A random freedom spiel

#1
Scipio

Scipio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
91
Likes
0
#1
I am often agitated when i hear people in this country talk about "freedom."

Technically, we are not free.

Prostitution, Drugs, Gambling, and weapons are the first things that come to mind.

Why cant a woman sell her body? she can have sex with someone for free, but not for pay?

Why cant we decide what we put into our bodies? Alcohol is legal, so every drug should be legal. Its nobody's business if Joe wants to smoke some weed all day.

Why cant I gamble my money away? I earned the money, i should be able to do what i want with it.

Also, I think it's a shame that I can't, if I had the funds (which I don't), go buy a tank or an Apache or a Hornet. Or a stealth bomber.

Main point: if it only affects the user, and doesn't directly effect others, it should be legal. Tyranny by majority is a terrible thing.

That's true freedom. Freedom is a double-edged sword. Don't harp about it if you cant handle both sides.
 
#2
#2
You're describing anarchy, not a representative republic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#5
#5
BigPapaVol said:
You're describing anarchy, not a representative republic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

In the words of Eminem, "don't get it twisted, yo."

I think there is certainly a need for a strong central government to defend us from foreign attacks. I also believe we need a strong judicial system. Fire departments, police stations, etc. are great, and I'm not advocating the abolishment of that. Things like fraud, embezzlement, and the like are currently dealt with properly, I think, as well.

ive seen somalia. lol

i just cant support the notion that things which dont infringe on others rights whatsoever should be illegal simply because the majority says so. what if the majority wanted to make owning multiple tvs illegal? Owning a TV is a right because it affects nobody but yourself.
 
#7
#7
Owning an Apache can very easily infringe upon others' rights. I can appreciate the freedom view, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a civilian to own a main battle tank.
 
#9
#9
BigPapaVol said:
Owning an Apache can very easily infringe upon others' rights. I can appreciate the freedom view, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a civilian to own a main battle tank.
Click to expand...

i am hardcore freedom/do it yourself, you are correct in that.

Just because someone owns an Apache, it doesnt mean they are going to mow down the neighborhood. They could want it as a decoration or collectible. Like an old Mercury or Model-T. Battle tank- same thing.

i know it may sound loony, and you guys may be laughing and think Im a "troll" or whatever, but I genuinely believe my views. Ive been laughed at enough over them in the real world. doesnt change a thing. freedom forever.
 
#10
#10
Scipio said:
i am hardcore freedom/do it yourself, you are correct in that.

Just because someone owns an Apache, it doesnt mean they are going to mow down the neighborhood. They could want it as a decoration or collectible. Like an old Mercury or Model-T. Battle tank- same thing.
Click to expand...

nobody cares if you have an inoperable pile of metal in your yard. Make it work and opinions change quickly.
 
#11
#11
Being able to buy a stealth bomber doesn't represent problems of personal safety for others?

What?
 
#12
#12
Technically anything can be a safety issue to others. It's just the extent of damage that could be done.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Being able to buy a stealth bomber doesn't represent problems of personal safety for others?

What?
Click to expand...

same logic could be applied to guns, which is ridiculous logic, anyway. you could make aweapon out of anything you want.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
BigPapaVol said:
nobody cares if you have an inoperable pile of metal in your yard. Make it work and opinions change quickly.
Click to expand...

yeah, but you could make a weapon out of anything. if i tied a few sticks of dynamite and a rocket launcher to a Kia, im sure i coulld get it do do some pretty violent stuff.
 
#15
#15
The "as long as it doesn't affect others" standard is untenable.

Say you can buy an Apache. If you try to fly it you will be impacting the rights of others via the noise alone and the wind from the blades.

If you leave it sitting in your yard you impact others' property values.

There is no way to allow all the things you suggest and still have the standard RE: as long as it doesn't affect others. Virtually everything we do affects others.
 
#16
#16
BigPapaVol said:
Owning an Apache can very easily infringe upon others' rights. I can appreciate the freedom view, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a civilian to own a main battle tank.
Click to expand...

A Swiss citizen can own a howitzer, when was the last time Switzerland was invaded??

There are American citizens who do own main battle tanks fyi.
 
#17
#17
Scipio said:
Why cant a woman sell her body? she can have sex with someone for free, but not for pay?

That's true freedom. Freedom is a double-edged sword. Don't harp about it if you cant handle both sides.
Click to expand...

"I don’t understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal, f***ing is legal. Why isn’t selling f***ing legal?" - Carlin


"That's a double-edged sword, ya know. It's kinda like watching your mother-in-law go off a cliff in a Cadillac. You got mixed feelings" - Bob Green

​
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
You're describing anarchy, not a representative republic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

How does advocating victimless liberties equate to anarchy?

I don't necessarily agree with the Apache argument, seeing as a hypothetical Apache owner would be just as liable to go postal as the average gun owner... those results would be disastrous.

How do you feel about the rest of his points? You know, prostitution, drugs, and gambling...
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top