investors can be confident that life will go smoothly based on the US Government. That's what powers the US Treasury, which powers low interest rates, which powers our economy.
krschultz 12y ago
Technically the US was founded on that ideal, then the Articles of Confederation was seen to be unworkable, so they federalized a bunch of power in the Constitution, which was then amended with the original Bill of Rights because the Constitution without didn't really guarantee freedom. It's important to not hand waive away that evolution, because the US is not run on the most-free system of government that could have been imagined in 1776. We ratcheted that down almost immediately, and to argue otherwise is incorrect.
Frondo 12y ago
I can't see how the US was founded on that idea of "freedom unless it impedes others freedoms," since, at its most basic level, the US government has always restricted people's movements. If you "own" property, I can't freely walk onto that property. Your "ownership" places a severe limitation on my ability to exercise the freedom to move about freely. It seems specious to claim retroactively that the US somehow cares about freedom at all, when some of the most basic were stripped from us at its founding.
- adventured 12y ago
  Your premise is invalid. It'd be the same as claiming that by existing and occupying physical space, combined with my not having a right to murder you, you're preventing me from accessing the physical space you're occupying and therefore denying me freedom. The hole in your logic is the notion that your freedom is impeded, when in fact it is not: that freedom properly does not exist where you're claiming it should. The same logic hole is commonly seen when people claim censorship on private forums: freedom of speech does not apply there, just as physical right to pass/movement does not apply to private physical space.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    If you employ the violence of the state to keep me from walking on so-called "private" property, then absolutely my freedom is impeded. What's "private" space without the violence of the state to back it up? By what right can you exclude me from walking wherever I please, under some guise of "freedom"?
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      Why do you keep putting "private" in quotes? Do you seriously believe that you should be able to walk into my living room and grab a seat on the couch? Do you seriously believe that you're not "free" if you cannot do so? Should I then be "free" to kick the crap out of you when you take a step into my lawn? Your notion of freedom seems to only work in your favor and completely disregards everyone else.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        Walking onto property you claim as your own is not a violent act. Kicking the crap out of me because I've walked onto property you claim as your own is a violent act. Constraining my movement with respect to your lawn is putting a constraint on my freedom. Beating me up neither constrains my freedom nor encourages it, it's just you being violent. It's also silly to say the US is founded on "freedom" when that word is uselessly vague.
smackfu 12y ago
>The United States was founded on the idea of "freedom" I'd argue that the United States was founded on particular freedoms, not the general idea of it. Like the original settlers just wanted the freedom to practice their religion in peace. They certainly didn't believe in any freedoms beyond their own interests.

bgilroy26 12y ago

If you found a nation on an idea, the specifics of the idea are going to be hammered out. Both the idea of "freedom" and the idea of impeding others' freedoms have been specified in US legislation and in the case history of the US court system. Without going through and clarifying what freedom and impeding freedom mean in different situations, the US economy could not exist at its present size. Investors can be confident that life will go smoothly based on the US Government. That's what powers the US Treasury, which powers low interest rates, which powers our economy.

krschultz 12y ago

Technically the US was founded on that ideal, then the Articles of Confederation was seen to be unworkable, so they federalized a bunch of power in the Constitution, which was then amended with the original Bill of Rights because the Constitution without didn't really guarantee freedom. It's important to not hand waive away that evolution, because the US is not run on the most-free system of government that could have been imagined in 1776. We ratcheted that down almost immediately, and to argue otherwise is incorrect.

Frondo 12y ago

I can't see how the US was founded on that idea of "freedom unless it impedes others freedoms," since, at its most basic level, the US government has always restricted people's movements. If you "own" property, I can't freely walk onto that property. Your "ownership" places a severe limitation on my ability to exercise the freedom to move about freely. It seems specious to claim retroactively that the US somehow cares about freedom at all, when some of the most basic were stripped from us at its founding.

adventured 12y ago
Your premise is invalid. It'd be the same as claiming that by existing and occupying physical space, combined with my not having a right to murder you, you're preventing me from accessing the physical space you're occupying and therefore denying me freedom. The hole in your logic is the notion that your freedom is impeded, when in fact it is not: that freedom properly does not exist where you're claiming it should. The same logic hole is commonly seen when people claim censorship on private forums: freedom of speech does not apply there, just as physical right to pass/movement does not apply to private physical space.
- Frondo 12y ago
  If you employ the violence of the state to keep me from walking on so-called "private" property, then absolutely my freedom is impeded. What's "private" space without the violence of the state to back it up? By what right can you exclude me from walking wherever I please, under some guise of "freedom"?
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    Why do you keep putting "private" in quotes? Do you seriously believe that you should be able to walk into my living room and grab a seat on the couch? Do you seriously believe that you're not "free" if you cannot do so? Should I then be "free" to kick the crap out of you when you take a step into my lawn? Your notion of freedom seems to only work in your favor and completely disregards everyone else.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      Walking onto property you claim as your own is not a violent act. Kicking the crap out of me because I've walked onto property you claim as your own is a violent act. Constraining my movement with respect to your lawn is putting a constraint on my freedom. Beating me up neither constrains my freedom nor encourages it, it's just you being violent. It's also silly to say the US is founded on "freedom" when that word is uselessly vague.

smackfu 12y ago

>The United States was founded on the idea of "freedom" I'd argue that the United States was founded on particular freedoms, not the general idea of it. Like the original settlers just wanted the freedom to practice their religion in peace. They certainly didn't believe in any freedoms beyond their own interests.