• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the U.S. still "the land of the free"?

Is the U.S. still "the land of the free"?

  • Yes, no doubt

    Votes: 19 35.8%
  • Kind of

    Votes: 16 30.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not really

    Votes: 12 22.6%
  • No, not at all

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Total voters
    53
Bwahahaha. Progressives can’t even agree amongst themselves what constitutes a right because their notion of it is so convoluted and encompassing.

You do realize that your post refuted absolutely nothing I wrote.

I have told this board many times what a right is. A right is a freedom guaranteed and acknowledged by the government in the nation you live in.

That is pretty clear.
 
You do realize that your post refuted absolutely nothing I wrote.

I have told this board many times what a right is. A right is a freedom guaranteed and acknowledged by the government in the nation you live in.

That is pretty clear.
yet many progressives disagree showing that your post refuted nothing I wrote.
 
If you are not in prison it is. The US has the highest per capita % of citizens in prisons in the world.

While 1 out of every 142 Americans is now actually in prison, 1 out of every 32 of us is either in prison or on parole from prison, according to yet another report on Americans behaving badly from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
This means that 6.7 million adult men and women -- about 3.1 percent of the total U.S. adult population -- are now very non-voluntary members of America's "correctional community."
While 1 out of every 142 Americans is now actually in prison, 1 out of every 32 of us is either in prison or on parole from prison, according to yet another report on Americans behaving badly from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
 
No, it is precisely the correct question for those of us who live in a real nation of 311 million people - each with their own rights and their own idea how to pursue them.

Far too many folks on the libertarian right use the words LIBERTY and FREEDOM as hollow cliches designed as catch-alls to simply cover their asses while being as vague and unspecific as possible.

Rights, to a libertarian, stem from self-ownership. It can be objectively determined if the actions of one party, including those acting on the authority of the state, intrudes on the rights of another party.
 
So my first grader is in school on a day like today and its warm - over 80 degrees - and the windows are open for fresh air..... and two men want to engage in freedom of speech so they stand on the public sidewalk and begin a discussion which turns into a heated discussion in which lots of loud profanities and sexual terms and bantered back and forth and they sound clearly drifts into the classroom.

The State guarantees my child the right to a public education. These men are interfering with it - not to mention exposing my child to all kinds of stuff I do not want them exposed to at the age of seven.

So what do we do about that?

Perhaps the teacher could go to the window and point out to the arguing men that they were standing in front of a school and suggest that they carry on their conversation elsewhere. If that doesn’t work, the teacher should close the windows until they have moved along. If the arguers insist on remaining in front of the school yelling obscenities, a judge would most likely find them guilty of a tort. If it were me arguing in front of the school, I’d move along when asked, rather than be sued by the parents of students.

What about the medicine man who comes to town and rents space in a private parking lot and sets up shop out of the back of his truck selling miracle cures. I buy some since they come with all sorts of promises and guarantees and take it home to my sick wife. She takes it and dies having been poisoned by the contents.

Please explain to me how a civil suit or a criminal prosecution brings my wife back from the dead and protects her rights?

Laws can’t bring back the dead. They can only punish the perpetrator. Yet, we still have laws prohibiting murder.

Certainly, the medicine man would be subject to both civil and criminal penalties for his negligent and fraudulent actions.

You, however, were also an idiot for buying medicine from an unknown man selling out of the back of his truck.
 
Rights, to a libertarian, stem from self-ownership. It can be objectively determined if the actions of one party, including those acting on the authority of the state, intrudes on the rights of another party.
I just sat down to lunch after finding what the new source of sediment is that is filling the creek we live on. I'll omit the many details and just keep it simple. So, without government regulations saying that you don't have the freedom to pollute the creek with sediment, how do you suggest I get them to stop doing it? Especially since it causes them no damage what so ever.
 
I just sat down to lunch after finding what the new source of sediment is that is filling the creek we live on. I'll omit the many details and just keep it simple. So, without government regulations saying that you don't have the freedom to pollute the creek with sediment, how do you suggest I get them to stop doing it? Especially since it causes them no damage what so ever.

Who owns the creek?
 
Similarily I have no problems with restrictions to keep a pedophile from being around children.
Yes the pedophiles freedoms are being curtailed but they have shown a propensity to take away others rights.To the above you answered:
What you are forgetting is that a pedophile caught when you say our freedoms were greater would be zero risk to children in the future. (To be clear I guess I have to add: The pedophile would be dead. That is unless he was the leader of a group.)

What? Sorry, I'm not following. Maybe I'm having a brain fart moment but what does "What you are forgetting is that a pedophile caught when you say our freedoms were greater would be zero risk to children in the future " mean? Just so that we are clear though, I think pedophiles are risks to children.
 
No I support freedom but when someone has demonstrated that they are not willing/able to respect other peoples freedom then they do not deserve the same amount of freedom as others.

You don't seem to grasp that supporting freedom calls for respecting the freedoms of the innocent regardless of past offenses. Taking freedom away from people that are a risk is not upholding freedom. You can talk all day about potential harms and such and its still going to be a security argument, NOT a freedom argument.

So you would defend the right of a pedophile with multiple convictions to run a daycare or be a grade 1 teacher?
That isn't defending freedom that is insanity

Yes, I would. That is upholding freedom. I don't get to pick and choose and still think I'm doing it, and I'm not dishonest enough to pretend I can.
 
Last edited:
You don't seem to grasp that supporting freedom calls for respecting the freedoms of the innocent regardless of past offenses.

Past offenses do not have to be ignored to support freedom. If you have past offenses, you aren’t innocent. Society found you guilty, and are allowing you to live out the remainder of your life with previously freedoms curtailed.

It is still your actions that initiated this force against you however, so any claims of innocence are patently false.
 
Similarily I have no problems with restrictions to keep a pedophile from being around children.
Yes the pedophiles freedoms are being curtailed but they have shown a propensity to take away others rights.To the above you answered:
What you are forgetting is that a pedophile caught when you say our freedoms were greater would be zero risk to children in the future. (To be clear I guess I have to add: The pedophile would be dead. That is unless he was the leader of a group.)

Do you understand the concept of one person's rights (and freedom by default) end where the next person's rights begin. Obviously in a completely free (and anarchist) society one person could walk into another's house and eat their food, use their bed, etc. That's why we have a government. To enforce and adjudicate the rights of the people. No governed person is truly "free".
 
I just sat down to lunch after finding what the new source of sediment is that is filling the creek we live on. I'll omit the many details and just keep it simple. So, without government regulations saying that you don't have the freedom to pollute the creek with sediment, how do you suggest I get them to stop doing it? Especially since it causes them no damage what so ever.

What kind of problem is the sediment causing others?
 
Past offenses do not have to be ignored to support freedom. If you have past offenses, you aren’t innocent. Society found you guilty, and are allowing you to live out the remainder of your life with previously freedoms curtailed.

If they wanted to put someone in prison for life for a crime then they should of done so. When they release an individual they are giving back the freedoms lost when the punishment was given out and that person is once again seen as a person that can practice all of their freedoms. Time served is for the offense already undertaken so that is considered equal by all accounts and purposes. Doing anything further IS taking away freedoms for crimes already accounted for and dealt with.
 
If they wanted to put someone in prison for life for a crime then they should of done so.

Nope. Prison is not the only way of applying a punishment.

When they release an individual they are giving back the freedoms lost when the punishment was given out and that person is once again seen as a person that can practice all of their freedoms.

This is not how it works. In most states, a felon released from prison has many rights not returned to them, and nobody initiated force against the felon. He/she did it to themselves.

Time served is for the offense already undertaken so that is considered equal by all accounts and purposes. Doing anything further IS taking away freedoms for crimes already accounted for and dealt with.

All you did is rehash your opinion in a different manner, but it is still an opinion, and a bad one at that
 
Nope. Prison is not the only way of applying a punishment.

Did I say it was? Nope.

This is not how it works. In most states, a felon released from prison has many rights not returned to them, and nobody initiated force against the felon. He/she did it to themselves.

Sorry, but yes, I'm aware of this. I understand all to well that people serve their time and are still treated as criminals and people like you pretend its actually not about security at that point. Also, to tell me that future punishments is not force at all is ridiculous, btw.
 
Last edited:
Did I say it was? Nope.

Yes, you did.

As a punishment, I want to lock a person up for 10 years, and strip them from owning a gun for life

You claim I should just lock them up for life. So you said the only punishment I can give is prison, and when they are released from prison they must have all their rights restored.

Sorry, but yes, I'm aware of this. I understand all to well that people serve their time and are still treated as criminals and people like you pretend its actually not about security at that point. Also, to tell me that future punishments is not force at all is ridiculous, btw.

They are criminals, They proved to society they will engage in criminal activity.
 
Sorry, but yes, I'm aware of this. I understand all to well that people serve their time and are still treated as criminals and people like you pretend its actually not about security at that point. Also, to tell me that future punishments is not force at all is ridiculous, btw.

which brings us back to the pedophile
If your past actions have shown that you have a trendancy to do things that take away others rights then of course you should have some of your freedoms curtailed to protect others. Did you even look at the link I provided on the recidivism rate of pedophiles? Are you seriously arguing that a convicted pedophile who has served his/her sentence should be allowed to run a daycare or teach children? Or is denying them the right to those professions a reasonable restriction of their rights in order to guarantee the rights of others?
 
Yes, you did.

As a punishment, I want to lock a person up for 10 years, and strip them from owning a gun for life

You claim I should just lock them up for life. So you said the only punishment I can give is prison, and when they are released from prison they must have all their rights restored.

I never said prison is the only way to punish an individual but only talked about prison and life sentences. My argument is about the idea about time served and making sure to not violate their freedoms any further after that point. Its very clear, is it not?

They are criminals, They proved to society they will engage in criminal activity.

And they served their time for their crime. We already went over this.
 
which brings us back to the pedophile
If your past actions have shown that you have a trendancy to do things that take away others rights then of course you should have some of your freedoms curtailed to protect others. Did you even look at the link I provided on the recidivism rate of pedophiles? Are you seriously arguing that a convicted pedophile who has served his/her sentence should be allowed to run a daycare or teach children? Or is denying them the right to those professions a reasonable restriction of their rights in order to guarantee the rights of others?

Yes, I'm seriously saying that. FYI, I'm very much aware of its dangers.

And really its call a background check. If who you are hiring is known to rape children than you should have the sense to not hire them if they are going to be around children. I don't see how this is hard to deal with.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm seriously saying that. FYI, I'm very much aware of its dangers.

Well I can only say that I disagree with you, and can see now way we could ever find common ground on this issue.
 
Well I can only say that I disagree with you, and can see now way we could ever find common ground on this issue.

We never had a chance for that. ;)
 
Did I say it was? Nope.



Sorry, but yes, I'm aware of this. I understand all to well that people serve their time and are still treated as criminals and people like you pretend its actually not about security at that point. Also, to tell me that future punishments is not force at all is ridiculous, btw.

I don't think he is stating it isn't force. It's just not future punishment as you maintain. Generally these things (registering a sex offender for example, losing you license in addition to jail for a serious offense) are administered during sentencing. They are also known as a punishment for the given crime prior to a person committing the crime they chose to commit.
 
I don't think he is stating it isn't force. It's just not future punishment as you maintain. Generally these things (registering a sex offender for example, losing you license in addition to jail for a serious offense) are administered during sentencing. They are also known as a punishment for the given crime prior to a person committing the crime they chose to commit.

True, I didn't even think of that. :doh Though the purpose of it remains the same.
 
True, I didn't even think of that. :doh Though the purpose of it remains the same.

It's the same purpose as all laws. To protect the rights of another person. If you haven't seen it you should search here for DUI. we had a nice discussion about whether DUI should be illegal as long as the offender doesn't cause any harm or damage to others. He's not infringing on anyone's right.....
 
Back
Top Bottom