Why is it that people tend to be un supportive of the things I want as freedoms and yet be so virile with their own desired "freedoms."

Why cant we all have these freedoms and maybe work on changing the laws in this nation too one very simple law...do no harm unless in self defense!

Just wondering?

Tags: Atheist, and, eating, gun, libertarian, meat, toting

Views: 171


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I stated clearly I am a gun toting, meat eating, atheist libertarian-

This pretty much sums it up!

Again if you read the comments already made I have explained why I tossed that in there. The idea here is to help open people up too other ideas and views, I am using something extremely personal (meat eating etc. as this sometimes has the desired effect in opening others up a bit.)

If you would like me to define Libertarian by all means feel free to ask, however, I do not feel it my responsibility to define this to others as they should do a bit of research prior to joining a debate? ;) And no I am not trying to be mean just honest here! :)
I know full well what Libertarianism is, but even Libertarians have to recognize limitations on liberties. 'Harm' is too vague a term to act as any sort of meaningful limiter. That said, there are numerous forms of libertarianism that don't all agree with each other, -- it's not a singular, unified political philosophy-- so saying libertarian is, in effect, meaningless if that's all you're offering up.

What you wrote, and I quote, is "Why cant we all have these freedoms and maybe work on changing the laws in this nation too one very simple law...do no harm unless in self defense!"

This means that you feel that there are impositions to your freedoms that you don't seem to think are reasonable. Can you not even name one specific example that illustrates your point? I'm not sure why that's so difficult. Do you think the question is unfair?
Any imposition to our individual freedom unless in defense of anothers life etc. is an imposition that should be.
If you truly understood the idea behind libertarianism you would know this.

You state knowledge and yet you ask for specifics,

Here are specifics, follow the link as there are a few very well laid out principles that I agree with.
I'm not the one struggling with the idea of libertarianism. It is an incredibly broad term referring not to any specific policy, but rather the general concept of minimal governmental influence. That's it. The Libertarian party certainly does not hold exclusive domain over this term.

The Libertarian party lives in stark contrast with reality, which is that modern societies exist only due to a high level of interdependence between their members. This requires a certain level of cooperation amongst all people to contribute to certain social assets. Based on our dependence on others in society, we are also accountable to others in society.

Why social and not private? Because ultimately all members of society have some means of raising their voice.

Already the voices of the disenfranchised struggle against the weight of wealthy lobbyist, but wealthy lobbyists are more an issue with the behavior of private citizens than that of government. Even with corruption in politics, government at least serves as somewhat of a check against rampant opportunism... which ultimately leads to harm.
While I agree that some government must exist, I disagree that we all must contribute for the greater good. In fact I would go so far as too say that by demanding contributions than we are no better than our religious counterparts or communists which as we can see is a system that does not work. In every case so far this is a system that has failed.

What I am encouraging is the "disenfranchised" on both sides of the "aisle" begin to speak up but do so not to benefit directly but to further individual liberty so as to create a better more equal system, one based on what each works for versus what each is given.

You stated, "Even with corruption in politics, government at least serves as somewhat of a check against rampant opportunism... which ultimately leads to harm." and this is where social rules, i.e. laws come into play- if instead of passing laws meant to restrict we pass and enforce laws meant to punish those who break societal rules we would in fact be better off for it.

As an atheist would you willingly allow someone to force your children to do what they want versus what would allow for the freedom of choice (regarding religious expression) or would you fight for the right to maintain that free choice?

All I am presenting and all the "Libertarian platform" promotes is that right, that every man be able to judge what is best for themselves as long as that judgment/ decision does not cause direct harm to another (outside of defense of self)

For the record I do not struggle, I understand what it is I want, I understand because I have lived in highly restrictive societies and I have lived here. I prefer our freedoms (as little as they are in some areas) however, I can also see the dangers of allowing a government "of the people for the people" to become too large. When I state my intention and in fact actual history of protesting against this I am doing it not for myself, I can move as an individual, I do it for everyone. After all more freedom does not mean automatic anarchy, more freedom simply means a wider selection of available choices.

A great case in point is the current "drug war" and the affects of this "war" on our society of over the past 35+ years.
Fact, the number of incarcerated felons has increased from 320k too over 2 million in just 30 years.

Fact, addiction rates have skyrocketed since the imposition of these legal restrictions and the formation of various LEO agencies whose sole job is the enforcement of Un - Constitutional laws. (the founding fathers never meant for a government to tell us what we could and could not do with our bodies.)

Fact, illegal immigration (Hispanic) and border related crime has increased along the same time-lines that the "drug war" was enacted.

If you want true change, reduce the laws, give people back their choice- or do you feel that no one is capable of making personal decisions except those you decide on?

Lastly, why did prohibition of alcohol not work - when it was lifted crime dropped literally overnight. Less restrictions equals a fairer society, more laws and more guidelines and more government simply puts more power in the hands of those who in all fairness are not looking out for the best interests and or are not listening to the demands of the public as a whole.

So sure, you can have "Utopia" as Thomas More wrote it, or you can have true freedom where people are able to be intellectually free, and are allowed to live and control their bodies how they want with a smaller government that enforces a most basic set of laws.

Btw I highly recommend reading "Utopia" by Thomas More - written over 400 years ago it does a very good job of showing how this "sharing equally" type of society could never really work.
On a personal note I would rather live peacefully next too a catholic and a Muslim than be forced to follow only one "path" which is what must occur for true "sharing" to work.

Now for the disclaimer - I MAY BE WRONG- but at least from what I have studied it works...
It seems to me you're giving short shrift to obvious realities. There are many pedestrian examples of when individual freedoms conflict.

I have a tree that branches over your yard. Do you hack away my tree, on a vertical plane, at your property's border? What if you used a chemical that ended up killing the tree outright?

You've been robbed recently, so you get a couple of guard dogs. They bark all night and deprive the neighbors of sleep. Should you be forced to muzzle your dogs or should the neighbors be forced to be sleepy and irritable at work the next day?

Freedom is not as clean-cut as you make it seem.
I'll have to double check, but tree limbs that extend onto your property you have a right to trim, even on a vertical plane. Using chemicals to kill the tree would, in effect, be reaching across your boundary and your right.

Dogs barking all night is also a pretty clean cut scenario. Most cities have ordinances against loud noise levels between certain hours. For the same reason the cops will bust up the loud party at 2am, they could show up to have you muzzle the dogs or take them inside. The fact of a robbery is irrelevant.

I admit that I like the rule of thumb used and would be interested in hearing better examples of conflict. Of course, that is what much of the legal world revolves around.
"Logical, rational debate should never begin with phrasing that leads one to feel attacked."

Says who?
I agree. The issue is not how you feel about a reply. It's how you respond. Tough replies are valid when they make a point and avoid personal attacks. In tun, admitting wrong is not a negative outcome.
Maybe the problem isn't so much the diet of eating meat but the culture of meat and mass-consumerism itself.

Perhaps free range and smaller farms might be a good solution to the problems of the planet?

Although if a Whopper with cheese were suddenly $12, I can imagine how many "small town" joints would pop up in the place of the big chains.
I detest fast food, lol so I can readily agree with you- I utilize local free range producers (Arizona residence) and local grown greens etc. whenever possible

I generally avoid the mass consumerism bullshit after all I have lived next too and smelled one of the largest turkey "farms" in the nation - Kaufman Turkey Farms in Illinois...not pretty! (but I am logical...)

Again free range is an awesome way to approach this, and I completely embrace the idea!
That's a good point, Mario,

Meat is nutrition . . . not comfort. Consumerism aims for too much of a good thing. But that's a far cry from swearing off meat altogether.


Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service