Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
For example, I can sit inside my own house and watch all the shitty animé I want. I can do this without neighbors looking at me funny.
Is it tyranny if I can do this?
John Stossel argues that the form of government does not necessecarily determine whether a government is a tyranny.
Well, basically, he asks people on the street why they like living in america and why is it prosperous. The people mostly answer "becuse we have natural resources" or "becuse it's a democracy". He points out that Hong Kong is neither a democracy nor does it have natural resources. But Hong Kong is nonethess more prosperous per capita than India, which has lots of natural resources and is a democracy.
He travels to, and tries to start a business selling a box of his own book at a kiosk in several cities. In Hong Kong it takes only one day to get a business licence. In New York City, it takes 5 days to get a street vendor permit. In India, starting a business is tricky because there are too many regulations, and he gives up and goes back home.
/headdesk.
> I listed three of the four types of government so you'll need to specify.
I don't know which one it is.
Here's what I am saying: currently, I am able to watch shitty animé at home without my neighbors harrassing me.
1. Is this liberty?
2. Under what forms of government can this happen?
I didn't assume that, but I guess your response implies that your answer to my first question is "No".
> prevents you from doing things that arn't harming anyone
Ahh, here's the condition.
> using drugs
You may be right about some controlled substances, such as marijuana. However, others are known to make people prone to violence and other societal disturbances, are KNOWN to be addictive (resulting in other people having to pay for that person's treatment), and are also highly sought by organized crime. What about those?
> putting whatever content they like in media iwhtout having to censor it
The Constitution does guarantee freedom of speech. With exceptions as court rulings have gradually decided, such as classically saying that you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because that would cause a panic during which people will trample over each other, resulting in further injury and possible death.
> Owning arms (you know what I mean)
Depends on the type of arms, of course. I'm fine with people owning certain weapons, but that doesn't mean I'm fine with us turning a blind eye to crazy people who are making homemade pipe bombs for terrorism purposes.
> Doing whatever the hell you like wiht your own land.
Well, that depends on whether I'm harming someone else (or their property, for that matter) by doing whatever the hell it is that I like to do with my own land.
> Choosing to have an abortion or not
I agree with you on this, and as you know this is a topic of current controversy.
> Associating with whomever you like
This is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and further clarified in NAACP v. Alabama. Of course, again, this is limited by whether I'd harm someone else--I can't use "freedom of association" to defend, say, passing information for committing crimes between a gang boss and his subordinates.