Free markets and social problems:

[interlagos]

...
In the US, who is oppressing you?

The entity which has monopoly on money printing not accountable to elected govt.

[1714122490]

1714122490

[1714122490]

1714122490

[1714122490]

1714122490

[Hawker]

...
In the US, who is oppressing you?

The entity which has monopoly on money printing not accountable to elected govt.

Nonsense.  The Fed is a government creation and would be abolished tomorrow if Ron Paul had the votes. 

Do try to come up with something that really affects your freedom.  Pointing to government employees that can be removed if the elected representatives so choose is a bit feeble.

[bb113]

I'm pretty sure it isn't so easy. The FED and associated banks have tools with which to threaten politicians.

[Hawker]

In the US, who is oppressing you?

Stop paying your property tax and find out. Stop paying your income tax and find out.

Paying taxes is not oppression in a democracy.

This oppression: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/04/192423.html 400 people killed because they are not the right religion to have a decent life in Syria.  Paying taxes to provide the services your community uses does not compare.

[Hawker]

In the US, who is oppressing you?

Stop paying your property tax and find out. Stop paying your income tax and find out.

Paying taxes is not oppression in a democracy.

Indeed, it's the consequences of not paying taxes where the oppression comes in.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/04/192423.html

That's oppression.  Stop being a baby.

[Hawker]

In the US, who is oppressing you?

Stop paying your property tax and find out. Stop paying your income tax and find out.

Paying taxes is not oppression in a democracy.

Indeed, it's the consequences of not paying taxes where the oppression comes in.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/04/192423.html

That's oppression.  Stop being a baby.

You are arguing scale.

If you live in a country where the taxes you pay are set by a democratically elected body, then you are being silly to call taxation oppression.  The scale is not the issue - its the emotional immaturity that is the problem.

In Syria, the Alevi government is determined to maintain power against a Sunni Muslim majority because they believe they are a superior race that came from the stars.  In your country, there is no such group oppressing you. 

[Hunterbunter]

If modern people in democratic states are not free, who is our master?

Rather than offer any counter argument to show them invalid, or any substance of your own, you try to belittle me?

If you ask "Who are our masters", the answer becomes more obvious.

No it doesn't.

Really, if you are not free, someone or some group is oppressing you.  For example, in China, I can see its the Communists and in Bahrain, I can see its the Sunnis.  

In the US, who is oppressing you?

You do not need to be oppressed to have a master. Oppression only happens when you behave 'badly' according to those with more firepower than you - not all slaves were beaten to made work. That is, you aim to rebel or harm anyone with the ability to harm you back. In America, everyone has the right to own guns, so oppression is more difficult than say, China.

In a democratic state, our masters are each other. My original point stands.

[Bind]

If modern people in democratic states are not free, who is our master?

Rather than offer any counter argument to show them invalid, or any substance of your own, you try to belittle me?

If you ask "Who are our masters", the answer becomes more obvious.

No it doesn't.

Really, if you are not free, someone or some group is oppressing you.  For example, in China, I can see its the Communists and in Bahrain, I can see its the Sunnis.  

In the US, who is oppressing you?

You do not need to be oppressed to have a master. Oppression only happens when you behave 'badly' according to those with more firepower than you. That is, you aim to rebel or harm anyone with the ability to harm you back. In America, everyone has the right to own guns, so oppression is more difficult than say, China.

In a democratic state, our masters are each other. My original point stands.

All it takes to be enslaved is to be unvoluntarily obligated.

[Hunterbunter]

\All it takes to be enslaved is to be unvoluntarily obligated.

And birth as a human pretty much takes care of that, right?

[Hawker]

If modern people in democratic states are not free, who is our master?

Rather than offer any counter argument to show them invalid, or any substance of your own, you try to belittle me?

If you ask "Who are our masters", the answer becomes more obvious.

No it doesn't.

Really, if you are not free, someone or some group is oppressing you.  For example, in China, I can see its the Communists and in Bahrain, I can see its the Sunnis.  

In the US, who is oppressing you?

You do not need to be oppressed to have a master. Oppression only happens when you behave 'badly' according to those with more firepower than you. That is, you aim to rebel or harm anyone with the ability to harm you back. In America, everyone has the right to own guns, so oppression is more difficult than say, China.

In a democratic state, our masters are each other. My original point stands.

Your original point is that a man in Boston is under an illusion if he thinks he is free.  Now you say he is not free because he and his neighbours are oppressing one another.  I suppose they do horrible things like weekly bin collections and employing dog catchers?

Do you not see that you are defining freedom in a way that is unique to you?  The citizen in Boston who votes for his representatives, has his rights respected and benefits from a vibrant civic society is the very definition of a free man.

[Bind]

\All it takes to be enslaved is to be unvoluntarily obligated.

And birth as a human pretty much takes care of that, right?

right

[Hunterbunter]

You do not need to be oppressed to have a master. Oppression only happens when you behave 'badly' according to those with more firepower than you. That is, you aim to rebel or harm anyone with the ability to harm you back. In America, everyone has the right to own guns, so oppression is more difficult than say, China.

In a democratic state, our masters are each other. My original point stands.

Your original point is that a man in Boston is under an illusion if he thinks he is free.  Now you say he is not free because he and his neighbours are oppressing one another.  I suppose they do horrible things like weekly bin collections and employing dog catchers?

What? He is not free, but believes he is free. This is not a contradiction. We once believed an atom was indivisible, but that proved untrue, and both ideas are still irrelevant to most people. Belief has nothing to do with reality, and we can function perfectly well with this being the case.

He gives up freedom when he respects the laws which govern him and his neighbor. Oppression is a specific definition of unjust burden, and not the only result of removing freedom - modern democracies are also a form of removing freedom; all the goodness with just a hint of oppression. I would even say that the only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy, the oppression is more equally shared between those in power and those not.

Do you not see that you are defining freedom in a way that is unique to you?  The citizen in Boston who votes for his representatives, has his rights respected and benefits from a vibrant civic society is the very definition of a free man.

Are you doing differently? Just using a google definition: Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. "Playing nice" includes sometimes restraining oneself.

Having his rights respected implies others will restrain themselves when they want to exercise their 'freedom'. This creates a paradox for freedom, as the prerequisite of restraint removes their power to act in the first place. This is why I say there cannot exist a freedom without restraint, but we must believe it to exist to get on with things. Hence the illusion. If you have the right to act in a violent manner towards your neighbor, can you still do so without hindrance in any democracy? Even a boxing match has rules.

[FirstAscent]

Many in this thread cling to the immature and naive belief that freedom as they see it is a natural consequence of nature if governmental bodies don't exist. Sorry to burst your fantasy, but freedom as you see it does not naturally arise in the absence of government.

[Bind]

Many in this thread cling to the immature and naive belief that freedom as they see it is a natural consequence of nature if governmental bodies don't exist. Sorry to burst your fantasy, but freedom as you see it does not naturally arise in the absence of government.

Sure it does, so long as you have the force capable of stopping any infringement from occurring, using an eye for an eye justice system that had worked so well for thousands of years. People would learn very quickly the perils of infringing on another, so they would move to weaker targets or change their ways. I think expecting the government to take on all responsibility iny our life to be the more immature choice... but in reality we dont have much of a choice until millions stand in unison against the current system, but they need to wake up first. I would have no qualms with shooting a criminal bent on depriving me or my loved ones of their rights, nor metering out eye for an eye discipline/punishment.

Jim says, "hey bill, how'd you lose your finger?"

Bill replies, "I stole from a guy and he cut it off after he shot me."

Bill was talking to Jim while they were working. Bill realised its safer to get a job instead of stealing.

[FirstAscent]

Many in this thread cling to the immature and naive belief that freedom as they see it is a natural consequence of nature if governmental bodies don't exist. Sorry to burst your fantasy, but freedom as you see it does not naturally arise in the absence of government.

Sure it does, so long as you have the force capable of stopping any infringement from occurring, using an eye for an eye justice system that had worked so well for thousands of years. People would learn very quickly the perils of infringing on another, so they would move to weaker targets or change their ways.

Don't you see the fallacies of your fantasies? Let's review:

Sure it does, so long as you have the force capable of stopping any infringement from occurring, using an eye for an eye justice system that had worked so well for thousands of years.

What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement? You're assuming everyone has that power and strength.

Citing barbaric traditions of the past is hardly the model of freedom you're looking for.

People would learn very quickly the perils of infringing on another, so they would move to weaker targets or change their ways.

I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

Seriously, go rethink your ideas for a few years and come back when you're eighteen.

[Bind]

Many in this thread cling to the immature and naive belief that freedom as they see it is a natural consequence of nature if governmental bodies don't exist. Sorry to burst your fantasy, but freedom as you see it does not naturally arise in the absence of government.

Sure it does, so long as you have the force capable of stopping any infringement from occurring, using an eye for an eye justice system that had worked so well for thousands of years. People would learn very quickly the perils of infringing on another, so they would move to weaker targets or change their ways.

Don't you see the fallacies of your fantasies? Let's review:

Sure it does, so long as you have the force capable of stopping any infringement from occurring, using an eye for an eye justice system that had worked so well for thousands of years.

What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement? You're assuming everyone has that power and strength.

Citing barbaric traditions of the past is hardly the model of freedom you're looking for.

People would learn very quickly the perils of infringing on another, so they would move to weaker targets or change their ways.

I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

Seriously, go rethink your ideas for a few years and come back when you're eighteen.

At least in my solution there is a realistic expectation of protecting oneself instead of relying on the police who only react to crime, not prevent it... and the criminal will actually learn from their crimes and not be constantly traveling through a revolving door because an eye for an eye is way worse than 3 hots and a cot in prison.

In fact, according to Warren v. District of Columbia, the supreme court held and affirmed that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect a citizen unless under special circumstances, like being detained or while in custody.

You think and eye for an eye is barbaric? I agree. Almost as barbaric as the criminal infringing upon me or my family.

Not to be unfeeling, but weak people who refuse to prepare and protect their families deserve whatever they get. All they have to do is educate themselves, buy weapons, learn how to use them safely, and practice. Confidance will come with experience and repitition. Physical defense classes may also as well as build confidance. Also they should build community support structures for assistance.

The thing many do not realize is that it does not matter what the law says or how the police react. There is so much crime today specifically because of the high chance they wont be caught and disciplined. They know most homes and families are not prepared to be infringed upon. They know most soley rely on the cops who only react. They know the government is trying to take the guns. They know hunting is decreasing becasue of the over harvesting of antlerless deer herds, which frustrates hunters, meaning less hunting and less guns.

In the end the only rights you have will be taken away if you lack the ability to defend those rights from infringement. Criminals could care less about laws when they want what you got and no oneor nothing is around to stop them.

A criminal could come over to your house right now and do what they want regardless of the law and the police, and there would be nothing you could do about it if their force was greater than yours. If your force was greater than their and they knew there was a high likelihood you would kill or maim them, they would avoid you like the plague.

Most simply do not understand the mind of a criminal.

[FirstAscent]

You are completely sidestepping the following points:

1. What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement?

2. I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

[Bind]

You are completely sidestepping the following points:

1. What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement?

2. I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

1. Then you wouldnt be any worse off than you are right now.

2. Of course they are deserving of freedom, but freedom requires participation and some action on your part.

[FirstAscent]

1. Then you wouldnt be any worse off than you are right now.

Explain.

2. Of course they are deserving of freedom, but freedom requires participation and some action on your part.

Ah. So those who can afford more action on their part get greater freedom? That's not freedom. Looks like you've got a lot of thinking to do before you figure this out.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Not to be unfeeling, but weak people who refuse to prepare and protect their families deserve whatever they get. All they have to do is educate themselves, buy weapons, learn how to use them safely, and practice. Confidance will come with experience and repitition. Physical defense classes may also as well as build confidance. Also they should build community support structures for assistance.
...snip...

Not everyone wants to waste their time on weapons training.  People want the state to protect them and vote in politicians who try to provide that protection.