|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2010 18:56:04 GMT
I found a number of campaigns on the website of the video maker that would take people's freedom.
One person's freedom is another person's shackles. You can use that one as well if you want, hunter.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 7, 2010 19:00:57 GMT
scpg02 said, "Taking our freedoms accomplishes nothing but taking our freedoms. " Very wise. Very profound. If it is OK, I will use that one. Be my guest. No credit necessary. Things I post on the open forum are for public use and consumption.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 7, 2010 19:02:36 GMT
I found a number of campaigns on the website of the video maker that would take people's freedom. One person's freedom is another person's shackles. You can use that one as well if you want, hunter. Really? Point them out if you will. I can think of nothing promoted by JBS that would take freedoms. And you are wrong, one person's freedom does not shackle another person. If you believe that then you have a warped concept of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 8, 2010 4:28:25 GMT
I found a number of campaigns on the website of the video maker that would take people's freedom. One person's freedom is another person's shackles. You can use that one as well if you want, hunter. Really? Point them out if you will. I can think of nothing promoted by JBS that would take freedoms. And you are wrong, one person's freedom does not shackle another person. If you believe that then you have a warped concept of freedom. A person excercising license could take away someone else's freedom, but actual freedom as contemplated by most involves the application of restraint and reason. Liberty unbounded is not sustainable. I will look forward to viewing the videos. scpg02, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 8, 2010 5:16:56 GMT
Really? Point them out if you will. I can think of nothing promoted by JBS that would take freedoms. And you are wrong, one person's freedom does not shackle another person. If you believe that then you have a warped concept of freedom. A person excercising license could take away someone else's freedom, but actual freedom as contemplated by most involves the application of restraint and reason. Liberty unbounded is not sustainable. I will look forward to viewing the videos. scpg02, thanks. Our Divinely given rights do not include denying the rights of others. Freedom does not mean doing whatever you want. that is anarchy. Freedom includes the rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jun 8, 2010 6:33:44 GMT
scgp02 6/7/2010, # 11: The United STates is not a democracy by design. Steve 6/7/2010, # 12: There is no gold-standard definition of a democracy. Probably none of the systems of "democracy" in the world will meet every "democratically-minded" persons level of freedom and/or equality and/or right to contribute to making decisions for society. So articles or radio programmes claiming that some unclearly specified reductions in certain freedoms are attacks or required reductions on democracy are alarmist. “Declaration of Independence - Transcript.” Government. U.S. National Archives, July 4, 1776. www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlWe 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. Benjamin Franklin quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/benjamin+franklin: Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." scgp02 is correct. It is not a democracy. It is a popularly-elected Constitutional Republic. Steve's understanding needs work.Unfortunately, Steve is stuck on the word " democracy". This is understandable from two aspects. First, Devon is in a different country. Second, our democrat party and its politicians emphasize "democracy" over "Republic", for obvious reasons. However, those that wrote and influenced the Constitution were widely read in history. History taught them that "democracies" have short lifetimes, devolving into anarchy and tyranny (rooted in a Greek word). Shay's Rebellion 1 evidenced that the Articles of Confederation were too weak for the nation to survive. A popularly elected, bicameral Constitutional Republic 2 was their solution. Next, "freedom": It is true that "Liberty" and "Freedom" were nearly interchangeable concepts at the beginning. "Liberty" was to be the result of "Freedom" from monarchical tyranny as administered by bureaucrats. Over the years, usage began to blur the connotation ("new birth of freedom", the "four freedoms", "free at last"). In my opinion, our history shows that "Liberty" is considered an endowment, inherent to human beings. The connotation of "Freedom" has become something granted, achieved (or denied) though government. Liberty is the right of the citizen to choose what is best for oneself and one's family under constitutional law. And that is why our Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government. Last, please consider this: where the endowment includes the "pursuit of Happiness", the effect must be equality of opportunity, not equality of result.
1 “Shays' Rebellion.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, n.d. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion2 Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist: The Famous Papers on the Principles of American Government. MetroBooks (NY), 2002.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 8, 2010 7:12:52 GMT
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. James Madison
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2010 11:17:57 GMT
I found a number of campaigns on the website of the video maker that would take people's freedom. One person's freedom is another person's shackles. You can use that one as well if you want, hunter. Really? Point them out if you will. I can think of nothing promoted by JBS that would take freedoms. And you are wrong, one person's freedom does not shackle another person. If you believe that then you have a warped concept of freedom. I don't disagree with everything they say, but to argue that there is a gold-standard of freedom is certainly warped because we all come across people with different moral standards. At an extreme, I was in Barcelona the other week and saw two naked blokes wondering down Las Ramblas (a very busy tourist area) without a care in the world. If you want some examples, on JBS there appeared to be a "pro-life" stance (somewhat disguised by a claim simply to be annoyed at the uselessness of the pro-life federal politicians); a pro-religious stance - frankly I would like the children in my family to be sent to the local school and not be told what metaphysical beings to believe in (you have that freedom in the US I understand - keep it); a pro marriage-stance which is of course an anti-same-sex relation stance. They are campaigning against the rights of people to give goods to Gaza occupants. Property rights are a limit on freedom, particularly when the rights are inherited so those without the rights have no opportunity to a share in the land or freedom to roam - in the UK, significant property rights were obtained following enclosure acts in the 1800s, so few owners of the land have true title. All this may be irrelevant, but the central point is that, in my view, there has to be give and take in the world. If it does turn out that fossil fuel wealth is to the detriment of large sections of the community, then something has to give.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2010 11:22:52 GMT
No I'm not stuck on the word democracy. The Lovelock quote mentioned democracy, and the Delingpole article got stuck on this word.
I am very very happy with the idea of "Equality of opportunity".
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jun 8, 2010 15:26:43 GMT
No I'm not stuck on the word democracy. The Lovelock quote mentioned democracy, and the Delingpole article got stuck on this word. Sorry, Steve. I missed the Lovelock and Delingpole attributions in the preceding posts. I should have written: Lovelock's and Delingpole's understandings need work. scgp02 : Thanks for the quote from "The Federalist" #10. I fell short in not giving a reference. ;D
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 8, 2010 15:41:07 GMT
No I'm not stuck on the word democracy. The Lovelock quote mentioned democracy, and the Delingpole article got stuck on this word. Sorry, Steve. I missed the Lovelock and Delingpole attributions in the preceding posts. I should have written: Lovelock's and Delingpole's understandings need work. scgp02 : Thanks for the quote from "The Federalist" #10. I fell short in not giving a reference. ;D Not many men will admit they "fall short". LOL sorry, could't resist.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2010 16:18:33 GMT
If you want some examples, on JBS there appeared to be a "pro-life" stance (somewhat disguised by a claim simply to be annoyed at the uselessness of the pro-life federal politicians); a pro-religious stance - frankly I would like the children in my family to be sent to the local school and not be told what metaphysical beings to believe in (you have that freedom in the US I understand - keep it); a pro marriage-stance which is of course an anti-same-sex relation stance. They are campaigning against the rights of people to give goods to Gaza occupants. Property rights are a limit on freedom, particularly when the rights are inherited so those without the rights have no opportunity to a share in the land or freedom to roam - in the UK, significant property rights were obtained following enclosure acts in the 1800s, so few owners of the land have true title. All this may be irrelevant, but the central point is that, in my view, there has to be give and take in the world. If it does turn out that fossil fuel wealth is to the detriment of large sections of the community, then something has to give. Not sure where the shackles are Steve. Even the property rights issue is not clear. Liberals do tend to restrict property rights a lot more but to what end? They also tend to overly restrict the public's use of public property. That hardly allows for the ability to roam to any degree beyond being a well-managed tourist spending remote dollars locally; looking but not touching. Whereas conservatives tend to support real use of property both private and public. They support people living on the land and benefiting from the land. And keep in mind the one guy most known for maintaining open spaces and the use of them to ensure the preservation and use of them to protect the "robustness" and "freedoms" of Americans was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. Liberals on the other hand recognize that managing public lands is not easy and tend to shy away from management by running straight to out and out prohibition. That isn't making people freer and it only further limits management by stripping out robust sources of management funds from the creation of real jobs in open spaces. Expecting looky loos to foot the bill is like trying to sell air. The difficulty of managing public lands makes private property a necessary evil. The government is not a good nor efficient manager and when you put the libs in control they want to over manage and restrict more and more and build their empire on the backs of the people. Sorry been there done that! Its all a lot of idealistic hogwash pushed by a lot of never have done it folks lacking clue one. A perfect example of that is your own words: "If it does turn out that fossil fuel wealth is to the detriment of large sections of the community, then something has to give." "If" ? Like I said. . . .clue one is missing!!
|
|
|
Post by ppetersen on Jun 8, 2010 16:27:41 GMT
I've been reading the blogs here for several months and even though my field of expertise isn't in the physical sciences (my area is biological) I've been impressed with the attention to detail here. This is my first post.
As to the oil spill, I suggest reading Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales. The book explores the reasons some survive during extreme crises and some do not. In his discussion he talks a great deal about theories developed to predict accidents etc. The primary point made regarding catastrophic accidents is that they are inevitable. They will likely be few and far between, but there is nothing - no regulation, no law, no safety measure - that can prevent catastrophic accidents when complex systems are involved. He even makes the point that safety/preventive measures designed to prevent such accidents can contribute to increasing the likelyhood of such an accident.
The sooner we understand there is NO COMPLETELY SAFE SYSTEM and get on with dealing with things as they occur rather than contribute to the illusion that things can be completely safe and accident free, the better and more effectively we'll deal with problems as they arise. Blame and hysterical posturing is fruitless.
We are so fixated on safety that we have created a generation that thinks life should contain no risk and are astounded and angry when they find it isn't true. How sad.
Thanks for the great discussion on your board and allowing me an opportunity to participate. I look forward to continued learning.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2010 18:19:13 GMT
They will likely be few and far between, but there is nothing - no regulation, no law, no safety measure - that can prevent catastrophic accidents when complex systems are involved. He even makes the point that safety/preventive measures designed to prevent such accidents can contribute to increasing the likelyhood of such an accident. The sooner we understand there is NO COMPLETELY SAFE SYSTEM and get on with dealing with things as they occur rather than contribute to the illusion that things can be completely safe and accident free, the better and more effectively we'll deal with problems as they arise. Blame and hysterical posturing is fruitless. We are so fixated on safety that we have created a generation that thinks life should contain no risk and are astounded and angry when they find it isn't true. How sad. Thanks for the great discussion on your board and allowing me an opportunity to participate. I look forward to continued learning. Well said. Alan Greenspan echoed the same words regarding financial events. He said to presume regulators can foresee what is going to go wrong presumes the regulator is a lot smarter than the person being regulated. . . .which he modestly said, despite being the most recognized regulator in the world, is not the case. He said what regulations can do is take known and well understood risks and ensure that they are provided for. But that does not extend to new areas, new ventures and the progress of mankind which is constantly testing the limits.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jun 8, 2010 20:08:44 GMT
ppetersen wrote: "We are so fixated on safety that we have created a generation that thinks life should contain no risk and are astounded and angry when they find it isn't true. How sad."
You are in good company. (It must be Benjamin Franklin week): "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
|
|