Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

I didn't read all the posts, only skimmed the original and a few others.

Here's something to chew on. "Freedom of . . . " does NOT translate into "freedom FROM . . . ."

Technically EVERYONE has freedom OF choice. However, everyone ALSO has to deal with the backlash of their choices. It's your choice to smoke. Don't blame the tobacco companies if your body isn't set up to resist the carcinogens and you get cancer. If it's your choice to eat poorly, don't blame the food industry for your health problems. Everyone wants freedom of choice and freedom FROM responsibility. It doesnt' work that way.

I wasn't talking about the tobacco companies. I was talking about our government. They keep taxing tobacco "because of rising health costs and b/c it's bad for the health." If it's so bad for the health, they have a good reason to completely ban it and in any case at least half of the money they took from me in taxes should go to help Canadians fight the addiction. So far I'm quitting cold-turkey, but some people need assistance or even institutionalization to kick the habit.

I don't want to say good luck, because that implies you'll need luck to kick the nicotine habit, but hey, good luck. I quit my 2 cans / 3 days dipping habit about 2 months ago now and it was pretty much god awful. I don't know what the actual addictiveness difference is between dipping and smoking, but nicotinewise I was taking in 30 cigarettes worth / day which would make me a pack and a half smoker. So to you I say: the insanity passes. Cranberry juice was helpful for me.

I tend to be strongly pro-individual liberty, much like Wildtim, though I wouldn't label myself "libertarian" as I believe most of our social programs are decent. FUD has it absolutely right, though, lately people want to sue away when their choices lead them to problems, and that's just idiotic. The worst part is that the courts are even hearing these cases.

I'm a big believer in "Do what you want, as long as it harms noone." Agree with the above poster, though -- harm is a tough thing to define, sometimes.

hey john p you are right and so am I. Andrew Mellon owned the bank in Pittsburgh that was the primary financial backer of Dupont, and he was also the secretary of treasury for the U.S. His nephew was Henry Aslinger who formed the narcotics bureua that was the forerunner to the D.E.A. He asked his nephew to outlaw hemp so he would not go into financial ruin if Dupont went bellyup from the new decorder that had been invented to process hemp into textiles. At the same time, there were 5 states complaining of the hispanic population because the caucasians where having problems getting jobs like everyone else during the depression era. So he put 2 together and killed what he thought where 2 birds with one stone. I can post the articles here if you would like to check them out, or email them to you.

sorry guys I think I turned this into a "drug thread". my opinion is that freedom is a double edged sword. you cant have true freedom unless you are in control of your own choices, but without control, some of your choices might be detrimental to society and yourself. The problem I have are the choices made for us are done so my a small percentage of people and are done by their opinions, religious beliefs, personal moral caste system, etc... and if you vote against it you end up labeled an outsider or scourge of the society you live in. I know, I live in the bible belt (yay!!!!) My dad studied to be a baptist minister and I have no reliqious beliefs and I got my ass beat because I asked why dinosaurs were not in the bible, so that kind of proves the moral majoritys opinion.

FUD pretty much called it.
Lot of folks want the freedom to make certain choices, as long as they arent held accountable for the results of the bad ones.

Dave

I spent many years in Federal Law Enforcement and I think those in law enforcement who see people at their worst will tell you that people often times make bad choices and do very bad things without thinking about any consequences. They may or may not be sorry for their actions later on but that doesn't help their victims pushing up flowers in the cemetery.

I think without laws it becomes the law of the jungle where might makes right.

I agree with the founding fathers who did not trust the populace in general to govern themselves and thats why the U.S Government was set up as a representative democracy. I also think that in general this country is becoming a more violent place and the moral fabric of the country is being distroyed and economically the middle class is disappearing and this if it continues will lead to much unrest. If this all continues this country will be headed the way of all the other civilizations we study now in our history books.

Just my 2 cents

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I agree with the founding fathers who did not trust the populace in general to govern themselves and thats why the U.S Government was set up as a representative democracy.

I just have to jump in on this one.

I'm sorry but yer way off base here, Sir. The founding fathers didn't trust the government enough to give it the control it wants today. That's why the Founding Fathers gave us a representative "republic", not a democracy (mob rule). "No, madam. we gave you a republic, IF you can keep it.", Benjamin Franklin. (answering a woman who asked if the Founding Fathers gave us a democracy)

That's also why they set up 2 separate houses within the congress, They hoped the elected officials would represents the interests of their constituents but they also realized that 'power corrupts . . .' Ben Franklin, and thus we needed checks and balances and even more checks and balances. The original design was intended to be "by the people, for the people".

The founding fathers felt whole heartedly that the people could govern themselves. They also realised there had to be some uniform means to work as a unified nation The government was designed to ensure the will of the people would be carried out in a fashion that was organized and yet supportive of the freedom and will of the people, but without the chaos of mob rule (a classic democracy). Somewhere along the way the crooked politicians and other crooked authority figures have twisted things around so that the American people are an 'enemy of the state'. As long as those in power justify their abuse of power with this excuse we'll never have the freedom our founding fathers intended.

I'll jump off this soap box before I offend someone, but I respectfully, vehomently disagree with your huge misunderstanding of our Founding Father's ideologies .

I just read the thread and think that this topic is more complex than the posts would lead you to believe.

I think that FUD is right about the founding father's intentions. It is the government that they did not trust, and neither did they trust "majority rule". Hence, the supreme court system that is outside the electoral system. The judges are there to prevent a majority from getting out of hand and stomping all over minority rights. This is exactly what happens if true democracy is in place. Natzi Germany was a lawful government even if it was an immoral one.

I find it interesting that the definition of freedom is applied to guns but then no one mentioned gay marriage. By the proposed definition here gay marriage should be a no brainer. It hurts no one and is an act between two adults. How many of you arguing gun rights are willing to argue pro gay marriage? Freedom is only freedom if it applies to others not just yourself and in ways that you and I would not necessarily understand or lifestyles that we would want to follow.

The problem with any legal/government system is that it has to be designed to survive and evolve over centuries of abuse. Why abuse? Because there are always individuals who will try to take advantage of any loophole for their own benefit regardless of detriment to others. Not many are really interested in freedom of others, just their own.

Then again, unscrupulous use of freedoms always causes a backlash that requires curtailing of those freedoms through legal definition (new laws). Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict the legal ramifications of laws until decades later when the consequences are thrashed out in the courts and society in general. Laws have socio-economic consequences that are unpredictable.

The rash of past lawsuits against companies now forces ridiculous product labels and luke warm coffee in restauraunts. I am pretty certain that the old lady that scalded her privates by holding a cup of hot coffee between her legs while driving did not sue for the safety of others. She was just taking her crack (no pun intended) at the "law suit lottery". Most would regard the right to sue as an essential freedom but it is rife with abuse.

Additionally, most people's concerns are very basic: what do I eat, where do I sleep and who do I sleep with. They are not concerned with philosophical freedom issues and will vote with their stomachs and fears. Making it easy for unscrupulous individuals in government to affect the legal system. After a century of such effects you will find that "we ain't in Kansas anymore" no matter how good the starting intentions.

There are many examples of such legal pervesions: Patent and Copyright act--original intention was for society to give up some freedoms (free copying, duplication, etc.) by giving special rights to creators as incentive to create original works whereby benefiting society for its given up freedoms. The corporate and lately foreign interests have changed that intention completely and now these laws are there to protect companies at the expense of society. Lots of interesting reading on that subject. Foreign interest? Yep, Japan has lobbied the US patent office and now gets an electronic copy of all patent applications 18 months after the application is made. It takes an average of 27 months for the patent office to process an application. So Japanese can preview and make countering claims before an application is rejected or granted on its own merit. Also, any chance of making a failed application into a trade secret are gone.

Another is civil rights (I think these were passed some time in late 1800's) which were originally passed to give African Americans legal recourse in the courts instead were used primarily by corporations to advance their causes.

I won't even go into the "Patriot Act".

Like I said, I think it is a complex topic with no simple solutions.

WARNING: VERY CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL AND "POINTS" PRESENTED HEREIN. IF YOU'RE EASILY OFFENDED THEN DON'T READ THIS.

If you're going to take me to task for my views, opinions and comments then at least have the courtesy to READ it ALL and UNDERSTAND what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by vladsch

I find it interesting that the definition of freedom is applied to guns but then no one mentioned gay marriage. By the proposed definition here gay marriage should be a no brainer. It hurts no one and is an act between two adults. How many of you arguing gun rights are willing to argue pro gay marriage? Freedom is only freedom if it applies to others not just yourself and in ways that you and I would not necessarily understand or lifestyles that we would want to follow.

The trouble with the gay marriage issue is that it goes far beyond simple freedom issues. Scientifically homosexuality is considered "destructive" to human survival because it is a lifestyle that contradicts the survival of the species. Thus gay rights activists champion it as rights of "an evolved species". This is done under the assumption that we'll never have a major catastrophe that will eliminate all advanced science techniques that would enable reproduction for homosexual couples. It's a fair assumption but it cannot be completely guaranteed.

Religiously speaking, for centuries homosexuality has been considered an offense to the very being of God. Since we have freedom of religion and the constitution was originally amended to ensure protection of individual and group religious rights, we now have a problem of morality versus individuality. Religious texts of many faiths have taught for thousands of years that homosexuality is immoral and sinful. Now all of the sudden everyone wants to squelch a person's religious right to decide what's moral or immoral.

So now we have the problem of gay marriage not only causing a conflict on the rights of the masses to teach religious moralities we also have the conflict of gay marriage requiring the masses to teach children that their religious immoralities are socially ok and this leads to society trumping God. Some may view this as a good thing but history has shown that a godless society is more often worse than the available alternatives.

My personal belief is this:
1) you have the right to bone who or what you want if it's not illegal.
2) you are responsible for your decisions and actions so bone responsibly.
3) don't try to force me to raise my children to accept your lifestyle decisions.
4) don't squelch my rights to disagree with your lifestyle decisions.
5) If biological design prevents reproduction then it's not protected by societies interests and should not be protected by societies rules.

So, while I don't judge anyone's legal activities in this arena, I don't support a "family structure" that has any potential to hinder, ruin, or otherwise prevent the survival of the species, no mater how miniscule the chance of that may be.

These last point sets are very controversial. Youv'e been warned. I'm personally sick and tired of a person's sexuality being worn as a banner. At a job site a few years back 3 of the people just had to make sure that every new person on the project knew that they were "gay". If a heterosexual were to go around chanting mantras and declaring his/her sexuality that person would be considered insecure and possibly mentally unstable, yet homosexuality is something to be declared proudly. Give me a break. How you have sex or with whom or what has no bearing on your job. If it does then you ARE in need of therapy, regardless of your sexual orientation or gender, unless of course your a porn star. If a heterosexual male were to go around declaring his heterosexuality at work he'd be fired for fear of potential sexual harrasment issues.

Veering off sexuality I'm also tired of the double standards in racism. I'm sick of watching networks like MTV, HBO and others promote groups and programs that encourage racism in minorities at the same time condemning the same racisom for caucasians. We have a "Black awareness" month and "Black Entertainment" and all sorts of programs, shows, activities, rules, regulations, laws, etc. etc.etc. that all promote racial pride of whichever minority it's dealing with. Latino and black entertainers are encouraged to go onto talk shows and talk about "white neighborhoods" they live in and mock caucasians. When a caucasian brings up these points the minorities typically say "now you know how it feels". EXCUSE ME! Are we trying to promote racial equality or racial revenge?

If you want freedoms for your race then PROMOTE TRUE EQUALITY! If we, as a society are going to condemn racism then quit promoting it and encouraging it in races other than caucasians while hiding it under different names! If you're going to point out a particular historical figure is this race or that, then point out the racial heritages of ALL historical figures. If you're going to have a racial awareness month for one race then set a side a month for EACH race! If it's ok for one racial group to sing about their racial superiority then it should be ok for ALL races to sing about their racial superiority. I'm sick of songs being applauded and awarded when they talk about "total blackness" as a goal for the world's racial mix and then any song that's racially promoting caucasians is slammed, condemned and slaughtered in the media.

Ok I better get off my soap box. I'm getting my gander up again .