• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I have seen the light, Republicans ARE EVIL...

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
When it is something that gives you a benefit or service for free, at the expense of others, you seem to prefer to call it a mandate. We have seen this time and time again. Please don't continue your blatant intellectual dishonesty.


When Man is no longer alone, meaning, there are other Men, Man has become a collective, Liberty is a matter of degrees. Autonomous Man's Liberty being unfettered is highly subjective.


Please don't insult his memory. You have more in common with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin: you seek to use the unfettered power of the Almighty state to take what others have earned and redistribute it to ne'er-do-wells such as yourself.

I have merely stated that the State has pretty close to unfettered Power; that is the purpose of the State.

I have done well, I have been in a fulfilling fourteen year relationship with my wife, four wonderful children who do well in school, have clothes on their back, and have a sufficient amount of food to eat each day.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
You are a confused individual, and until and unless you figure out that the right of armed self-defense comes as a package with other individual rights and liberties that need to be respected by a limited government, you cannot be an ally in this fight.

I may be confused but let's not get bogged down by distractions.

You can conclude that I am not an ally.

Any form and degree of Government takes away from individual Liberty.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
I may be confused but let's not get bogged down by distractions.

You can conclude that I am not an ally.

Any form and degree of Government takes away from individual Liberty.

Even though I think you're clueless on many issues, and jokingly accuse you of having brain damage, I consider you an ally in regards to 2A issues. Though I don't share your views on much else, I appreciate the fact that you not only exersize and support your 2A rights, but that you are willing to argue in favor of them with your fellow obozo zealots.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Even though I think you're clueless on many issues, and jokingly accuse you of having brain damage, I consider you an ally in regards to 2A issues. Though I don't share your views on much else, I appreciate the fact that you not only exersize and support your 2A rights, but that you are willing to argue in favor of them with your fellow obozo zealots.

I argue in favor of it until they kick me out of the room. As the years pass I seem to be less sociable, well, I seem to be kicked out of more and more rooms, Democrat and Republican.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Any form and degree of Government takes away from individual Liberty.

I am so sick of hearing this crap. While it may appear largely truthful in practice, you preach it as though it were axiomatic.

It is necessarily, inherently true so long as you misdefine "liberty" as "the ability to do whatever one wants any of the time with no limitations".

In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.

Nothing about government requires a reduction of liberty, properly defined.

You depend on this premise so as to justify further reductions of liberty, so long as they, in your mind, represent a worthwhile tradeoff "for the common good", a tradeoff you've intentionally conflated with the core concept of government -- any government. In addition to being a commission of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, the implication here is that, to disagree, I must argue from anarchism, or I must make the argument on utilitarian grounds.

Well, I refuse to argue on utilitarian grounds unless is darn well suits me -- which is almost never.

The means are the ends.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I am so sick of hearing this crap. While it may appear largely truthful in practice, you preach it as though it were axiomatic.

It is necessarily, inherently true so long as you misdefine "liberty" as "the ability to do whatever one wants any of the time with no limitations".

In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.

Nothing about government requires a reduction of liberty, properly defined.

You depend on this premise so as to justify further reductions of liberty, so long as they, in your mind, represent a worthwhile tradeoff "for the common good", a tradeoff you've intentionally conflated with the core concept of government -- any government. In addition to being a commission of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, the implication here is that, to disagree, I must argue from anarchism, or I must make the argument on utilitarian grounds.

Well, I refuse to argue on utilitarian grounds unless is darn well suits me -- which is almost never.

The means are the ends.

Then properly define Liberty for me, and we can discuss it. I will tell you whether or not I agree.
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
.

It is necessarily, inherently true so long as you misdefine "liberty" as "the ability to do whatever one wants any of the time with no limitations".

In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.

Not arguing, just a question.

Isn't that exactly the definition of liberty? Aren't you confusing our social contract to not impede liberty with actual liberty?

I mean isn't liberty exactly the ability to do whatever we want and isnt it just our social contract to agree to limit our liberty so as to not infringe on others and possibly be infringed on?

That's always been my take on it. That i am free to do whatever but freely agree to the social contract for our mutual benefit.

I could be wrong of course...
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Aren't you confusing our social contract to not impede liberty with actual liberty?

I mean isn't liberty exactly the ability to do whatever we want and isnt it just our social contract an agreement to limit our liberty so as to not infringe on others and possibly be infringed on?

Can you please show me this mythical document called the "social contract" that you and others claim I am party to?

I can't recall ever signing such a document, but every time I've heard it invoked, it is followed by an attempt to steal either my liberty or my property.
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
Can you please show me this mythical document called the "social contract" that you and others claim I am party to?

I can't recall ever signing such a document, but every time I've heard it invoked, it is followed by an attempt to steal either my liberty or my property.

By social contract I mean our agreeing to respect each other and whatnot. I can't articulate it but you know what I mean.

Otherwise there is no contract and then you expecting me to respect your liberty by limiting myself is an infringement on my liberty.

Maybe someone can articulate it better?

And I'm not claiming anything. I had a thought and asked a question.

If there is no social contract then why worry about others' liberty and not just our own?
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Can you please show me this mythical document called the "social contract" that you and others claim I am party to?



[snip]

In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.


[snip]

The above is a Social Contract.

I can't recall ever signing such a document, but every time I've heard it invoked, it is followed by an attempt to steal either my liberty or my property.

The document doesn't exist, it is more of a base notion. You didn't have to sign the document since you were born under it's unspoken Principles. You are over-concerned for Liberty and Property. Why are you so worried? It's not as if you are going to be rounded up, and placed in a camp or something.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Then properly define Liberty for me, and we can discuss it. I will tell you whether or not I agree.

I just did. You must have missed it.

Not arguing, just a question.

Isn't that exactly the definition of liberty? Aren't you confusing our social contract to not impede liberty with actual liberty?

I mean isn't liberty exactly the ability to do whatever we want and isnt it just our social contract an agreement to limit our liberty so as to not infringe on others and possibly be infringed on?

That's always been my take on it. That i am free to do whatever but freely agree to the social contract for our mutual benefit.

I never signed any contract! :eek:

Invaluable though Locke's contributions to the understanding of rights were, they are diminished somewhat by their reliance on the rather dated notion of a "social contract". There are too many counterexamples to rely on its justification -- e.g. people born into ostensibly "free societies" and unable to escape circumstance. While that's perhaps not quite as common as the "compassionate left" would argue, it happens nevertheless. A necessary prerequisite for the existence of a "contract" is the ability to opt out, either by not entering it (for an explicit contract), or to exit it (for an implicit contract), which in the context of "society" is the ability to leave that society into which you were (rather forcibly) born.

Both "liberty" and "freedom" are used in a variety of contexts, and can mean a variety of related, but distinct concepts. But, as a sociopolitical construct, the meaning of "liberty" is essentially self-limiting.

As a sociopolitical construct, liberty must be shared by all, or it does not exist. For instance, imagine a society of two individuals. Obviously, if one of the individuals owns the other, the society does not represent liberty. Only by neither individual owning the other can the system be said to represent liberty.

I cannot have the liberty to kill you, because you would then lack the liberty to kill me. Therefore, neither of us has the liberty to kill the other.

Liberty, universal and shared, is limited thus. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. My right to do as I please cannot include preventing you from doing as you please, and vice versa.

No social contract necessary. You stay out of my business (not you especially). Simple as that.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
The document doesn't exist, it is more of a base notion. You didn't have to sign the document since you were born under it's unspoken Principles.

I was born into it? Kind of like slavery, eh?

Sorry, troll, but valid agreements can only be entered into consciously and voluntarily.

You are over-concerned for Liberty and Property. Why are you so worried? It's not as if you are going to be rounded up, and placed in a camp or something.

Sure, because you socialists have never stolen anyone's liberty and property, rounded folks up, or put them in camps. Yep, that's never happened. Right...
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
I don't recall voluntarily agreeing to the constitution (well before joining the army) or our laws but I was forced into obeying them...

How is this not different??? I truly don't understand why one is bad and the other is ok...
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I don't recall voluntarily agreeing to the constitution (well before joining the army) or our laws but I was forced into obeying them...

How is this not different??? I truly don't understand why one is bad and the other is ok...

The Constitution is a physical document, created by men, with a clear mechanism for altering it, and a clear precedent for abolishing it, if need be.

The mythical "social contract" is none of those things, and is not written down, so it can mean different things to different people. Beretta believes it entitles her to the wealth of others if they possess x+1 amount of it.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
If you limit your idea to social contract as not infringing on the liberties of others, then you are on to something.

If you construe it to mean we are obligated to "take care of others" or surrender our liberties because you feel the government does a better job.....

I am under no 'social contract' to educate your children, take care of your elderly parents/grandparents, give up my property without due compensation for (too numerous to list), pay for my workers health care, or their retirement etc......
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I was born into it? Kind of like slavery, eh?

Yes, you are a slave. Sorry to break the news to you.

Sorry, troll, but valid agreements can only be entered into consciously and voluntarily.

You have the Liberty to decide the validity of agreements. You do not have the Liberty to not suffer the consequences of not abiding by the agreement.


Sure, because you socialists have never stolen anyone's liberty and property, rounded folks up, or put them in camps. Yep, that's never happened. Right..

There were a number of factors that contributed to Hitlers mass murder. Socialism was not a necessary component.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The Constitution is a physical document, created by men, with a clear mechanism for altering it, and a clear precedent for abolishing it, if need be.

The mythical "social contract" is none of those things, and is not written down, so it can mean different things to different people. Beretta believes it entitles her to the wealth of others if they possess x+1 amount of it.

There is your Social Contract, the Constitution.

I have no interest in wealth. Just a modest, simple existence.
 
Last edited:
Top