=Henrin
No, I contend that with each restriction you lose freedom and never have the possibility to gain it back.
Freedoms are gained back all the time. And perhaps from a current standpoint, that is, looking at this country today, you would view any new restrictions (laws) as being freedom inhibitors. But go back to the drawing board, and picture the US without laws. There are some mighty fine examples of what happens when the law, and those that enforce it, are abandoned, just within the last decade.
People do in fact believe that and it is very much a dangerous view.
Explain how one is MORE free, as in, able to do what they want, when they want, without the rule of law, and a substantial force backing it.
I don't think merely punishing of right violations keeps us save or promotes freedom. It merely deals with something after it occurs and punishes the right violation.
The punishment is the deterrent. Ever hear of negative reinforcement? Yes, by the time someone is being punished, the crime is committed, and someone's rights have been violated...and that punishment is not going to UNviolate that person's rights. But, depending on the severity of the crime, the punishment for the criminal will be such that it deters other would be criminals from engaging in similar behavior. And face facts...ALL humans are potential criminals. A criminal is a being created under a specific set of circumstances.
I'm pretty much only interested in rights and liberties from natural and scientific outlook and everything else is not my concern.
Explain natural and scientific rights. Until you do, the rest of what you posted is pointless.
It is an economic actively that generated wealth in exchange for an individual's performance. How is that not income?
Because income is obligatory, gifts are optional. IE, I hire that stripper to show up at a stag party...we negotiate a flat rate for her appearance...and I HAVE to pay her that, or it is a breach of contract, which is illegal. However, no one at the stag party needs pay her anything. Those tips she gets for her actual performance are not a part of her contract, are completely optional on the part of the dudes laying them on her, and are therefor not considered income. Not to me, anyway. Uncle Sam's greedy ass sees it differently.
The tip wasn't the thing that motivated action. The money is the motivator in the lap dance which the desire for existed before the lap dance and possibility of income from it came up. Therefore, the gift is only taking advantage of a prior motivation. Its the same thing in MoSurveyor's example but instead of a lap dance it's bribery. In both examples the motivation isn't created by the example but prior motivations.
Right. The possibility. It's possibility that motivates people. Money is nothing more than a means to an end. Maybe she wanted that 15 bucks to buy milk and eggs for her kids, maybe she wanted it to score a little pot, or maybe she wanted it to make the rent that month. In all of those instances, the money is just the middle man.