Freedom. . tans and conditions may apply.
x
Click to expand

Comments(234):

[ 234 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#18 - ldnelson (07/04/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#42 - allamericandude (07/05/2014) [-]
Being un-American on Freedom Day?
#86 to #42 - kulamia (07/05/2014) [-]
Questioning the GOVERNMENT is the MOST AMERICAN thing any citizen can do.

Still, a thumb for the funny.
#124 - kaboozle123 (07/05/2014) [-]
freedom isn't just being able to do what you want. it's about being your own person and deciding what does and does not happen in your life. laws and rules that prevent you from doing what you think is right. whats not free about america (and don't get me wrong i think america is best country and i wouldn't want to live anywhere else) is how we're given this illusion of freedom. it's like a dog on a chain. you throw him a bone and he gnaws on it happily and he forgets he's chained.

NSA watching us and recording everything. yes it doesn't really affect us and they could care less about most of us but does that make it any better? if someone went in your room and rifled through your things and it looked like nothing was disturbed but you still found out about it you'd be pissed right? it's like someone watching over your shoulder for everything.

someone rapes and kills your family you can go to jail for revenge. smoking a plant that makes you happy can put you in jail for years. owning a gun to protect yourself is being challenged (i believe we needs guns incase the government goes crazy and makes us a military state. unlikely but **** it's a possibility), rules that prevent you from owning animals, not being able to do certain things on your land, knowledge being hidden from you, knowledge you aren't allowed to know.

and maybe this sounds crazy to you. but i'm not some crazy conspiracy theorist saying the government is always watching. but i know there's certain things people in power to do control a population. i have no delusions that we aren't pawns used to keep a country strong and have the people in power stay in power. the kings of old used to rule this way and for some reason we seem to think the current age is different. it's just a different tactic of control, complacency. a nation of people who are offended at anything, discourage violence and drugs, people who want you quiet and following the rules.

it's not a true freedom, but a controlled freedom
User avatar #149 to #124 - biscuitsunited (07/05/2014) [-]
I see your country and it scares me.
At any moment Obama can declare marshal law because he has the right too under his emergency powers.
If he removes the guns from the average citizen, declares marshal law, there'll be jack **** you can do about it.
#193 to #149 - foxranger (07/05/2014) [-]
Eh. There are enough crazies who hoard weapons that if it ever came to that we could fight. At the same time, if it ever came to that a foreign power would invade to ensure that our WMD's were secure and no one was gonna blow up the planet.

True story.
#153 to #124 - latinotornado (07/05/2014) [-]
are you a libertarian? I don't mean that in a negative context.  This comment is fantastic
are you a libertarian? I don't mean that in a negative context. This comment is fantastic
User avatar #187 to #153 - kaboozle123 (07/05/2014) [-]
maybe? i don't know i've never been fond of putting a label on myself because then people will assume i have to feel a certain way about a different issue. (e.g. if i was conservative people would assume i'm pro-life, even if i'm not)
User avatar #180 to #124 - ninjaroo ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
There's no such thing as true freedom in human interaction. For example, if someone rapes you, they've taken away your freedom from rape. People agree that being raped is a bad thing, so a law was made to punish people who rape. But that punishment is -supposed- to fit the crime, and taking matters into your own hands increases or decreases the punishment. Which is unacceptable for any crime. So there are laws against doing that.
Since there is no such thing as absolute freedom, the people choose what freedoms they think are greater and the government does their best to regulate that.
#192 to #180 - foxranger (07/05/2014) [-]
Very true.

True freedom is technically anarchy. No central government and people can do whatever they want.
User avatar #194 to #192 - ninjaroo ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
Even in anarachy, other peoples choices can limit your freedom.
#196 to #194 - foxranger (07/05/2014) [-]
Unless you shoot them. Then no ones going to 			****		 with your freedom.
Unless you shoot them. Then no ones going to **** with your freedom.
User avatar #197 to #196 - ninjaroo ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
Ah, but you ****** with their freedom to live and are imposing on everyone elses freedom to **** with your freedom.
#200 to #197 - foxranger (07/05/2014) [-]
So maybe it comes down to how we define freedom. Is it on a personal level? Or a national level? I suppose here its a matter of a personal level because with anarchy, there is no government. Without a government, the concept of a nation really doesn't exist. So yes, I infringed on that persons personal freedom in order to protect my personal freedom. But do you forfeit your own freedom when you attempt to impose on someone else? Therefor, did I kill a tyrant? Since tyranny does not resemble freedom, by killing a tyrant did they really have freedom once they attempted to force something on someone else.

tl;dr I shot him, he has no freedom now.
#191 to #124 - foxranger (07/05/2014) [-]
Awesome comment! Seriously, well thought out argument. I agree with most of it.

The whole going to jail for revenge thing was actually created to eliminate decade long blood feuds that used to occur between families and groups of people for accidental and intentional deaths/killings. While I wish I could have revenge on someone for killing a family member, I do understand why the law is there.

It is a controlled freedom. True freedom, to an extent, is great but it is borderline anarchy. Its like socialism, looks awesome on paper but when it is applied it fails at some point. However, controlled freedom also has the ability to fail. Democracy is not supposed to be people fearing the government but the government fearing the people.

Lack of bipartisanship, a two party system, and politicians are realistically ruining that "controlled freedom". We are the most powerful country in the world and have the most technologically advanced military on the planet. Our GDP is still the highest in the world even though we are in debt and we are still strong economically. However, we look like a bunch of morons because Washington cant get anything done.

When the only thing the world sees is a **** congress unable to make a decision, school shootings and wars its tough to sit here and say "look, we are an awesome country".

tl;dr Congrees sucks, even our controlled freedom is failing and I love your post.

#195 to #191 - victorianfancyman (07/05/2014) [-]
A huge part of the problem are the voters.

A 2 party system exists because we allow it to. We elect these ******* into our government. The people are partially responsible for our **** politics. That's how it's always been

We expect voting on a national level will effect our lives- most of the time it wont. If you want to see a change in your environment, vote locally.
#198 to #195 - foxranger (07/05/2014) [-]
Agreed.

The presidential election is a crap shoot imo. The electoral college is stupid and it does not make sense in modern day society. No one should win the election after losing the popular vote but they win the electoral college.

People, notably middle aged and younger folks, have the belief their vote really doesn't matter. And they also believe they have to adhere to a two party system so nobody votes otherwise. The sociopolitical landscape of America is pretty messed up.
#28 - carbohydrates ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #26 - failtolawl (07/05/2014) [-]
besides the most obvious laws, I see no freedoms being taken awy at all, just edgy libertarians trying to change something
User avatar #35 to #26 - kyoutu (07/05/2014) [-]
NSA
User avatar #140 to #26 - PubLandlord (07/05/2014) [-]
You can't gamble
User avatar #206 to #140 - bitchpleaseshutup (07/05/2014) [-]
It depends on the state or territory.
#37 to #26 - Rascal (07/05/2014) [-]
What about the mass extortion racket? What about the mass theft? What about all the death threats? What about the protection racket? or the roads racket? The list goes on and on. Wouldn't it be nice to not be stolen from on a regular basis? Wouldn't it be nice to not have an institution based upon violence and killing people running amok?
User avatar #146 to #37 - playerdous (07/05/2014) [-]
What about the rackets?
#80 to #26 - Rascal (07/05/2014) [-]
You're father can't marry his secret boyfriend
User avatar #178 - svity (07/05/2014) [-]
I feel to be completely free would be anarchy. A country run on that doesn't sound very good. Everything needs laws, even the most basic please dont hurt me if im wrong
#167 - kidink (07/05/2014) [-]
'murica and freedom? i kek'd
#84 - grimmwaters ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
>1914+100
>Freedom not being free
User avatar #168 - thesovereigngrave (07/05/2014) [-]
100 years ago George Washington discovered America, and freed the Indians from their boring lives. Then he fought for America's independence against the British while riding a bald eagle and won.
User avatar #172 to #168 - bestfoxgirl (07/05/2014) [-]
And then he saw that oil made people very unhappy, so he commanded his forces to free the people of other countries from its possession.
User avatar #44 - pacoseago (07/05/2014) [-]
Freedom is not harming other people's freedoms. You can eat a sandwich as long as it isn't hurting anybody.
User avatar #50 to #44 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
I'd define freedom or liberty as the absence of force or coercion. Sooo many of our laws are actually forceful and coercive in nature.
User avatar #119 to #50 - leonhardt (07/05/2014) [-]
Only because stupid people don't ******* listen the first time.
User avatar #120 to #119 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
What do you mean?
User avatar #121 to #120 - leonhardt (07/05/2014) [-]
"Hey don't be an asshole and go around killing people."
"hur dur no i kill people if I want to lol"
"Okay, now we have to have laws and Police so idiots like you don't go around killing people"
"OMFG COERCION AND FORCE ARE MAKING ME NOT FREE HOLY **** WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY"
User avatar #123 to #121 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
Societies had rules and sanctions against those things before governments existed. That murder is wrong is not a government creation. Government is merely the arm used to formally and most severely punish those who break societies conventions against things like murder. But government also creates and enforces rules which society has not created or deemed appropriate, like laws against mowing grass on particular days of the week, or not wearing a seatbelt, or drinking before age 21. These aren't rules inherent in our culture, but rather rules forced upon society by the opinion of 51% of millionaires in the capitol.
User avatar #126 to #123 - leonhardt (07/05/2014) [-]
>Not wearing a seatbelt
To keep you from dying/being horribly mangled is a bad thing.
>Drinking age is 21
To keep you from ruining your life is a bad thing.

You are the stupid people these laws are made for.
User avatar #127 to #126 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
Not hardly, I don't drink and I always wear a seatbelt.

Your comically ridiculous generalization of my argument weakens any point you previously made. I would call wearing a seatbelt and not drinking before age 21 good things to strive for, but obviously what I think is good for me can't be the measure of what's mandated for others? Those laws are only bad because their enforcement endorses violence and theft against people breaking them. The only just laws are those which don't initiate violence (that is, laws that don't use non-defensive violence) and those which don't violate property rights. Laws like that do both.
User avatar #128 to #127 - leonhardt (07/05/2014) [-]
>attacking my argument instead of admitting you were wrong.

If you don't want to talk anymore, just say so without stooping so low.
User avatar #129 to #128 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
I'll repeat my argument:

I would call wearing a seatbelt and not drinking before age 21 good things to strive for, but obviously what I think is good for me can't be the measure of what's mandated for others? Those laws are only bad because their enforcement endorses violence and theft against people breaking them. The only just laws are those which don't initiate violence (that is, laws that don't use non-defensive violence) and those which don't violate property rights. Laws like that do both.
User avatar #131 to #129 - leonhardt (07/05/2014) [-]
I've already told you why it's wrong.
Repeating it won't make it any less wrong.
User avatar #132 to #131 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
No, you just said I was attacking your argument, but you didn't make a comment after mine. I said that laws that bring violence or theft against nonviolent person (ie those not wearing seatbelts or drinking underage) are wrong. What say you?
User avatar #143 to #132 - mephiblis ONLINE (07/05/2014) [-]
You're arguing with a complete ******* , give up, not even charts would help that fag understand why he's completely wrong.
User avatar #189 to #123 - ianchrist (07/05/2014) [-]
seatbelts protect peoples lives. when people die it hurts the country/costs money for insurance, family member's health, etc.

drinking age also effects the development of young people. If we want people to be healthy and contribute to society then we cant have them poisoning themselves. SO we wait until they are "grown up enough" to make the choice for themselves. ALSO 21 is around the age where the brain is fully matured and thus alcohol does less damage.
User avatar #203 to #189 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
What's the principle that you think laws should be based on? Is there one?

Are you saying that any law which protects peoples or saves people money on insurance is good? I can think of obviously immoral laws which would do those same things.

I think non-defensive violence is wrong, and so is taking others' property they got voluntarily. Seatbelt laws and alcohol laws violate these. I may agree that those laws would produce desirable results in society, but my own personal life choices cannot be the moral basis of what is law and what isn't, right? I don't smoke, so does that mean it's moral to punish people for smoking, via the police?
User avatar #223 to #203 - ianchrist (07/05/2014) [-]
first we need to define the idea of choice. you cannot legally make a choice for yourself if your a minor or in poor mental health (suicidal people, for instance, are detained). Adults dont have to wear seatbelts unless theyre in the front seat. In some cases people have been launched through windsheilds and have damaged other vehicles/people. Thus this law protects other people's lives besides the person wearing the seat belt.
The alcohol law again only restricts it for minors (in this case, they've labled minors as anyone under 21, not 18. The reason for this is because raising the legal adulthood age to 21 would decrease available soldiers)

I see no way anyone could reasonably argue against these laws being in place.
User avatar #224 to #223 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
That's the way it is, sure. But I'm saying that's not how it should be. We understand that children aren't really able to make many choices for themselves, but it's laughable to claim that 20 year-olds are children and shouldn't be allowed to make health or safety choices that affect nobody but them.

Really? Seatbelt laws are to protect others' vehicles from ejected drivers? You're not serious... Yeah, forget about the driver losing their life, let's worry about the ever-so prevalent danger haunting our nation--flying bodies endangering others. Nonsense.
User avatar #225 to #224 - ianchrist (07/05/2014) [-]
you argued that
" But government also creates and enforces rules which society has not created or deemed appropriate (like) not wearing a seatbelt. These aren't rules inherent in our culture, but rather rules forced upon society by the opinion of 51% of millionaires in the capitol."
i said WHY wearing a seatbelt benefits society. Even if you think people should be able to make their own mistakes, it hurts other people when you dont wear a seatbelt.

20 year old ARE children, in that the mind isnt fully developed until 21-23, and one of the last things to be developed helps make choices. As a libertarian I dont care if "you" (i.e. one being) drink/smoke as long as you dont 1. Not go to work, 2. clog up the medical system; or 3. pressure/allow/introduce other people to harmful habits.
User avatar #226 to #225 - douthit (07/05/2014) [-]
Many immoral things can be claimed to help society, however you would define it. And if those laws were really about protecting young people whose minds weren't yet fully developed, the laws wouldn't punish and harm but would seek to educate. Education doesn't come at the end of a seatbelt ticket or arrest for underage drinking. How can it be said the law is meant to protect people, but tickets and arrests them? It's hypocritical.

And I've found at least one study by the National Institutes of Health that claimed human brains aren't fully developed until age 25, and one by the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London that claims it doesn't happen until the 30's or 40's. But I'm sure you'd say there has to be some reasonable cutoff age before then, but once you say that you're admitting that the cutoff is just an arbitrary age number that you agree with, and your claim is no more valid than someone who says it should be 21, or 18, or 15. All this doesn't even mention that just as with the arbitrary goal of "helping society", human brains being "fully developed" is also an unquantifiable arbitrary thing.
User avatar #227 to #226 - ianchrist (07/05/2014) [-]
people drinking underage dont get arrested, they get sent home to their parents and are forced to go to a rehab program before returning to public school.
And we have been educating people on these harms since the 80's (I assume youre in the US, right?)

"Many immoral things can be claimed to help society, however you would define it. "
What is the "it" in that sentence? "Immorality"? Its hard to define immorality, which is kinda the point. Is abortion immoral? I dont think anyone would say it isnt, yet its legal. Is sex before marriage immoral? Some people would argue either way. Its legal.

Firstly: if you (again, if i say "you" i mean "one person in society") doesnt wear a seatbelt by choice, then you're pretty dumb and natural selection will work its way out.
Secondly: arresting someone for drinking serves as a warning to others/cautionary tales.
Thirdly: If someone is drunk then they are an endangerment to the people around them.

My ethical code comes down to this: If you're over 21 you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesnt harm anyone else. Things that harm other people (or, in other words, infringe on THEIR freedom) should be illegal, like murder, and rape, and stuff. Should drinking be legal? Yes, only you can get drunk. Should smoking in public be legal? No, because you can make other people ill. Thank God that you cant smoke indoors in public buildings in my state.

User avatar #228 to #227 - douthit (07/06/2014) [-]
I meant that many immoral things can be said to help society, however one would define helping society.
#154 - nump (07/05/2014) [-]
The history of my country, Scotland is similar, except there's one condition.
No English bastards alowed.
User avatar #177 to #154 - brobafett (07/05/2014) [-]
Based Scots.
#41 - mrnpc (07/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#29 - Rascal (07/05/2014) [-]
my country's indepencency is way better, we had a war and **** .

This is ************ Dom Pedro 1º declaring it in the middle of a war, translated to "INDEPENDENCY OR DEATH!"

#7 - include (07/04/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#181 to #7 - DeathclawRulez (07/05/2014) [-]
Did someone say TBFP thread?
#3 - economicfreedom (07/04/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
Milton Friedman - What is America? (Lecture)
#1 - DeathclawRulez (07/04/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#158 - Rascal (07/05/2014) [-]
#175 to #158 - brobafett (07/05/2014) [-]
[citation needed]
[ 234 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)