Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1099262" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I don't think we would be in a state of chaos if we had a government that just stuck to the role of protecting individual liberty.</p><p></p><p>I agree that the change to such a society will have to be gradual, but I do not agree with the idea that people aren't able to handle some liberty and so it should be denied them until they can. People who can't handle liberty, i.e. they are not capable of respecting the rights of their fellow man, need to be coerced into doing so by the government. That's why it exists. We just need a system that more explicitly defines and delimits the proper role of government, and has more protections to ensure that it stays within those limits. </p><p></p><p>I totally realize that there are some laws that we ought to be trying to get changed before others, and perhaps employment discrimination laws should be toward the bottom of that list (race being such a sensitive issue right now)... the liberty movement should focus on alleviating the oppressions that are the easiest to eliminate first. But I don't agree that there are certain freedoms people just can't handle yet. Its more a matter of getting people to come around to the idea of liberty enough that we can get some of these things done. </p><p></p><p>Maybe its semantics and we're talking about the same thing.</p><p></p><p>Either way, its nice to see somebody who believes in the same ideas I do, even if we disagree on the best way to implement them!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1099262, member: 4235"] I don't think we would be in a state of chaos if we had a government that just stuck to the role of protecting individual liberty. I agree that the change to such a society will have to be gradual, but I do not agree with the idea that people aren't able to handle some liberty and so it should be denied them until they can. People who can't handle liberty, i.e. they are not capable of respecting the rights of their fellow man, need to be coerced into doing so by the government. That's why it exists. We just need a system that more explicitly defines and delimits the proper role of government, and has more protections to ensure that it stays within those limits. I totally realize that there are some laws that we ought to be trying to get changed before others, and perhaps employment discrimination laws should be toward the bottom of that list (race being such a sensitive issue right now)... the liberty movement should focus on alleviating the oppressions that are the easiest to eliminate first. But I don't agree that there are certain freedoms people just can't handle yet. Its more a matter of getting people to come around to the idea of liberty enough that we can get some of these things done. Maybe its semantics and we're talking about the same thing. Either way, its nice to see somebody who believes in the same ideas I do, even if we disagree on the best way to implement them! [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom