When I was little, fire trucks - and police cars - were yellow. They changed the colour because of new rules against the ingredients in the paint (cadmium or lead - can't remember which was the issue).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Socialism under our nose.
- Thread starter Deo Vindice
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I believe differently than you.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't see how secularism or theism relates to freedoms.
It's political in nature, not religious although there are theocracy where both are integrated. It's still always political at the end of the day I think.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, so do I. But there are 2 kinds of nanny state. I support one of them and oppose the other. Do you oppose both or only one?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Read what you are answering. It is about the end times. You and I are going to Hell.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I believe in compromise. There used to be a smoking law in NY for example requiring restaurants to have a ventilated sealed room for smokers apart from non smokers. A smoking area.
It was working beautifully until the government stepped in after making the law and kicked smokers outdoors completely leaving restaurants thousands of dollars in debt from the newly installed ventilation systems.
Nannyism is removing people's freedom of making choices. Even if its risky.. That should be left up to individuals to make those choices, not the government.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
As long as the Ramones and AC/DC are there. ;0)Read what you are answering. It is about the end times. You and I are going to Hell.
Top entertainment.
Hell is subjective. Imagine being stuck in church for eternity singing hymns.
I'd go mad for sure!
Caution: Nerdiness
I'm reminded of the STTOS episode, "By Any Other Name".
In it, the Kelvans are aliens physically very different from us,
(huge beings with a hundred tentacles) but have assumed
human form.
ROJAN: Yes, but disturbing. These shells in which we've encased ourselves, they have such heightened senses. To feel. To hear. To smell. How do humans manage to exist in these fragile cases?
HANAR: Since the ship was designed to sustain these forms,
we have little choice.
ROJAN: At least we'll be away from all of this openness. This
is too strange for us, Hanar. We are creatures of outer space,
and soon we will be safe in the comforting closeness of walls.
To Kelvans, freedom is the "closeness of walls".
Some people see freedom as a powerful government
that strictly enforces their preferences upon all.
The "closeness of laws", eh.
Whooda thunk that "liberty" & "freedom" can both refer
to a spectrum with exclusive extremes. They can mean
opposite things....anything.
We live in a post-dictionary age.
But for reference....
Definition of freedom | Dictionary.com
noun
1) the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:He won his freedom after a retrial.
3) exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4) political or national independence.
5) personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery:The formerly enslaved seamstress bought her freedom and later became Mary Todd Lincoln’s dressmaker and stylist.
6) exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from):
That is not the only problem. If you follow the link, is says that anarcho-capitalism will evolve in mini-statism. I agree, but it overlooks something.
In a libertarian mini-statism state all citizen are free to form their own companies. So just as the companies in anarcho-capitalism involved in base security, law and justice will evolve into a de facto state, insurance companies can do the same when you combine it with cooperatives.
How? You and your partners in a cooperative insurance company want to corner the marked for insurance. Remember it is voluntary and based on free trade. So if your group is large enough, you can do the following: Stop trading with everybody else for all trades if they are not a partner in your cooperative insurance company. If you are enough as a share of the marked, you effectively give the rest of the people a trade, they will take. How? They are worse off outside your cooperative insurance company, so they will join and voila, you have in effect a welfare state.
I think the main problem with anarcho-capitalism is that there's no real allowance made for human rights or individual freedom. A perfect example is the notion that the concept of free speech does not apply to private business. A private business owner or property owner is not required to honor your First Amendment or Second Amendment rights, nor any other rights in the Constitution or any rights recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Governments are required to uphold such principles, but private business owners are not. The owners would be like feudal warlords or Mafia chieftains, unrestrained by any higher principles and free to operate with utter impunity. Human civilization would regress to what it was 1000 years ago.
Another major drawback is that all the competing warlords would be fighting and squabbling with each other, until someone comes along with enough charisma and popularity to become the "boss of all the bosses." But even that never really lasts, and it just becomes a continuous cycle.
In the U.S. experience, one could say that we already had anarcho-capitalism at first, which lasted through the 19th century and up until WW1. It was really just a chaotic land rush - sometimes very violent and cruel. It was a good time to be a capitalist, though. Business owners, plantation owners, ranch owners, mine owners - they could pretty much do whatever they wanted with little to no government interference. The only problems they had were with other capitalists, many of whom didn't really believe in the idea of "friendly competition." It wasn't really until after the Civil War that political and economic power started to become more centralized. It was still heavily capitalistic for a long time, although some were starting to resist and challenge that. Unbridled capitalism led to many social and environmental problems in America which were being called out and challenged. The labor movement also started to grow, and some political leaders saw the need to address the social problems and economic disparities.
The whole point is that the policies which some people decry as "socialism" and/or "anti-capitalist" in the U.S. did not just pop up out of nowhere. They were largely caused by the excesses and irresponsibility of capitalists in the past.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, your example is typical of government stupidity. But in the broad view I expect limitations to my freedom. E.g. seatbelts.
But that is also subjective in part.
There is nothing in the definition of "socialism" or "communism"
to make such allowances either. Indeed, these systems have
the worst records for human rights.
It's up to the form of government to address social issues.
Actually, the Soviet Union did have a Constitution: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, TOC (bucknell.edu)
The rights of citizens are clearly spelled out. Now, whether or not the Soviet government followed their own Constitution in good faith may be another matter, but this is what they put down on paper and promised that they would do. But for reasons which are varied and complicated - and probably more unique to Russian history than anything attributable to a "universal human nature" - they did violate their own laws and principles on human rights (just as our own government has done on many occasions).
Capitalists don't even have that. In fact, they make a point in proclaiming that the Constitution doesn't apply to them. If you're on private property, the owner doesn't have to grant First Amendment rights. In the scenario you're quoting from, it was in regards to an anarcho-capitalist society where there would be no public or state property whatsoever, so therefore no Constitution and no human rights.
You should be happy if that is the case. Soon Jesus will land to vindicate you all
Ciao
- viole
Deo Vindice
Member
Libs use government to fill the void left by god's absence. You can't truly be free without faith.
You should be happy if that is the case. Soon Jesus will land to vindicate you all
Ciao
- viole
Well, if Jesus does land, then from what I've heard, he'll bring about a new kingdom based on love, brotherhood, sharing - where the poor will be fed, the sick will be cured - things like that. Sounds like socialism to me.
It worked beautifully? For whom? Clearly these "smoking section" compromises were, and are, a meaningless bad joke.
I was a smoker for many years of my life, but then overcame that drug addiction around 20 years ago. It was during that time of "non-smoking sections" in restaurants. Now while they make have had a non-smoking section, it was NOT non-smoked filled. Smoke permeates everywhere indoors. And while it may be less volume of the cancer-causing pollutants, it is still there. In the air, in your lungs, on your clothes, in your hair, etc, even if you never lit up, nor where within 20 feet of smokers indoors.
Now, set the customers health and well-being aside for a moment. What about the wait staff, and other employees who have to spend all day in that environment? There is clear, researched proofs that that level of smoke exposure has negative impacts on human bodies. Non-smoking wait staff, end up with lung cancer. Well worth it for smokers freedoms to be inconsiderate of others?
You decry such laws as "nanny state"? Complete BS. Without some adult telling the reckless what they can and cannot do in serving the public, you end up with abuses that harm public health and society as a whole, such as racial discrimination by business owners. Nanny state to say you can't have a "whites only" section? Is that nanny state to you too?
Take away environmental regulations, for instance, and you think some business owner will pay more money to have his dangerous chemicals disposed of properly, versus just dumping them for free right into the river behind his land he owns? Time and time again proves, they need someone to establish laws for them to follow, for the sake of everyone else. Without them, they will not choose to do the "right thing". That has been demonstrated countless times throughout human history.
Healthy societies are based upon regulating behaviors of its members for the sake of everyone else.
Last edited:
The Constitution doesn't apply to us?
Huh.
Yerda
Veteran Member
In this case, put me down as one vote for the antichrist.
Are you suggesting the hypothetical cancer patients, road accident victims or victims of genetic defects are better served by faith and church than they are by access to modern medicines?
And are you also suggesting that because YOU have this belief, setting up mechanisms to ensure access to medicine...something our society can afford if they want to...is not needed?
Phhht...bugger that. I'm paying the poor guy down the street a few bucks, and he can both take my trash away and bury it for me.