This is an interesting post, Izzy.
I like it; thoughtful & filosofical.
Politicians r un-trustworthy. At the age of 11, I learned
that trusting people is a bad business and one shud keep it to a minimum.
So are the heads of big business
and small business and customers and everyone else
I don t recommend trusting anyone
more than necessary. Love
but don t trust.
we can change our politicians,
we've got no such power over business leaders and the very rich.
We shud not;
thay r rightfully free.
As we get richer, we do not relinquish our liberty.
I did not. Did u, Izzy ?
That's why we need our representatives to keep them in check.
Even if u need
thay have no jurisdiction to do so.
My assertion applies in a free country.
I shud not comment about England, for lack of knowledge.
Do the boys of England have as much FREEDOM,
or as much fun as the Americans in those videos??
or do u live under authoritarianism ?
izzythepush wrote:Freedom from the interference of government
One feature of being a free people
is that we can choose our own definitions of freedom
is what we have in mind in America. Government is a dangerous hireling.
Of course, a man can also be free of many other things.
In reference to those: one must SPECIFY
and not have others' ideas forced on us.
Do u think there 's much chance of that?? I dont.
We don't force our schoolchildren
to pledge allegiance/salute a flag, or a monarch.
Offhand, I cant think of anything that I 'd FORCE
them to do.
If I had a son, I dont imagine that I 'd get in his way much,
but I must admit that u don t know unless presented
with the actual fact. I 'd want to be a good host.
We can gamble freely,
including on the outcome of elections,
something you are forbidden from doing.
Being forbidden is insignificant.
I 'd not take that seriously. I 'd do that without thinking 2ice,
if I wanted to and I had someone to take the bet,
tho the courts wud not enforce the contract of wager. I am a free citizen.
Las Vegas. I have a free week's rent at the Golden Nugget
from its loyalty program called The Gentleman's Agreement.
We can cross the road without fear of being arrested for jaywalking.
I 've done that for years, decades & centuries, fearing only the vehicular traffic.
We are released from the tyranny of medical bills,
we don't have to fear armed police.
I don t fear armed police; never did.
I support the free market. I have medical insurance; no trouble.
In the run up to the Iraq war we had a free press that told the truth
about worldwide [????] and public opposition to the war,
Saddam was intolerably dangerous.
He was a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us for Kuwait
and access to nukes next door from Russian scientists or former Red Army officers.
I for SURE
had no interest
in worldwide leftist-pacifist opinions.
not a subservient tool of the far right
that broadcast propaganda 24/7.
In America, the press is un
-friendly to conservatism.
We can enjoy an alcoholic drink when we reach adulthood,
not have to wait a further three years.
I 'd repeal laws
on alcohol or any drug,
restoring the status quo ante
. Its none of government's business.
Personally, I don t care much for drugs. Alcohol is a headache in a glass.
We don't have to live in fear of the criminally insane
being given firearms like Eliot Rodgers.
Thay shud be ISOLATED
from the decent people,
not necessarily on this Continent and thay shud PAY
for their guns
like anyone, not have them "given" to them.
I assure u that I don t
"live in fear
of the criminally insane being given firearms" or fear of anything.
We don't have to give photo id when stopped by a policeman.
I 've never done that.
In fact the only thing that stops us being free
are the foreign troops on our soil.
Do your countrymen agree??
This has very little importance, in my mind.
I c nothing rong with bringing them home.
The 3rd World War is over. We won.
Please explain HOW
those troops interfered with your freedom. ???
We don't want an armed population, that's the majority view,
That addresses brute power, not what is right.
Tony Martin was sodomized
by your government; ineffably beyond egregious.
He shud not have been in prison even for a minute for admirably defending his property.
The "majority view" cud not void his Natural Right of self defense.
Does what the majority WANTS
extinguish the personal right to self defense?? I doubt it.
If the majority voted that Moslems or Jews had to convert to the Church of England,
then wud thay lose their personal rights of choice??? I don t think so.
Up to approximately 1920, England was a free country. The English were proud
and America gives a salutary lesson on why
that is the correct view almost every day.
As the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals put it:
the place where one has a right to defend himself
is the place where he is attacked.
Older English filosofers agreed with that.
Is that obsolete
in England now ?
Is the new doctrine: "don t hurt the predator" ?
izzythepush wrote:I dont prevent u from executing your decisions
If you wanted us to be truly free you'd let us make our own decisions,
not be told what to do by you.
I just mouth off
, offering opinions n observations.