3 ms·

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 res

by 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.
      - EpicEng 12y ago
        I didn't say that the US was "founded on freedom", but the idea of certain freedoms were very much a part of its inception. Regardless, I don't think you actually defended anything you said. My ability to own private property constrains your freedom in the same way that my mere physical existence constrains your freedom of occupying the same physical space as me. It's all a bunch of psuedo-intellectual, hypothetical nonsense.

by Frondo 12y ago

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.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      I didn't say that the US was "founded on freedom", but the idea of certain freedoms were very much a part of its inception. Regardless, I don't think you actually defended anything you said. My ability to own private property constrains your freedom in the same way that my mere physical existence constrains your freedom of occupying the same physical space as me. It's all a bunch of psuedo-intellectual, hypothetical nonsense.