The Powers of Government ...

Lafayette said:

Come off it, will you.

The article is about "hate speech", not "freedom of speech".

You too need a lesson in the law of verbal-abuse in a public domain ...

Click to expand...

^^^
He just said, with no justification, that I don't understand the difference between socialism and "social democracy," and then he demonstrates conclusively that he doesn't understand "free speech."

Apparently he thinks it's "freedom" to speak in approved ways. But that would go along with most of the rest of what he said.

He's hostile to liberty.

A SUBSISTENCE-EXISTENCE

Kal'Stang said:

Where the majority vote away the individually held Rights in favor of collectivist Rights. That might serve the majority, but it does a disservice to the minority. Europe is a prime example of that.

Click to expand...

Your knowledge as regards the law are very basic. The crucial fulcrum of any democracy is the law as voted by a legislature. Like it or not.

There is NO LAW in America about Income Disparity. So, it has to be preached, discussed, and argued before it can be made an integral part of our standard law. That is, income equitability derived from progressive taxation that must intensify up to and including confiscation, if necessary, beyond a certain amount.

(Our present upper-income taxation peters-out at a flat-rate of 30% and after boundless tax-deductions settles somewhere between 18/20%. Let's not forget Romney who admitted to paying around 15% in 2010!)

Only simple minds think that any harnessing of rights is against "God's Law" as they wrap the American flag around themselves seeking (what they think is) True Justice. It isn't. Their attitude is just an irrational need to remain unbounded - found most often in criminals who refuse to obey the law and thus commit crimes.

It's the very same mentality from a psychological point-of-view ... and includes the necessity to "feel different and apart from the mass of humanity". Akin to "the rules don't apply to us!"

Humanity has been massing into communities since humanoids walked on two feet out of the savannahs of Africa. We live in communities not only for self-protection, but the standard-of-living that such communities provide all of us. In the past, the monarchs of Europe knew how to maintain a balance in ownership of agricultural lands, which were the mainstay of existence. (Industry would change all that, but much later in our existence.)

If we members of a community, then it is obvious that general laws must be applied/observed. And we happen to have laws in Europe that protect overreaching exploitation of the many by a select few. Which does not mean that income should be universally identical. That fallacy was shown untrue by Europe's dalliance with Communism.

But neither is the opposite (unbridled capitalism) a benefit to mankind. Unbridled income accumulation into wealth is unacceptable, especially of a country that has nearly 14% of its population incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold where they are living a subsistence-existence ...

danielpalos said:

We have a Constitution for our federal Congress. Both terms, promote and provide are expressed, regarding the general welfare.

Only the fantastical right wing believes there is any expressly delegated social Power, for the general warfare or the common offense, regarding Taxes.

Click to expand...

And to protect the status-quo of ridiculous flat-rate upper-income taxation AT ALL COSTS ... !

Lafayette said:

And to protect the status-quo of ridiculous flat-rate upper-income taxation AT ALL COSTS ... !

Click to expand...

Why not simply and merely, Tax the wealthiest into Heaven by solving simple poverty; ostensible, for the sake of morals and the greater glory of our immortal souls.

Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Come off it, will you.

The article is about "hate speech", not "freedom of speech".

You too need a lesson in the law of verbal-abuse in a public domain ...

Click to expand...

This just shows that you have no clue what Freedom of Speech is about nor what it is supposed to protect.

Kal'Stang said:

This just shows that you have no clue what Freedom of Speech is about nor what it is supposed to protect.

Click to expand...

I'm getting the impression that he is not only hostile to liberty, he can't even imagine why anyone would want to live their lives in ways he doesn't approve of.

Hence his skewed notions of what "freedom" and "liberty" are.

Harshaw said:

I'm getting the impression that he is not only hostile to liberty, he can't even imagine why anyone would want to live their lives in ways he doesn't approve of.

Hence his skewed notions of what "freedom" and "liberty" are.

Click to expand...

In a country in which people are put into jail because they cannot pay certain administrative fines and fees, I'm not sure freedom and liberty are good words to describe the lifestyle in that country.

In a country in which some people are serving life sentences for victimless crimes, I doubt freedom and liberty are the best adjectives to describe such a society.

Thoreau72 said:

In a country in which people are put into jail because they cannot pay certain administrative fines and fees, I'm not sure freedom and liberty are good words to describe the lifestyle in that country.

In a country in which some people are serving life sentences for victimless crimes, I doubt freedom and liberty are the best adjectives to describe such a society.

Click to expand...

Great. Not sure why you chose me to say this to.

Harshaw said:

Great. Not sure why you chose me to say this to.

Click to expand...

Only because of your post suggesting freedom and liberty are available in only one country on the planet. :mrgreen:

Thoreau72 said:

Only because of your post suggesting freedom and liberty are available in only one country on the planet. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

This post that you imagined?

Kal'Stang said:

This just shows that you have no clue what Freedom of Speech is about nor what it is supposed to protect.

Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Same one liner I always get when someone hasn't the faintest idea of what to say.

Sarcasm is always the substitute ...

Lafayette said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Same one liner I always get when someone hasn't the faintest idea of what to say.

Sarcasm is always the substitute ...

Click to expand...

He'd be correct.

You think "freedom of speech" excludes whole categories of speech. That's not "free speech."

Lafayette said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Same one liner I always get when someone hasn't the faintest idea of what to say.

Sarcasm is always the substitute ...

Click to expand...

And your response is the result of someone that can't counter a legitimate argument. Tell me Lafayette, how is it hate speech to make fun of police? The very thing that Free Speech protects is people making fun of government officials. Do you really want to live in a world where the government arrests people for making fun of police? Is that the kind of tyranny that you are endorsing? If so then do us a favor. Stay in France. We don't need your kind of rhetoric here in the US as its the very antithesis of what Freedom is about.

Lafayette said:

But, if the Dork makes it into the White House, I am seriously thinking of adopting French citizenship.

Click to expand...

I've researched citizenship via the Foreign Legion. But I'm too old to get accepted. Else, I'd be banging on their door.

Brewdog said:

I've researched citizenship via the Foreign Legion. But I'm too old to get accepted. Else, I'd be banging on their door.

Click to expand...

No need to do that, you can come and hang out at our compound. My wife and I have made it comply. Its not in the desert, well, unless one considers the Texas Hill County a desert. And I will promise that neither Clinton or Trump will be allowed in. And you won't have to speak French!

Removable Mind said:

No need to do that, you can come and hang out at our compound. My wife and I have made it comply. Its not in the desert, well, unless one considers the Texas Hill County a desert. And I will promise that neither Clinton or Trump will be allowed in. And you won't have to speak French!

Click to expand...

Well, that sounds pretty awesome. Like REALLY awesome.

I speak Spanish... well, like a Gringo, but I spend a lot of time in Central and S. America, and I get by pretty well. No French, but I've found that they usually speak English anyhow.

I'm looking for a libertarian paradise. I want to live in Galt's Gultch. And I've always figured the Republic of Texas would be the best spot. :2razz:

Brewdog said:

Well, that sounds pretty awesome. Like REALLY awesome.

I speak Spanish... well, like a Gringo, but I spend a lot of time in Central and S. America, and I get by pretty well. No French, but I've found that they usually speak English anyhow.

I'm looking for a libertarian paradise. I want to live in Galt's Gultch. And I've always figured the Republic of Texas would be the best spot. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Don't believe you'll find our compound a Libertarian paradise, or even a Republic or Democratic paradise, but rather a kind of a respite for the political weary. And my wife is fluent in Spanish and I'm fluent in Texan, so language wise you'll fit in. :lol:

Removable Mind said:

Don't believe you'll find our compound a Libertarian paradise, or even a Republic or Democratic paradise, but rather a kind of a respite for the political weary. And my wife is fluent in Spanish and I'm fluent in Texan, so language wise you'll fit in. :lol:

Click to expand...

I can speak some Texican. And beef brisket is my fave. I'm actually not too far from you guys. Just a couple of states away.

EDIT: And isn't it odd how those of us that are so sick of politics and politicians still find a political forum to come argue about things? :doh

Brewdog said:

“Travel isn’t always pretty. It isn’t always comfortable. Sometimes it hurts, it even breaks your heart. But that’s okay. The journey changes you; it should change you.

Click to expand...

The phrase is well-put. Not enough Americans get beyond the three-mile limit to learn that other people (from their own existence) have learned better ways to cope with life thus improving their lifestyles.

That is what Social Democracy is all about. It is intended to cope with the Human Condition. Because life was never intended to be accepted for what it is, but for what it should or could be.

Striving to always better the condition of mankind ...

Lafayette said:

The phrase is well-put. Not enough Americans get beyond the three-mile limit to learn that other people (from their own existence) have learned better ways to cope with life thus improving their lifestyles.

That is what Social Democracy is all about. It is intended to cope with the Human Condition. Because life was never intended to be accepted for what it is, but for what it should or could be.

Striving to always better the condition of mankind ...

Click to expand...

And that's what I expect from travel. Sometimes it's not what you think it's going to be. It's not what you wanted. But travel can teach you more than any book or classroom ever can. When you meet people from other cultures, you learn so very much about the world.

And that's why this is my siggy. When I read it the first time, it really got to me. It still does. And I especially believe in the last part. "You take something with you. Hopefully, you leave something good behind." I hope that all the people I've hung out with and had beers with go home to Germany, Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, the UK, etc and say, "Man, I had beers with this guy from Mississippi, and he was pretty damn cool." eace

Kal'Stang said:

The very thing that Free Speech protects is people making fun of government officials. Do you really want to live in a world where the government arrests people for making fun of police?

Click to expand...

You are writing nonsense. What planet do you live on? Come to Europe and see for yourself instead of the ribald commentary that is factually incorrect.

Kids taunt the police in America, and get killed for it by trigger-happy youths of the same age - but with a gun, a badge and a police uniform.

We've not killed any children yet here for jeering the police as happens in America - only young jihadists who deliberately took lives, and thus met an outcome they richly deserved.

Get your bearings right, will you ... ?

delete

Harshaw said:

He'd be correct. You think "freedom of speech" excludes whole categories of speech. That's not "free speech."

Click to expand...

Yes, I happen to think there are very cogent reasons why there are laws on the books for scathing remarks regarding an individual's character. Character assassination by means of sarcasm is not "freedom of speech". It is a willful crime that is not pursued in the US.

But, you come to France, and make that same comment here in a public place with witnesses. We'll see what happens to you.

Try it on the Internet if you are really so simple to think that a pseudonym hides your identity.

Just because you get away with verbal sarcasm in the US, doesn't mean it is "legal".

In the US, the police kill kids for doing it and there is no need for a court-trial. Yeah, they sometimes lose their job - but go to jail?

Not often ...

Once again for your comprehension, the definition of "Character Assassination" from here:

Character Assassination refers to the slandering or vicious personal verbal attack on a person with the intention of destroying or damaging that person’s reputation or confidence. In other words it is malicious verbal assaults designed to damage or tarnish the reputation of a person. Once done, these acts are often difficult to reverse or rectify. Therefore it is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can last a lifetime or, for historical figures and important personalities, for many centuries after their death.

Click to expand...

Like a child who is brought up to think "anything goes", you are greatly mistaken to think that the guaranty of "free speech" allows you to say/print anything that comes into your mind.

It aint necessarily so ...

Lafayette said:

Yes, I happen to think there are very cogent reasons why there are laws on the books for scathing remarks regarding an individual's character. Character assassination by means of sarcasm is not "freedom of speech". It is a willful crime that is not pursued in the US.

But, you come to France, and make that same comment here in a public place with witnesses. We'll see what happens to you.

Try it on the Internet if you are really so simple to think that a pseudonym hides your identity.

Just because you get away with verbal sarcasm in the US, doesn't mean it is "legal".

In the US, the police kill kids for doing it and there is no need for a court-trial. Yeah, they sometimes lose their job - but go to jail?

Not often ...

Once again for your comprehension, the definition of "Character Assassination" from here:

Like a child who is brought up to think "anything goes", you are greatly mistaken to think that the guaranty of "free speech" allows you to say/print anything that comes into your mind.

It aint necessarily so ...

Click to expand...

Well, your french, so your views are expected. I can't say as a American libertarian I enjoyed my time in France nor do I find the laws there concerning just about everything agreeable. I will however say that you seriously need to reconsider what it means to be free. To be free you must be able to speak your mind as you please without censorship.

Removable Mind said:

No need to do that, you can come and hang out at our compound. My wife and I have made it comply. Its not in the desert, well, unless one considers the Texas Hill County a desert. And I will promise that neither Clinton or Trump will be allowed in. And you won't have to speak French!

Click to expand...

If there is no political debate, then what is "freedom"?

A compound in Texas? Building a cabin in the wilds of Alasaka? What next?

As citizens of a nation, we have a duty to that nation. Without which the "nation" has no responsibility towards its citizens.

Why should my children die to protect your "freedoms", if you can't defend them publicly yourself?

Any democracy may seek "freedom", but it also has its "responsibilities". Foremost of which is to "participate in the democracy". Not just spectate it.

The US, this Great Democracy, has one of the world's worst records as regards voting - see U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries.

Find the US ninth from the bottom.

PS: There's no "free ride" ...