I have more time, here is your answers.
Amskeptic wrote:
Why the extremist rhetoric? In one response, it was "begging" in the next it is desire to be God? Where on Earth do you come up with a God complex?
I wish you would follow the flow, sorry if you take it as an insult, but.
I say the gov is violating a persons right, you ask for an example, I give examples, your answer is things like, I'm willing, I don't mind, I will pay, etc, etc. Or, those people had it tough and so I am for limiting the amount of hours a man can ask someone to work. That is your answer to me. I thought you were answering why it isn't violating a right, when you say you would happily pay as your answer, that is as if you get to decide for all. Just like cause you think people shouldn't be asked to work over forty hours, even though they aren't forced, they don't have to go along with this guys demand for hours, but you are now for violating his right to set up the terms he wants for people he choses to pay. Your reply to why it isn't the gov violating his rights is because you are okay with it, as if you are the GOD of their life.
Amskeptic wrote:
I have no understanding of freedom?
I wrote that there was a time that businesses were not constrained in the hours they demanded, and you just run off and assume that *I want* to constrain others?
You seem to be in favor of constraining the owner, you brought this example up.
Yes, if you think a person who moves themselves into a city, a place where it is hard to live without the ability to buy almost everything one needs to live, and you are in a situation where the only place to make money is from someone who will only pay you if you work 80 hours, this is not an example of not being free. The man doesn't have to live in the city. No one forced him, a human that has needs water, food and shelter, to move into an area where it is needed and he is at the mercy of a factory owner. He was free to get himself into this situation, and he should be free to get him self out of it.
YOU BROUGHT this scenario into the discussion. Make a ruling on the number of hours the owner can ask of the worker is violating FREEDOM. Freedom did exist, even though that man didn't like the 80 hour a week job he freely chose to work at, there was freedom. Taking away the owners freedom in the name of freedom for a situation where there already was freedom is not understanding freedom. The people where free, it was their choices that put them their. The labor laws are violations of freedom.
Amskeptic wrote:
I am not talking about using force. I have not opined about how the government compels people to pay their taxes, but here you are running off about how I must surely agree with violence and guns and all of your other tin-hat paranoia. I am saying that we *have*, through representative democracy, decided that we shall tax to pay for services we did agree to provide to the less-fortunate or the temporarily unemployed.
First off, we didn't agree to that. We instituted a government to protect our rights, not violate them. Even if we set up democratic way of electing, there was still the natural rights as mentioned. We did not agree to democratically elect in a dictator type system.
Amskeptic wrote:
We agreed to this.
Once again, we didn't agree, how can you honestly say all of us who say it is wrong agreed to it? Please explain that.
Amskeptic wrote:
Of course some of us are seized in selfishness and cannot stand the thought of a safety net, perhaps you are one of them, but do not, do not, do not, tell me that I promote violence and using force to compel people to participate. I choose to, happily, no government guns necessary.
Colin, if you don't want me to say "doublethink", then pick one.
Are you for my system which is for voluntarily supporting and contributing to programs that help people out, or are you for this current system that uses guns and violence?
Pick one, are you for voluntarily helping people or for using this current system that uses guns whether you chose to see them or not?
The system we have uses guns and violence, just because you pay because you want to and not because you are forced to doesn't change the way the system does it.
We are talking about this current system, just because the guns don't get you to do it doesn't mean the guns don't exist..In fact, usually that would mean you are party to it or in on it. Think about that. If the mob in town uses guns to force people, but you don't need the guns, that usually means your a willing participant. So when you back this system up, deny the guns, don't see it as stealing, and then tell me you don't back this system up, yet they don't need the guns on you because you do it willingly, yet you want to remove yourself from this system that you defend and willingly participate in, and you wonder why you haven't cleared my mind and convinced me.
Maybe I'm missing something, let me say it a different way.
You don't want me to say, and you claim to not be for using guns and violence to get people to pay for helping others.
This current system uses that method.
You defend this system that uses guns and violence that I am against.
They don't need need the guns to get you to support this system, you do it willingly.
You don't want to be associated with the part of the system that uses guns an violence.
But you defend it and freely support it. And actually, I think you are for more programs
paid for by this system, which would take place via the guns force system, but ??
Really Colin, help me out here.
As far as the selfish part, that is such an overused "conditioned in" "makes no sense"
statement. If you don't give me the choice to help others but instead use a gun and threat of jail, how can you say whether I am selfish or not? You ain't given me the choice.
If anything, those who want to use the guns should be called selfish.
Those who want this system try to get everyone else into it by calling us selfish.
Amskeptic wrote:
steve74baywin wrote:
Pointing to some less than perfect times in this world and saying see, life wasn't perfect so, that is reason to sell off some of your freedoms. That should be an individuals choice. If he sells himself or some of his time for set beni's, that should be his choice and freedom to do so.
Geezus!! You are the guy who had to go back 200 years! I was replying to you! Don't now claim I am pointing to some less than perfect time! You're the guy claiming we had "perfect freedom" hundreds of years ago. This is what I mean by manipulation. You come up with some argument, and smear my reply to your detours.
This is why I say things veered in this topic, and I don't take the blame.
I say more often back 100 years. I am talking freedom for all.
You are the one who went back and pointed out how there was slaves 200 years ago.
Why did you bring up the slave thing I guess would have been a better reply from me.
Really, if you could tell me why you brought slavery in a discussion where I'm stating what this gov does is wrong, violates rights, and our freedoms are lost and you seem to disagree with me, why did you bring up slavery? There may be a good reason you brought it up, I'm not saying there isn't, just saying I don't know what it is.
Amskeptic wrote:
Here we are, stuck on a lifeboat,
"Row! We have to fight this tide!"
"I don't take orders."
"You *have* to help, or we will be lost at sea!"
"Hey, I will individually choose to row or not."
Better explain your reason for this so I don't wrongly reply.
Amskeptic wrote:
steve74baywin wrote:
I can see it now, instead of them starving in Africa, force them to come here and provide them food and shelter, you think it is better, therefor you can force it on them, ignoring their individual rights for the greater good. Same thing.
See? This is ludicrous
Colin
Actually, to the contrary.
Let's examine.
I am for a person totally being in charge of themselves, as long this is honored in others. IE, no killing, hurting or stealing.
With Slavery, most white Europeans rationalized how come having slaves wasn't a violation of any human natural rights. They had excuses and reasons.
Some might be, they are lower than us, they run in the jungle, they aren't civilized, we know more, we can use them.
It is for the greater prosperity of this nation...
Today, when I say for a man to be free he needs to be in charge of himself.
What are the reasons I'm given for why this gov can violate rights?
Some may say
The people don't know what is best.
The people can't choose the right milk.
It is better for this growing nation to have drug laws.
Very similar, excuses is what it is.
A human or other humans rationalizing why THEY don't give the FREEDOM
to other humans. So the degree varies a little, but it is still a human rationalizing why they aren't giving or allowing freedom to another human.
And that there can be considered playing god.