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
Open carry?
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="Werewolf" data-source="post: 1491974" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>Let me clarify:</p><p></p><p>More freedom = sheep less safe. they become responsible for their own well being. Less rules and regulations means that people are punished for active crime (something they do) as opposed to something they think or own. For example: the market place and the courts (civil action) not the government would be responsible for worker safety. The marketplace and the courts (civil actions) not the government would be responsible for product safety. Anyone could drive a car, anyone and as long as they did it responsibly no problem. Total freedom? Until the irresponsible actually hurt someone or damage property (less safety) no action taken. As it is now many people are denied the priviledge of driving for arbitrary reasons. Examples of how total freedom equals less safety for many abound.</p><p></p><p>The point is we can have total safety with no freedom at all if we were willing to accept total governmental control over every single aspect of our lives. Or we can have total freedom from government and all civil regulation and individuals take care of themselves. A business does you wrong you handle anyway you see fit without interference from anyone or thing.</p><p></p><p>Total freedom and total safety are extremes. Neither of which is practical. Give up one to get the other. Even Benjamin Franklin recognized that simple concept.</p><p></p><p>It's a sliding scale.</p><p></p><p>The only dilema is where society decides the marker on the scale belongs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 1491974, member: 239"] Let me clarify: More freedom = sheep less safe. they become responsible for their own well being. Less rules and regulations means that people are punished for active crime (something they do) as opposed to something they think or own. For example: the market place and the courts (civil action) not the government would be responsible for worker safety. The marketplace and the courts (civil actions) not the government would be responsible for product safety. Anyone could drive a car, anyone and as long as they did it responsibly no problem. Total freedom? Until the irresponsible actually hurt someone or damage property (less safety) no action taken. As it is now many people are denied the priviledge of driving for arbitrary reasons. Examples of how total freedom equals less safety for many abound. The point is we can have total safety with no freedom at all if we were willing to accept total governmental control over every single aspect of our lives. Or we can have total freedom from government and all civil regulation and individuals take care of themselves. A business does you wrong you handle anyway you see fit without interference from anyone or thing. Total freedom and total safety are extremes. Neither of which is practical. Give up one to get the other. Even Benjamin Franklin recognized that simple concept. It's a sliding scale. The only dilema is where society decides the marker on the scale belongs. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Open carry?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
