Freedom's not popular?!

[angrydragon]

Is it because women are emotional? and men are rational?

 

[Original_Intent]

Is it because women are emotional? and men are rational?

Well, I think it is because they are emotion centered.... I mean men have emotions no matter how much we pretend otherwise...women can be completely rational all but a few days a month.... /duck

Seriously, I do think there are some implications here. I mean I love women and I am not saying they should not be able to vote or anything, but look at what has happened since women got the right to vote - social programs have gone nuts, the Constitution has been trampled "for the sake of the children", it really has been a factor in the acceptance of "the New Deal" and growth of the welfare state since then.

It's only a factor though, there are lots of others and another big one is men forgetting how to be men. It used to be that a man's honor was on the line if he got a girl pregnant then he was responsible to "do the right thing". Too many men are completely irresponsibel now leaving a woman to be a single parent, and how much can she do when she is doing everything to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

If we truly want less government then we need more personal responsibility.

 

[angrydragon]

Well, I think it is because they are emotion centered.... I mean men have emotions no matter how much we pretend otherwise...women can be completely rational all but a few days a month.... /duck

If we truly want less government then we need more personal responsibility.

Duck, haha.

I agree, no one really wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore, misdeeds or not.

They'll take credit for any accomplishments, but shift the blame if any kind of problem arises.

 

[Dary]

"If you have nothing to hide whats the difference?"

If I have nothing to hide and I'm not doing anything wrong, then don't I have even more justification to be left alone?

 

[SeanEdwards]

I don't think a right to privacy means a right to anonymity.

And all those cameras in London probably are going to help Scotland Yard find the people who planted all those car bombs today, and that will be a very real contribution to public safety.

 

[Dary]

Here are two good reads concerning freedom.

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
http://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree-World/dp/0965603679


The great libertarian offer
http://tinyurl.com/2t3qrj

 

[MsDoodahs]

Well, I think it is because they are emotion centered.... I mean men have emotions no matter how much we pretend otherwise...women can be completely rational all but a few days a month.... /duck

Seriously, I do think there are some implications here. I mean I love women and I am not saying they should not be able to vote or anything, but look at what has happened since women got the right to vote - social programs have gone nuts, the Constitution has been trampled "for the sake of the children", it really has been a factor in the acceptance of "the New Deal" and growth of the welfare state since then.

It's only a factor though, there are lots of others and another big one is men forgetting how to be men. It used to be that a man's honor was on the line if he got a girl pregnant then he was responsible to "do the right thing". Too many men are completely irresponsibel now leaving a woman to be a single parent, and how much can she do when she is doing everything to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

If we truly want less government then we need more personal responsibility.

I'm going to use what you wrote and start a topic on this in the General Politics area, OI. Hope that is okay. This is something that concerns me, and I've found it impossible to discuss it with those of my gender because they ... can't think critically and have difficulty being rationall.

 

[angelatc]

I'm not big on sacrificing my privacy in the name of public safety.

 

[Brandybuck]

Freedom is very popular. Freedom for yourself, that is. But few people want the same freedom for other people, especially people they don't like. It's pseudo-libertarianism, and it's rampant in the Democrat and Republican parties.

Take a standard Nolan Quiz, and make sure all the questions refer to "you" and "yours". Nearly everyone will score 100% libertarian. Now change all those questions to apply to "corporate shareholders", "inner city youth", or "union rank and file". Notice how all that libertarianism suddenly vanishes...

 

[Gee]

Seriously, I do think there are some implications here. I mean I love women and I am not saying they should not be able to vote or anything, but look at what has happened since women got the right to vote - social programs have gone nuts, the Constitution has been trampled "for the sake of the children", it really has been a factor in the acceptance of "the New Deal" and growth of the welfare state since then.

Women have also been historically uneducated until very recently. Around the time of the New Deal it was much worse. Even today, with more women than men in college, most of them study liberal arts, not sciences (other than biology), engineering or economics. Unless voters are educated, democracy doesn't work. And none of them, male or female, are at all educated in economics.

The way to win over people who want security is not with moral arguments, but with pragmatic (consequentialist libertarianism) ones. We know the government does not really provide security; if it were interested in that it would repeal the drug laws.

The simple fact is that the most security comes with the most wealth. There are mountains of historical evidence to support this. Certainly there are other factors involved as well, but by and large, the nations with the best health, least crime, longest lifespans, least poverty and best overall standard of living are the wealthy nations.

But overall I agree; freedom is not popular. Most people simply don't want other people to be free. They have this ingrained idea that their elites and policemen are somehow more trustworthy and better suited to run the life of the person next to them than the person next to them is. I have no idea how this came about, and its an especially silly attitude to take in a democratic nation. Trusting the government to run people's lives over the people, when the government in fact IS the people (ideally, at least), is absurd.

 

[CJLauderdale4]

When a crime is committed, we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. When the government spies on the people, it implies that we may all be guilty, whether we've committed a crime or not.

This concept falls right in line with the entire "preventive war" argument - the antithesis of the "just war" argument.

If the government must prevent, thus it must intrude to do so.

Best argument: "If you allow the government to snoop on you, why not everyone? You have nothing to hide, right? Take down your Norton or McAfee, turn off the firewalls and let anyone in! Oh, that's right. The government would NEVER do anything suspicious with the information it collects, right?"

 

[Man from La Mancha]

I don't think a right to privacy means a right to anonymity.

And all those cameras in London probably are going to help Scotland Yard find the people who planted all those car bombs today, and that will be a very real contribution to public safety.

Politely, are you serious, your just being the devils advocate, right? I think privacy does mean anonymity. Worked pretty good 200 yr ago. What of the dozens of cameras that witnessed the plane supposedly crashing in to the pentagon. Those cameras would prove what happen. The mere fact we have not seen them is that the cameras are only for the elites protection and privacy and not ours. So there is no security in cameras.


.