Conquer Club

Does a human deserve to be free to do whatever the human likes, or are there strict limits that should be placed upon that human in order to function within society?

Bovver boy wrote:Does a human deserve to be free to do whatever the human likes, or are there strict limits that should be placed upon that human in order to function within society?

I dont really know if theres a great answer to this question.

Nobody is free.

Sorry, I mean, we all have a natural right to defend our life, liberty, and property, and our other rights are necessarily limited by social contract...

Bovver boy wrote:Does a human deserve to be free to do whatever the human likes, or are there strict limits that should be placed upon that human in order to function within society?

This is kind of a non-question. One society is distinguished from another by the limits it imposes on the conduct of its members. In other words a society without limits is not a society.

StiffMittens wrote:

Bovver boy wrote:Does a human deserve to be free to do whatever the human likes, or are there strict limits that should be placed upon that human in order to function within society?

This is kind of a non-question. One society is distinguished from another by the limits it imposes on the conduct of its members. In other words a society without limits is not a society.

Chaotic Anarchy.

Ask it the other way round. What right does anyone else have to restrict a person's liberty if they are not infringing on that of anyone else?

Zeppflyer wrote:Ask it the other way round. What right does anyone else have to restrict a person's liberty if they are not infringing on that of anyone else?

And this is really the question. So long as I do not harm you, I should be free to do as I wish. Money is nothing more than the grease that lubricates the engine of society, imo. It is folly to covet it so much that is becomes your reason for being. Especially in the case of communism, which seeks to control money out of existence and reap the power left in its place. Communism is nothing more than absolute power in the hands of the few, thus, it is tyranny. A free republic with a capitalist approach to economy is the best way to mimic that which is already set in place in nature, diversity and the survival of the fittest.

One big problem is that you talk only of human beings and money. A lot of constraints have to do with how we impact the world around us, which IS a human impact, but only indirectly and therefore generally viewed as independent of direct controls on human-human interactions.

PLAYER57832 wrote:One big problem is that you talk only of human beings and money. A lot of constraints have to do with how we impact the world around us, which IS a human impact, but only indirectly and therefore generally viewed as independent of direct controls on human-human interactions.

I am assuming that you are talking to me? I mention money because the poll is of an economic nature. Other than that, I don't see your point. If you would expand your point, I might better debate it with you.

I'd prefer to set some rather strict limits on organizations of all kinds. Any restraints pretty much have to be set at a systemic level and not at the individual.

MeDeFe wrote:I'd prefer to set some rather strict limits on organizations of all kinds. Any restraints pretty much have to be set at a systemic level and not at the individual.

Are you referring to business, religious, or non-profit orgs? I think that you stand a far greater chance of keeping orgs from gaining much power at all if there wasn't a strong government that they could solicit power from.

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:One big problem is that you talk only of human beings and money. A lot of constraints have to do with how we impact the world around us, which IS a human impact, but only indirectly and therefore generally viewed as independent of direct controls on human-human interactions.

I am assuming that you are talking to me? I mention money because the poll is of an economic nature. Other than that, I don't see your point. If you would expand your point, I might better debate it with you.

To combine this and your previous answer to MeDeFe,

Understanding and places limits on environmental impacts is too large, the consequences far too long term for it to be controllable by any small entity or profit-desiring entity. Land use, resource uses, pollution limits, etc. plain and simply HAVE to be controlled to an extent by governments.

Similarly, ensuring individual freedom ultimately MUST fall to a strong overlying government. Otherwise, history shows us what one person considers "freedom" is really oppression of anyone who disagrees.

Frankly, many of your points go far to prove that point. You have neatly redefined liberalism from "caring about other humans, feeling people have a few basic rights (to eat, have a safe place to live, etc as long as they work, follow laws, etc.) to "wanting to become communist".

You neatly decide that taxing (necessary for community roads, etc.) is "just wrong", despite evidence that shows when these things are left to individuals/companies, they do NOT take care of these things. The railroads are a good example. We have wonderful highways that in some cases are now deteriorating, but are heavily used, relied upon and that WORK. To contrast, the far cheaper rail system is rife with failures. Why? No one entity takes care of the tracks. Where companies wish, they do a good job. Where they don't... trains either reroute or there are crashes. Further even the train systems are not completely without regulation or government financing. It is just that GM, etc have put extraordinary pressure (primarily in the 50's) upon our various government entities (particularly in CA) to erode the rail system in favor of roads. So ... we have a complete network of interstate highways and bridges, but only spotty railroads.

I am old enough to remember when "right" was the dirty word ... it meant fascism and wresting control FROM the people, not the reverse.

captain.crazy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I'd prefer to set some rather strict limits on organizations of all kinds. Any restraints pretty much have to be set at a systemic level and not at the individual.

Are you referring to business, religious, or non-profit orgs? I think that you stand a far greater chance of keeping orgs from gaining much power at all if there wasn't a strong government that they could solicit power from.

i believe hes saying all organizations should have restrictions at the systemic level including government in all likelyhood, though thats assuredly problematic.

Enough to start himself, his wife and possibly a baby on fire for an april fools gag?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

Bovver boy wrote:Does a human deserve to be free to do whatever the human likes, or are there strict limits that should be placed upon that human in order to function within society?

This is kind of a non-question. One society is distinguished from another by the limits it imposes on the conduct of its members. In other words a society without limits is not a society.

Chaotic Anarchy.

There is no such thing when it comes to human beings. Never has been and never will be. Humans are a social animal, thus they will always be organized into some form of social order (i.e. the conduct of the individuals will always be limited by the dynamic of the group).

The correct answer can be quantified: 66.4 units of liberty.

Wolffystyle wrote:The correct answer can be quantified: 66.4 units of liberty.

metric or imperial?

metric or imperial?

Moon Units