Liberty!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/4/2006 1:57:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

WRONG!

Try reading our fundamental rights again, and again, until you understand what they MEAN.

I have read them again and again and nowhere is pot mentioned in those rights.

As for the quote from the Declaration, that was a modification from Adam . Adam believed that a free people should be allowed to pursue "life, liberty and property." However, the founders realized that if they said that exactly in the Declaration, it would seem like an elitist statement and make the Revolution seem to be only for the benefit of the rich. So, they changed the wording to "the pursuit of happiness".

Now, happiness did not mean license. What was meant by happiness was making a better life for oneself. They did not mean hedonistic pursuits. Happiness is not the same thing as pleasure. Here's the difference. Simply: Pleasure is something we receive from an object or action; happiness is something we do, the meaningful activities of thinking, choosing, and creating. The Founders meant the former, you are talking about the latter.

Happiness is a virtue, pleasure is often a vice. Painting a beautiful painting is virtuous, smoking pot is a vice. Vices are not rights nor should the Constitution be tortured into saying they are. The only rights Americans have are in the Bill of Rights, and a handful of other amendments. All of these other things we call "rights" like driving, traveling, owning pets, etc. are not rights and have no Constitutional protection.

One cannot be free without restrictions. That is impossible. If everyone were "free" without restrictions, there could be no society. Certainly people can be different, but they must do so within the law of the land or civil society can not exist. From all this discussion it is clear you want the free to smoke pot. Suppose someone else thinks their freedom involves taking things that belong to other people? Who's to say they are wrong, after all, it is the individual's definition of freedom that matters. For that matter, would I be free to go kill that dog that is barking in the next street because it is bothering me? If it were my definition of freedom that mattered, maybe so.

Yes I am AS, but not all of us are anarchists. I believe there has to be structure and order or society can't function. However, there needs to be just enough slack that society can allow personal expression (within the limits of decorum) and grow (in the true sense not in the "progressive" sense). Anarchy exists in very few places on earth, like a few places in Africa or certain inner cities around the world, but they are very nasty and unpleasant places.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/4/2006 1:57:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

WRONG!

Try reading our fundamental rights again, and again, until you understand what they MEAN.

I have read them again and again and nowhere is pot mentioned in those rights.

As for the quote from the Declaration, that was a modification from Adam . Adam believed that a free people should be allowed to pursue "life, liberty and property." However, the founders realized that if they said that exactly in the Declaration, it would seem like an elitist statement and make the Revolution seem to be only for the benefit of the rich. So, they changed the wording to "the pursuit of happiness".

Now, happiness did not mean license. What was meant by happiness was making a better life for oneself. They did not mean hedonistic pursuits. Happiness is not the same thing as pleasure. Here's the difference. Simply: Pleasure is something we receive from an object or action; happiness is something we do, the meaningful activities of thinking, choosing, and creating. The Founders meant the former, you are talking about the latter.

Happiness is a virtue, pleasure is often a vice. Painting a beautiful painting is virtuous, smoking pot is a vice. Vices are not rights nor should the Constitution be tortured into saying they are. The only rights Americans have are in the Bill of Rights, and a handful of other amendments. All of these other things we call "rights" like driving, traveling, owning pets, etc. are not rights and have no Constitutional protection.

One cannot be free without restrictions. That is impossible. If everyone were "free" without restrictions, there could be no society. Certainly people can be different, but they must do so within the law of the land or civil society can not exist. From all this discussion it is clear you want the free to smoke pot. Suppose someone else thinks their freedom involves taking things that belong to other people? Who's to say they are wrong, after all, it is the individual's definition of freedom that matters. For that matter, would I be free to go kill that dog that is barking in the next street because it is bothering me? If it were my definition of freedom that mattered, maybe so.

Yes I am AS, but not all of us are anarchists. I believe there has to be structure and order or society can't function. However, there needs to be just enough slack that society can allow personal expression (within the limits of decorum) and grow (in the true sense not in the "progressive" sense). Anarchy exists in very few places on earth, like a few places in Africa or certain inner cities around the world, but they are very nasty and unpleasant places.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/4/2006 5:44:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

After selling our ports for greed/profit we hear:

King : "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." (Feb. 23, 2006)"

And just who profited from it? It wasn't Americans, it was the British. They had owned those ports for years, long before either Bush came to power.

Since you insist on being provocative: where is the Tolerance for other people's views?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/4/2006 5:44:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

After selling our ports for greed/profit we hear:

King : "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." (Feb. 23, 2006)"

And just who profited from it? It wasn't Americans, it was the British. They had owned those ports for years, long before either Bush came to power.

Since you insist on being provocative: where is the Tolerance for other people's views?

[Guest guest]

> : " Earlier I posted our fundamental rights and smoking pot was not one of them."WRONG!Try reading our fundamental rights again, and again, until you understand what they MEAN.> : "And what fundamental rights are those?"From the The Declaration of Independence:"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 Happiness....... ""... that they are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ....And, the meaning of the word 'among' means there are MORE, more rights, understood, if not delineated. Together these rights make up what we would call the greater 'common sense'.Of all people, you , with Asperger Personality Traits, should know how important it is for everyone to be free to be true their own unique nature. To be free to be themselves, without restrictions, period.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Under your interpretation though, this would mean that we would have

the right to commit all kinds of crimes if they made them happy. I do

not think this was the intent of the founders.

I believe this was a baseline on which other laws could be made, and

while it is true that laws will infringe on people's supposed rights,

the rights of every single individual were not the central issue. How

to govern all these individuals without imperriling their rights

significantly was.

Tom

Administrator

Of all people, you , with Asperger Personality Traits, should

know how important it is for everyone to be free to be true their own

unique nature. To be free to be themselves, without restrictions,

period.

Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> Tom: "Under your interpretation though, this would mean that we would have the right to commit all kinds of crimes if they made them happy."Not exactly! Not harming another/anyone is a given, in every society, as well as every religion, that I'm aware of. Ye olde: "Love one another"Free is: to be free from any restrictions concerning one's choice of family, location, occupation, diet, medicine, speech, thoughts, beliefs, and probably other things unrecalled of at the moment, always such that no harm comes to another.No one has the right to tell another where to go, what to do, what to eat, how to cure, or control/limit/edit speech, thoughts or beliefs.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2006 7:23:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

Free is: to be free from any restrictions concerning one's choice of family, location, occupation, diet, medicine, speech, thoughts, beliefs, and probably other things unrecalled of at the moment, always such that no harm comes to another.

No one has the right to tell another where to go, what to do, what to eat, how to cure, or control/limit/edit speech, thoughts or beliefs.

You are defining anarchy and chaos, not freedom. Freedom innately involves responsibility and is guided by reason and virtue; license (what you are describing) is choice without restraint or responsibility. If this degree of "freedom" existed, even a family could not exist. after all, if a teenager or even a child wanted to do something the parents disproved of, the child could simply leave and find a place they could do it. Presumably the new "family" that shares the child's desires and takes them in will be just as good as their original family, no?

In that last line it is again interesting that you want no limits on speech thought and beliefs, yet you deny that to those who disagree with you. At such times you call for tolerance on here. Tom is being very tolerant, letting you have your say even though he disagrees with it. That's tolerance.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2006 7:23:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

Free is: to be free from any restrictions concerning one's choice of family, location, occupation, diet, medicine, speech, thoughts, beliefs, and probably other things unrecalled of at the moment, always such that no harm comes to another.

No one has the right to tell another where to go, what to do, what to eat, how to cure, or control/limit/edit speech, thoughts or beliefs.

You are defining anarchy and chaos, not freedom. Freedom innately involves responsibility and is guided by reason and virtue; license (what you are describing) is choice without restraint or responsibility. If this degree of "freedom" existed, even a family could not exist. after all, if a teenager or even a child wanted to do something the parents disproved of, the child could simply leave and find a place they could do it. Presumably the new "family" that shares the child's desires and takes them in will be just as good as their original family, no?

In that last line it is again interesting that you want no limits on speech thought and beliefs, yet you deny that to those who disagree with you. At such times you call for tolerance on here. Tom is being very tolerant, letting you have your say even though he disagrees with it. That's tolerance.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 12:53:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

A true community of men and women based on your concept of a society would be the ideal, but we are far from that point right now as I see it. The problem is one of egocentric people who prey on others like vultures for their own personal gain.

We are indeed. If I feel like it, I'll copy (it will be by typing it up as a post) an article from a recent magazine that makes the point that we are heading into a more dangerous time in the world. Ethnic and religious tensions are brewing up around the world. This is nothing new actually, but rather a return to the normal state of affairs that was kept in check to an extent by the Cold War. We'll probably see a lot more war and violence for the next decades. I think I will copy that article, maybe in parts and not the whole thing all at once.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 12:53:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

A true community of men and women based on your concept of a society would be the ideal, but we are far from that point right now as I see it. The problem is one of egocentric people who prey on others like vultures for their own personal gain.

We are indeed. If I feel like it, I'll copy (it will be by typing it up as a post) an article from a recent magazine that makes the point that we are heading into a more dangerous time in the world. Ethnic and religious tensions are brewing up around the world. This is nothing new actually, but rather a return to the normal state of affairs that was kept in check to an extent by the Cold War. We'll probably see a lot more war and violence for the next decades. I think I will copy that article, maybe in parts and not the whole thing all at once.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:21:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, msaraann@... writes:

One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society isthe whole of social relationships between us all. Society has nothingto do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be broken orchanged. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free toobey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have theright to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian signal oracross the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts suchas killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those reactionsare from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feelinclined to react.

Society cannot exist without rules. Without a common set of laws, you have a mob, not civilization. Even the smallest tribes, even families, have rules to govern conduct.

Rules are meaningless in reality? Ok, next time you are driving somewhere, ignore the traffic rules and see how things go. Then imagine everyone driving as they pleased. What we would have is vast numbers of wrecks and total gridlock.

Try jumping the line at the bank or the grocery and see how that goes. Isn't your time more valuable to you than the time of the people in front of you?

So in cases of killing or other "crimes" we can do away with police and use vigilantes instead? That usually turns out pretty badly in practice, since mobs frequently get the wrong person and don't bother with a trial to get to the truth.

Civilization can be brought down. That might sound like a fun idea, but in practice it brings untold misery and suffering to the people within it. In addition, such collapses are usually caused by either natural disaster or more commonly by violence. Many many people get killed and many times that number have their lives destroyed.

The American Revolution was one of the rare occasions where, in spite of the war needed to gain that independence, that the Revolution did not turn on the society and consume it. Just look at the French Revolution, the various Haiti revolutions, the Nazi and Communist revolutions. All of those and more besides were terribly bloody.

Thank you, but I'll keep civilization, warts and all.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:21:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, msaraann@... writes:

One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society isthe whole of social relationships between us all. Society has nothingto do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be broken orchanged. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free toobey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have theright to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian signal oracross the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts suchas killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those reactionsare from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feelinclined to react.

Society cannot exist without rules. Without a common set of laws, you have a mob, not civilization. Even the smallest tribes, even families, have rules to govern conduct.

Rules are meaningless in reality? Ok, next time you are driving somewhere, ignore the traffic rules and see how things go. Then imagine everyone driving as they pleased. What we would have is vast numbers of wrecks and total gridlock.

Try jumping the line at the bank or the grocery and see how that goes. Isn't your time more valuable to you than the time of the people in front of you?

So in cases of killing or other "crimes" we can do away with police and use vigilantes instead? That usually turns out pretty badly in practice, since mobs frequently get the wrong person and don't bother with a trial to get to the truth.

Civilization can be brought down. That might sound like a fun idea, but in practice it brings untold misery and suffering to the people within it. In addition, such collapses are usually caused by either natural disaster or more commonly by violence. Many many people get killed and many times that number have their lives destroyed.

The American Revolution was one of the rare occasions where, in spite of the war needed to gain that independence, that the Revolution did not turn on the society and consume it. Just look at the French Revolution, the various Haiti revolutions, the Nazi and Communist revolutions. All of those and more besides were terribly bloody.

Thank you, but I'll keep civilization, warts and all.

[Guest guest]

You assume that everyone thinks like you do, but they do not. There

are criminals who don't care one way or another about who they harm,

and there are governments all over the world who are persecuting

their citizens just because they can.

A true community of men and women based on your concept of a society

would be the ideal, but we are far from that point right now as I see

it. The problem is one of egocentric people who prey on others like

vultures for their own personal gain.

As time passes, perhaps people will realize that ALL the earth is

theirs, only they have to share it with everyone else and leave it in

good keeping for those who come after.

Tom

Administrator

Not harming another/anyone is a given, in every society, as well as

every religion, that I'm aware of.

[Guest guest]

> One cannot be free without restrictions. That is impossible. If everyone were

" free " without restrictions, there could be no society. Certainly people can be

different, but they must do so within the law of the land or civil society can

not exist. From all this discussion it is clear you want the free to smoke pot.

Suppose someone else thinks their freedom involves taking things that belong to

other people? Who's to say they are wrong, after all, it is the individual's

definition of freedom that matters. For that matter, would I be free to go kill

that dog that is barking in the next street because it is bothering me? If it

were my definition of freedom that mattered, maybe so.

One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society is

the whole of social relationships between us all. Society has nothing

to do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be broken or

changed. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free to

obey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have the

right to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian signal or

across the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts such

as killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those reactions

are from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feel

inclined to react.

>

> Yes I am AS, but not all of us are anarchists. I believe there has to be

structure and order or society can't function. However, there needs to be just

enough slack that society can allow personal expression (within the limits of

decorum) and grow (in the true sense not in the " progressive " sense). Anarchy

exists in very few places on earth, like a few places in Africa or certain inner

cities around the world, but they are very nasty and unpleasant places.

Anarchy means " without a ruler. " It has nothing to do with chaos or

disorder. An anarchic society would be organized via the voluntary

participation of its individual members.

And just wondering, how does one smoking pot adversely affect another?

Should not alcohol or tobacco also be outlawed if marijuana is justly

outlawed?

-sara

[Guest guest]

Is it just me or does religon seem to provoke in many violence and a

tendency towards war?

Even here on the forum topics on religon always seem to get heated. I

really do not mind what others believe as long as they aren't forcing

me to believe it. I can't understand why people can't have

discussions on religon without getting upset - I listen to others

points and views on my choice of religon and I am quite happy to

listen to views on other religons too.

I suppose it boils down to not harming others - which is in itself

perhaps controversial. Some religons want to hurt others - this

confuses me. I don't mind respecting others religon and if I went

into their place of worship I would excpect to follow their rules, as

if I went into their house I should also be respectful.

I will admit I am ignorant of other's beliefs that is why I am pretty

eager to learn - I do not want to unitentionally offend others, plus

I find religons fascinating.

Of what I do know of Islamic stuff that their Holy book is quite

similar to the Bible in some ways? From what I have viewed of Islamic

stuff, seems quite similar to Christianity in some ways, particularly

in the respect that some are nice and others are fundamental nutcases

intent on converting or destroying all that stand in their way (some

Christians are like that). I would be very pleased to know more about

Islamic stuff from a moderate and rational person, but know of no-one

I can ask - maybe I should do some internet research :-) then again

not everything on the internet is correct :-(

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 12:53:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> A true community of men and women based on your concept of a

society

> would be the ideal, but we are far from that point right now as I

see

> it. The problem is one of egocentric people who prey on others

like

> vultures for their own personal gain.

>

>

>

> We are indeed. If I feel like it, I'll copy (it will be by typing

it up as a

> post) an article from a recent magazine that makes the point that

we are

> heading into a more dangerous time in the world. Ethnic and

religious tensions

> are brewing up around the world. This is nothing new actually, but

rather a

> return to the normal state of affairs that was kept in check to an

extent by the

> Cold War. We'll probably see a lot more war and violence for the

next

> decades. I think I will copy that article, maybe in parts and not

the whole thing

> all at once.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I suppose in an ideal world we would not need rules and regulations -

but we do not live in an ideal world.

What I mean by the above if everyone had genuine; love, kindness,

compassion and consideration for others then perhaps we would not

need the rules?

For example of the traffic light scenario - sometimes on occasions I

have seen traffic lights broken down at junctions and have seen

drivers respond very carefully and considerately, waiting turn and

being courteous to one another. Now I am not saying that would happen

all the time, but wouldn't it be nice if it did :-)

Idealistic at heart, but forced into reality by the world I live in.

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:21:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> msaraann@... writes:

>

> One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society

is

> the whole of social relationships between us all. Society has

nothing

> to do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be

broken or

> changed. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free to

> obey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have the

> right to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian signal

or

> across the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts

such

> as killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those

reactions

> are from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feel

> inclined to react.

>

>

>

> Society cannot exist without rules. Without a common set of laws,

you have a

> mob, not civilization. Even the smallest tribes, even families,

have rules to

> govern conduct.

>

> Rules are meaningless in reality? Ok, next time you are driving

somewhere,

> ignore the traffic rules and see how things go. Then imagine

everyone driving

> as they pleased. What we would have is vast numbers of wrecks and

total

> gridlock.

>

> Try jumping the line at the bank or the grocery and see how that

goes. Isn't

> your time more valuable to you than the time of the people in front

of you?

>

> So in cases of killing or other " crimes " we can do away with police

and use

> vigilantes instead? That usually turns out pretty badly in

practice, since

> mobs frequently get the wrong person and don't bother with a trial

to get to the

> truth.

>

> Civilization can be brought down. That might sound like a fun idea,

but in

> practice it brings untold misery and suffering to the people within

it. In

> addition, such collapses are usually caused by either natural

disaster or more

> commonly by violence. Many many people get killed and many times

that number

> have their lives destroyed.

>

> The American Revolution was one of the rare occasions where, in

spite of the

> war needed to gain that independence, that the Revolution did not

turn on

> the society and consume it. Just look at the French Revolution, the

various

> Haiti revolutions, the Nazi and Communist revolutions. All of those

and more

> besides were terribly bloody.

>

> Thank you, but I'll keep civilization, warts and all.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I suppose in an ideal world we would not need rules and regulations -

but we do not live in an ideal world.

What I mean by the above if everyone had genuine; love, kindness,

compassion and consideration for others then perhaps we would not

need the rules?

For example of the traffic light scenario - sometimes on occasions I

have seen traffic lights broken down at junctions and have seen

drivers respond very carefully and considerately, waiting turn and

being courteous to one another. Now I am not saying that would happen

all the time, but wouldn't it be nice if it did :-)

Idealistic at heart, but forced into reality by the world I live in.

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:21:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> msaraann@... writes:

>

> One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society

is

> the whole of social relationships between us all. Society has

nothing

> to do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be

broken or

> changed. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free to

> obey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have the

> right to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian signal

or

> across the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts

such

> as killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those

reactions

> are from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feel

> inclined to react.

>

>

>

> Society cannot exist without rules. Without a common set of laws,

you have a

> mob, not civilization. Even the smallest tribes, even families,

have rules to

> govern conduct.

>

> Rules are meaningless in reality? Ok, next time you are driving

somewhere,

> ignore the traffic rules and see how things go. Then imagine

everyone driving

> as they pleased. What we would have is vast numbers of wrecks and

total

> gridlock.

>

> Try jumping the line at the bank or the grocery and see how that

goes. Isn't

> your time more valuable to you than the time of the people in front

of you?

>

> So in cases of killing or other " crimes " we can do away with police

and use

> vigilantes instead? That usually turns out pretty badly in

practice, since

> mobs frequently get the wrong person and don't bother with a trial

to get to the

> truth.

>

> Civilization can be brought down. That might sound like a fun idea,

but in

> practice it brings untold misery and suffering to the people within

it. In

> addition, such collapses are usually caused by either natural

disaster or more

> commonly by violence. Many many people get killed and many times

that number

> have their lives destroyed.

>

> The American Revolution was one of the rare occasions where, in

spite of the

> war needed to gain that independence, that the Revolution did not

turn on

> the society and consume it. Just look at the French Revolution, the

various

> Haiti revolutions, the Nazi and Communist revolutions. All of those

and more

> besides were terribly bloody.

>

> Thank you, but I'll keep civilization, warts and all.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 11:58:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

You are correct! My thinking deleted criminals as they are an aberration in society. I was referring to 'the people' of the world, again I wasn't including 'governments' which do not generally reflect the will of the common person.

Generally they do. They don't reflect the views of all, of course, because that would be impossible. The US Congress has quite diverse points of view from the fairly conservative south and midwest to the liberal northest and west coast. Most of the time they do a fair job of representing their constituents.

However, representing their constituents does not mean giving the people everything they want. That would be impractical and dangerous. Still, if some places want to turn themselves into high tax welfare states that encourage license in their people, then let them, but limit that to just those few states and not the union as a whole. If one state wants to throw away the Constitution and reason, let it, but all the rest of us should not have to be saddle with its whims.

[Guest guest]

Sometimes it is more important to be kind than it is to prove that one

is right.

Raven

>

> I suppose in an ideal world we would not need rules and regulations -

> but we do not live in an ideal world.

>

> What I mean by the above if everyone had genuine; love, kindness,

> compassion and consideration for others then perhaps we would not

> need the rules?

[Guest guest]

Sometimes it is more important to be kind than it is to prove that one

is right.

Raven

>

> I suppose in an ideal world we would not need rules and regulations -

> but we do not live in an ideal world.

>

> What I mean by the above if everyone had genuine; love, kindness,

> compassion and consideration for others then perhaps we would not

> need the rules?

[Guest guest]

> Tom: "You assume that everyone thinks like you do, but they do not. There are criminals who don't care one way or another about who they harm, and there are governments all over the world who are persecuting their citizens just because they can."You are correct! My thinking deleted criminals as they are an aberration in society. I was referring to 'the people' of the world, again I wasn't including 'governments' which do not generally reflect the will of the common person.> Tom: "As time passes, perhaps people will realize that ALL the earth is theirs, only they have to share it with everyone else and leave it in good keeping for those who come after."Yes, this is my dream also! I believe we are getting closer to this ideal as time passes.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

I'm a hopeless idealist too. Someone on another forum once said my views

sounded like a Libertarian. When I read about what that is, I realized that

I probably would be - IF only everyone else was mature enough to not abuse

such liberty. :-(

Problem with laws is that only criminals really need them, but they ignore

them most.

And what if those who make the laws are criminals themselves?

Inger

Re: Liberty!

I suppose in an ideal world we would not need rules and regulations -

but we do not live in an ideal world.

What I mean by the above if everyone had genuine; love, kindness,

compassion and consideration for others then perhaps we would not

need the rules?

For example of the traffic light scenario - sometimes on occasions I

have seen traffic lights broken down at junctions and have seen

drivers respond very carefully and considerately, waiting turn and

being courteous to one another. Now I am not saying that would happen

all the time, but wouldn't it be nice if it did :-)

Idealistic at heart, but forced into reality by the world I live in.

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:21:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> msaraann@... writes:

>

> One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society

is

> the whole of social relationships between us all. Society has

nothing

> to do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be

broken or

> changed. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free to

> obey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have the

> right to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian signal

or

> across the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts

such

> as killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those

reactions

> are from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feel

> inclined to react.

>

>

>

> Society cannot exist without rules. Without a common set of laws,

you have a

> mob, not civilization. Even the smallest tribes, even families,

have rules to

> govern conduct.

>

> Rules are meaningless in reality? Ok, next time you are driving

somewhere,

> ignore the traffic rules and see how things go. Then imagine

everyone driving

> as they pleased. What we would have is vast numbers of wrecks and

total

> gridlock.

>

> Try jumping the line at the bank or the grocery and see how that

goes. Isn't

> your time more valuable to you than the time of the people in front

of you?

>

> So in cases of killing or other " crimes " we can do away with police

and use

> vigilantes instead? That usually turns out pretty badly in

practice, since

> mobs frequently get the wrong person and don't bother with a trial

to get to the

> truth.

>

> Civilization can be brought down. That might sound like a fun idea,

but in

> practice it brings untold misery and suffering to the people within

it. In

> addition, such collapses are usually caused by either natural

disaster or more

> commonly by violence. Many many people get killed and many times

that number

> have their lives destroyed.

>

> The American Revolution was one of the rare occasions where, in

spite of the

> war needed to gain that independence, that the Revolution did not

turn on

> the society and consume it. Just look at the French Revolution, the

various

> Haiti revolutions, the Nazi and Communist revolutions. All of those

and more

> besides were terribly bloody.

>

> Thank you, but I'll keep civilization, warts and all.

>

>

>

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

" And what if those who make the laws are criminals themselves? "

Good point and likely quite a bit of truth there too.

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:21:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> > msaraann@ writes:

> >

> > One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society

> is

> > the whole of social relationships between us all. Society has

> nothing

> > to do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be

> broken or

> > changed. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free

to

> > obey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have

the

> > right to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian

signal

> or

> > across the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts

> such

> > as killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those

> reactions

> > are from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feel

> > inclined to react.

> >

> >

> >

> > Society cannot exist without rules. Without a common set of laws,

> you have a

> > mob, not civilization. Even the smallest tribes, even families,

> have rules to

> > govern conduct.

> >

> > Rules are meaningless in reality? Ok, next time you are driving

> somewhere,

> > ignore the traffic rules and see how things go. Then imagine

> everyone driving

> > as they pleased. What we would have is vast numbers of wrecks and

> total

> > gridlock.

> >

> > Try jumping the line at the bank or the grocery and see how that

> goes. Isn't

> > your time more valuable to you than the time of the people in

front

> of you?

> >

> > So in cases of killing or other " crimes " we can do away with

police

> and use

> > vigilantes instead? That usually turns out pretty badly in

> practice, since

> > mobs frequently get the wrong person and don't bother with a

trial

> to get to the

> > truth.

> >

> > Civilization can be brought down. That might sound like a fun

idea,

> but in

> > practice it brings untold misery and suffering to the people

within

> it. In

> > addition, such collapses are usually caused by either natural

> disaster or more

> > commonly by violence. Many many people get killed and many times

> that number

> > have their lives destroyed.

> >

> > The American Revolution was one of the rare occasions where, in

> spite of the

> > war needed to gain that independence, that the Revolution did not

> turn on

> > the society and consume it. Just look at the French Revolution,

the

> various

> > Haiti revolutions, the Nazi and Communist revolutions. All of

those

> and more

> > besides were terribly bloody.

> >

> > Thank you, but I'll keep civilization, warts and all.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and

> acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the

> folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>

[Guest guest]

" And what if those who make the laws are criminals themselves? "

Good point and likely quite a bit of truth there too.

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:21:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> > msaraann@ writes:

> >

> > One cannot be free with restrictions. That is impossible. Society

> is

> > the whole of social relationships between us all. Society has

> nothing

> > to do with rules. Civilization is the contstruct that can be

> broken or

> > changed. The rules are meaningless in reality. We are each free

to

> > obey them or not, and the rulers are free to believe they have

the

> > right to lock another up for walking against the pedestrian

signal

> or

> > across the grass of a plot someone else believes they own. Acts

> such

> > as killing will elicit reactions regardless of whether those

> reactions

> > are from appointed judgers, rulers, or those individuals who feel

> > inclined to react.

> >

> >

> >

> > Society cannot exist without rules. Without a common set of laws,

> you have a

> > mob, not civilization. Even the smallest tribes, even families,

> have rules to

> > govern conduct.

> >

> > Rules are meaningless in reality? Ok, next time you are driving

> somewhere,

> > ignore the traffic rules and see how things go. Then imagine

> everyone driving

> > as they pleased. What we would have is vast numbers of wrecks and

> total

> > gridlock.

> >

> > Try jumping the line at the bank or the grocery and see how that

> goes. Isn't

> > your time more valuable to you than the time of the people in

front

> of you?

> >

> > So in cases of killing or other " crimes " we can do away with

police

> and use

> > vigilantes instead? That usually turns out pretty badly in

> practice, since

> > mobs frequently get the wrong person and don't bother with a

trial

> to get to the

> > truth.

> >

> > Civilization can be brought down. That might sound like a fun

idea,

> but in

> > practice it brings untold misery and suffering to the people

within

> it. In

> > addition, such collapses are usually caused by either natural

> disaster or more

> > commonly by violence. Many many people get killed and many times

> that number

> > have their lives destroyed.

> >

> > The American Revolution was one of the rare occasions where, in

> spite of the

> > war needed to gain that independence, that the Revolution did not

> turn on

> > the society and consume it. Just look at the French Revolution,

the

> various

> > Haiti revolutions, the Nazi and Communist revolutions. All of

those

> and more

> > besides were terribly bloody.

> >

> > Thank you, but I'll keep civilization, warts and all.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and

> acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the

> folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>