Liberty

[GwynnInTheHall]

After reading through a ton of threads and reflecting about a great deal. I just wanted to ask each and everyone of you guys in here...Do you really believe in Liberty for all?

I mean, I hate, hate , hate bigots and their destructive thinking, but I'd defend their right to stand on a corner near my house and spout their hate.

I'm not a religious man, but I'd defend the right of any of my neighbors to worship in any manner they wish.

I'm a straight male who'd never entertain sex with a man, but if you and your brother want to have an orgy including latex products and farm animals, go for it-- just don't throw your byproducts into my yard.

I don't agree with some of you in here an several topics, but I'd never in my life try to stop you from expressing your differences with me.

Can you, allow others real Liberty? Can you support others rights to live as they wish, with whom the wish, while worshiping as they wish?

Or is there a limit to your concept of--Freedom? Liberty?

And for those of you who think some liberties should be legislated, how do you square that with your preference to a limited government. (yes I'm assuming that anyone who'd want restraints on things like lifestyle, religion and the like are conservative and subscribe to a small govt concept).

Just a though--hopefully this can generate some good discussion.

[B-Fly]

Some think taxation, the federal health care law, the civil rights laws compelling private business owners to serve people of all races, compelled jury duty, etc, are huge infringements on liberty. So I suspect that with maybe one or two exceptions in the Sports Bar, none of us support pure "liberty" on all issues.

[DMT]

Some think taxation, the federal health care law, the civil rights laws compelling private business owners to serve people of all races, compelled jury duty, etc, are huge infringements on liberty. So I suspect that with maybe one or two exceptions in the Sports Bar, none of us support pure "liberty" on all issues.

Wouldn't pure liberty for all = anarchy?

[B-Fly]

Wouldn't pure liberty for all = anarchy?

Again I guess it depends on your definition. If you view liberty as the right to swing your arm so long as it doesn't hit somebody else's nose, then there can still be a basic legal enforcement structure designed to protect each persons life, liberty and property from being taken or infringed by others.

As for sex, which was a major component of Doig's initial post, after Lawrence v. Texas, consenting adults already can do pretty much whatever they want sexually and domestically in the privacy of their own homes. State-sanctioned marriage, on the other hand, strikes me as less a question of "liberty" and more a question of "equality", both ethically and constitutionally.

[nullnor]

is liberty an inexhaustible resource? imagine that it's like pie, and everyone is allocated the same size piece. but there is still some pie left. so who gets the remaining slices? for example, one person is smoking a cigarette and eating and another person isn't. the cook decides that his freedom to smoke isn't as important as someone else breathing 2nd hand smoke. or what if i want to drive my car and eat at the same time but the highway i drive is really dangerous. thus im not allowed to eat blueberry pie while driving because i might cause an accident and ruin the pie sitting in it's box in the backseat of the other car.

..or instead of pie, deer hunting. should i be able to go out and kill as many deer i want. what if everyone did and as a result there were no more deer to hunt? by exhausting the resource i end up taking the right to hunt deer away from future hunters.

perhaps a majority may not take away a minority's rights without legitimate reasons, but a minority can take away a majority's.

..so ok, if i were to try to really understand how gay marriage takes away liberty and freedom from heterosexual marriage i would say that, past a certain point, freedom is inversely proportional to public safety. but morality is proportional. morality picks up the slack in places where liberty is sometimes absent or late. it's morally wrong to smoke when you're pregnant, but it's not against the law. before there were laws against drunk driving, im sure it was seen as the wrong thing to do...this is where morality has ties to things like prop 8. im not saying gays are immoral. im just saying that morality is usually included in debates concerning freedom and liberty.

you know, the whole concept of libertarianism is built on the idea that freedom promotes morality. i'll admit, it's an amazing if not incomplete concept.

[baldgriff]

lib·er·ty   /ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled[lib-er-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.


I think peoples definition of liberty depends upon what they consider arbitrary or despotic.... There are so many influences in how each individual views those matters that it makes it a very subjective ideal.

[dslaw]

I am all for people organizing a march down main street to protest taxes, war, whatever. But when there is a funeral for a soldier and people have signs saying 'God killed your son because he hates gays' then those people are abusing their liberty. So I am for liberty within reason. The only problem is who decides the 'within reason' part? I think carrying a weapon around in open sight is a recipe for disaster, but that is what they are trying to pass here so which side is reasonable?

[chancellor]

And for those of you who think some liberties should be legislated, how do you square that with your preference to a limited government. (yes I'm assuming that anyone who'd want restraints on things like lifestyle, religion and the like are conservative and subscribe to a small govt concept).

I believe in limited government but not "no government" (pardon the double negative). I believe we should have a core of laws that protect the innocent - murder, assault, rape, battery, and so on. I also believe we should have a core of laws that protect the environment. And even, probably to your shock, a core of laws that dictate business behavior. I just happen to believe we have gone too far down the road of laws in all aspects of life, while showing less and less respect for law and life in the process.

[johnnya24]

See how I stayed out of this one

[GwynnInTheHall]

Some very interesting responses. The realities of "Liberty for All" seem to be, there is no real way to have it. One person's vision of it sometimes conflicts with another individual's and there's the rub.

For me, I would just feel wholly hypocritical to expect to be allowed to enjoy my freedom of choice, expression and worship and then turn around and deny someone else theirs. It's also frustrating that I sometimes defend and protect the rights of those who then turn around and deny others the same respect. BUT, IMO, I can't pick and choose whom I extend Liberty to or it becomes a hollow concept.

Thanks for the responses.