Should the government be allowed to take away ANY freedoms?

[tomspug]

Excluding those who break the law (because by breaking the law a citizen is choosing to revoke his rights), should any freedoms, be it smoking marijuana, prostitution, bearing arms, getting an abortion, drinking alcohol, privacy, burning a flag, flying a confederate flag, etc.?

To me, it seems that unless you are breaking the law or causing anyone other than yourself physical harm, we should be free to do what we want, even if it's self-destructive. Now, you may question whether some of the things listed above harm others. Should any basic freedoms ever be compromised for any other reason?

 

[oldcajun]

Excluding those who break the law (because by breaking the law a citizen is choosing to revoke his rights), should any freedoms, be it smoking marijuana, prostitution, bearing arms, getting an abortion, drinking alcohol, privacy, burning a flag, flying a confederate flag, etc.?

To me, it seems that unless you are breaking the law or causing anyone other than yourself physical harm, we should be free to do what we want, even if it's self-destructive. Now, you may question whether some of the things listed above harm others. Should any basic freedoms ever be compromised for any other reason?

Freedom without restraint brings anarchy.

 

[Wandered Off]

To me, it seems that unless you are breaking the law or causing anyone other than yourself physical harm, we should be free to do what we want, even if it's self-destructive.

Agreed! About the only mitigation I can think of re self-destructiveness is if someone else has to pay the bills. For example, if you want to ride without a helmet, fine by me as long as you get adequate insurance and don't expect me to pay for your lifetime of head injury recovery. If the government has to foot the bill, then that is about the only reason I can think of for it to get a say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Excluding those who break the law (because by breaking the law a citizen is choosing to revoke his rights), should any freedoms, be it smoking marijuana, prostitution, bearing arms, getting an abortion, drinking alcohol, privacy, burning a flag, flying a confederate flag, etc.?

It seems like you're talking in circles a bit.

Governments should not be able to deny freedoms when the law has not been broken. I think the question is what should be considered breaking the law and what should not.

 

[tomspug]

Freedom without restraint brings anarchy.

Interesting. I wonder what the world would be like if God took this approach.

Thou shalt not steal! (ties arms behind back)
Thou shalt not commit adultery (cuts off your naughty bits)
Thou shalt not murder! (kills everyone, just to be safe)

People forget that "God's Laws" were not required to be followed. They were recommended. People, in general, have the ability to learn from their mistakes. I know I do. If the government takes away the ability for us to make mistakes, or tries to prevent us from making them, it becomes an exercise in reliance.

 

[Mathematician]

Freedom is an ambiguous term at best. With freedom you can include the freedoms to rape, steal, murder, harass, and terrorize children. I prefer liberty, although even then you run into problems such as establishing what can and can't be property. Liberties depend very much on one's philosophy. Does owning resources equate to an infringement of liberty? Technically - yes - since you're excluding someone the use of [water, carbon, gasoline].

Quite honestly I'm not going to push for any legislation unless it demonstrably affects others in a negative way - physically. I'm all for "live as you please" philosophies.

 

[Storm]

Excluding those who break the law (because by breaking the law a citizen is choosing to revoke his rights), should any freedoms, be it smoking marijuana, prostitution, bearing arms, getting an abortion, drinking alcohol, privacy, burning a flag, flying a confederate flag, etc.?

To me, it seems that unless you are breaking the law or causing anyone other than yourself physical harm, we should be free to do what we want, even if it's self-destructive. Now, you may question whether some of the things listed above harm others. Should any basic freedoms ever be compromised for any other reason?

The question becomes how we define harm. Is a meth user who commits no other crimes is only harming himself? Directly, yes. Indirectly, he is supporting meth labs, which pose a great danger to all those involved, and innocent bystanders as well.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Freedom without restraint brings anarchy.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

[NoahideHiker]

Excluding those who break the law (because by breaking the law a citizen is choosing to revoke his rights), should any freedoms, be it smoking marijuana, prostitution, bearing arms, getting an abortion, drinking alcohol, privacy, burning a flag, flying a confederate flag, etc.?

To me, it seems that unless you are breaking the law or causing anyone other than yourself physical harm, we should be free to do what we want, even if it's self-destructive. Now, you may question whether some of the things listed above harm others. Should any basic freedoms ever be compromised for any other reason?

If it is protected by the Constitution then it should be protected and never, EVER given up. It drives me up a tree how easily some people will give more power to the government.

 

[Storm]

If it is protected by the Constitution then it should be protected and never, EVER given up. It drives me up a tree how easily some people will give more power to the government.

So you should be able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

 

[Sunstone]

So you should be able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

Justice Holmes established that yelling fire in a crowded theatre was not Constitutionally protected speech.

 

[Storm]

And why is it not protected speech? Because it causes harm.

 

[gnomon]

Justice Holmes established that yelling fire in a crowded theatre was not Constitutionally protected speech.

Is he the one who wrote the phrase "a clear and present danger".

Why do I ask these questions when you can just create a new tab in Firefox and just google the phrase...
From wiki,

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

This trivia segment brought to you by gnomon and sponsored by water.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

LOL, not if you don't value anything in your life.

 

[NoahideHiker]

So you should be able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

No but that is part of the balance of rights and responsibilities. Things rarely fall into the extremes at either end of an issue. Having rights does not equal having no law.

 

[Storm]

We're on the same page, then.

 

[McBell]

If it is protected by the Constitution then it should be protected and never, EVER given up. It drives me up a tree how easily some people will give more power to the government.

I agree.

So what do you think of the current administrations habit of ignoring the US Constitution?

 

[NoahideHiker]

I agree.

So what do you think of the current administrations habit of ignoring the US Constitution?

It's terrible. The warrantless wire tapping, The Patriot Act, some cases of habeas corps. And the two jostling for the job now aren't much better. McCain struck probably the biggest blow to free speech with his McCain/Finegold bill and Obama thinks it's fine for local government to superceede federal law and ignore the Constitution.

If they tried this BS in 1790's they'd be hanging from a light pole on the streets of Boston.

 

[PureX]

Individual freedoms must be regulated for human beings to live together in peace.

 

[tomspug]

I agree that there may be special cases, but they should never be absolute, and the amount of time allotted for those special cases should not be determined by the body given that power.