Posted on 06/24/2007 5:08:56 AM PDT by goldstategop
Well, if you fart, smoke and so forth, some of the behavior might remain as residue for those boarding soon.
Again, gets back to a murky fair freedoms for all issue.
If we were all living in 1776 with far greater distances today between our neighbors compared to now, we would not IMO be facing the limitations we need to today.
My neighbor supposedly should have the common sense to not go on his roof to stare into the windows of neighbors that fences had prevented in the past.
In a thin population, there is a lot of give.
In a dense population, there is a lot of take.
Population dictates a lot of what is happening and that was my point.
Is someone here arguing that anyone has a ~right~ to annoy their peers?
When you are by yourself in an area away from people, you are less likely to lose rights
You've never had ~rights~ to annoy/harm other people.
and can expand the desires of your heart since there would not be anyone around that cares.
In other words, your perceived loss of rights
No 'rights' have been lost. Unless you percieve your inablity to annoy/harm or maybe ~control~ your neighbor as a loss.
is due to growing population and the need in common sense to adapt so all can live closely among each other.
We've always lived in very close groups [tribes/clans]. - Gradually we've developed constitutional methods to deal with those problems, - but now majority rule/socialism/tribalism is again being touted as somehow necessary to "-restrict the total freedom of the individual, not that you could ever own your own nuke or anything like that."
Why do you advocate restricting individual freedoms?
Whatever "moral code" Liberts. might adhere to is not a code given by a higher authority and accepted, this is a code "developed" in a box. It will not work.
There is no requirement for any particular moral code to be a libertarian, no more than there is a requirement for any particular moral code to be a conservative.
There are plenty of devoutly religious people who would prefer a society with less government instead of more, and more freedoms instead of less. Actually, many religious people are at the vanguard of securing more rights for everyone, like the thousands of religious Americans who made homeschooling possible in every state.
btt
You and I agree on this point. However, the further point is where do you think we have derived our "Constitutional" premises from?
What I am saying is this "Idea Of America" was set up by incorperating the foundational precepts of the Judeo/Christian God. The whole IDEA is built around acknowledging God and his precepts because God gives free-will, but with responsibility and accountability. There is no other system better equipt to develope a prospering society. That was the genuis of the forefathers because they so readily recognized and accepted what is good and incorperated it! Take the responsibility and accountability out of the equation of God's precepts and you will get failure every time! Honoring our constitution with the correct understanding actually runs hand in hand with honoring God. And make no mistake, God's truth is the central theme around our constitutional gov't.
I agree with the first part, and this sound just like any Libert. I know, ANYTHING GOES, right?
The problem I think is those that have not fully investigated the nature of God to understand how our constitution truly is meant to work.
Remember, we're talking within a moral/law context of society.
No, in our Republic, we're talking within a constitutional/law context for society.
Pretty soon it will be America if we don't go back to acknowledge who ultimately gives us our freedom instead of relying on some secularists idea of what a "moral code" should be...
Your, - "Who ultimately gives us our freedom" is a telling line. - We ~fought~ for our freedom from men who thought their God gave them the power to rule. Our constitution ended the concept of religious qualifications for office.
The idea of America can not and will not survive without acknowledging God and his morale code.
We can acknowledge God and moral codes; - while we honor our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land; - the two concepts are not incompatible.
You and I agree on this point.
If noticed that you've ignored all my previous points above, which leads me to doubt that you really agree.
However, the further point is where do you think we have derived our "Constitutional" premises from?
Any student of the Constitution is aware that non religious [even pagan] greco-roman/nordic traditions and premises were used in the reasoning behind our Constitution, and its rejection of religious/political ties. [no religious qualifications for office, as above]
What I am saying is this "Idea Of America" was set up by incorperating the foundational precepts of the Judeo/Christian God.
You are wrong. We built our idea upon insuring that inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, or property, will not be infringed.
The whole IDEA is built around acknowledging God and his precepts because God gives free-will, but with responsibility and accountability.
Nothing in the Constitution itself supports your theory. The founders were quite clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, --" or prohibiting its free exercise.
There is no other system better equipt to develope a prospering society.
States that support specific religions have been a source of much of the worlds misery & war. The Islamic states we are currently fighting are a case in point.
That was the genuis of the forefathers because they so readily recognized and accepted what is good and incorperated it!
Into the constitution? - 'Incorporated' what?
Take the responsibility and accountability out of the equation of God's precepts and you will get failure every time! Honoring our constitution with the correct understanding actually runs hand in hand with honoring God. And make no mistake, God's truth is the central theme around our constitutional gov't.
Please, post your cites of "Gods truth" incorporated within our Constitution. I'd really like to see them enumerated.
Ping to the article and the comments.
Or, we could just make it all stop.
I agree with the first part, and this sound just like any Libert. I know, ANYTHING GOES, right?
Wrong. You are repeating a common misconception about libertarian principles.
Estonia (former Soviet Republic) is currently the most free place to live.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
A little anarchy is in order on occasion.
We are rapidly approaching such an occasion.
Ordained by whom, exactly?
You?
Which, of the thousands of Gods worshiped by humans since the dawn of time whould that be?
Maybe he, she, or it could learn something from the "morale code" officers on military installations.
The "morale code" officer on the USS Caine was in charge of making sure every sailor had his shirttail tucked in.
Who determines that "need"?
You?
You Libert's. are so utterly thick headed and clueless when it comes to understanding why America works! It's not about the form of gov't that makes America work, it the acknowledgement foremost that ALL MEN are created equal by a CREATOR! Which is the underlying theme for our law!
Because the Declaration acknowledges men don't give enaliable rights, but God does, leads into the whole basis for our form of constitutional gov't. Why do you think the ten commandements are listed on the veranda of the supreme court and are plaqued in many courtrooms in this land?
It's not about acknowledging a religion, it's about acknowledging the idea that MEN are given their rights by someone other than man and we will always adhere to that standard. Because a certain religion is bound by that same concept probably is how the founders established this great idea! Freedom of speech: Freedom of religion are directly connected to God's Truth. God gives FREE WILL, not man and that is what establishes the idea to form the basis of the Constitution. The idea that no "MAN" can have single rule over another (Monarchy) and the people are FREE to persue happiness. I realize this is DOI material, but it is the foundation of our constitutional law.
The theme is quite evident to all that want to take the time to study history. The constitution is set up in a way which "Acknowledges" God precepts, because they are great, but does not establish men follow a certain religion or have to adhere to it's tenants. Especially the ones from which these "Truths" were derived to form the Republic.
It certainly looks that way because we have allowed secularist, who are selfish prix, to establish a hold on a perception which is totally opposite than the way America was originally form.
Which, of the thousands of Gods worshiped by humans since the dawn of time whould that be?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of LAND.
This is how the original DOI was written. "Happiness" replaced this because the founders recognized that was the ultimate goal of a free people. This is important because it shows the concept of how they thought about what being FREE meant. Most of our founders acknowledged the Judeo/Christian God because the precepts of his word were exactly in tune with this IDEA OF FREEDOM!
All the precepts of the Christian God lead to FREE WILL with accountability.
The OBVIOUS interwoven thread throughout our establishment and laws is to "acknowledge" the giver of freedom (God) and why no "man" has ultimate power over another unless it is "given!"
However, eventhough history shows our foundation to be based on the precepts of the Judeo/Christian God it does not "establish" the Christian God as the only giver of rights, it establishes each "individuals" God, whomever the indiviual may acknowledge.
Are you cool with gun laws as they currently stand?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.