Death Panels in Arizona

[Darwin333]

Here we have the basic reason the left and the right cannot come together. The right considers freedom to be a lack of outside coercion. The left considers freedom to be government meeting your basic needs. To the right, a tiger in the wild is free, a tiger in a zoo is not. To the left, it's the opposite - the tiger in the zoo has his every need met; he's secure, safe, free to be all the tiger he can be, even if he cannot go where he wants. Whereas the tiger in the wild is subject to dangers and privation; he cannot be free, because he is subject to hunger and injury. He cannot be free because he has no government to make him so.

We literally do not speak the same language anymore, even when the words are all English. How can we survive as a country? Perhaps the United States should break apart into fifty independent nations and let each determine its own meaning of freedom, its own level of socialism and capitalism. A country that cannot even agree on the definition of freedom can hardly guarantee it for its citizens. If we fracture, perhaps at least a few states can preserve freedom.

Or we could just recognize that the 10th amendment really does exist. Your way is probably easier though considering the mess we currently have.

 

[werepossum]

You are spot on with your analogy.

Thank you. I just wish I knew what to do about it. Considering that the progressives own the public education system, I suspect that "freedom" fifty years from now will be completely unrecognizable from "freedom" fifty years ago.

 

[dainthomas]

Thank you. I just wish I knew what to do about it. Considering that the progressives own the public education system, I suspect that "freedom" fifty years from now will be completely unrecognizable from "freedom" fifty years ago.

Ah, about time someone trotted out the trusty "good ol' days" fallacy. Hint: things sucked worse 50 years ago than they do today by almost any measure. And things in 50 years will almost certainly be better than they are today (short of nuclear war, mutant virus, or the planet getting smacked by a decent sized comet).

 

[werepossum]

Or we could just recognize that the 10th amendment really does exist. Your way is probably easier though considering the mess we currently have.

I'm not sure any amendments exist anymore - except that one that guarantees a right to privacy (aka abortion.) Evidently it's hidden so well it can't be gutted.

Ah, about time someone trotted out the trusty "good ol' days" fallacy. Hint: things sucked worse 50 years ago than they do today by almost any measure. And things in 50 years will almost certainly be better than they are today (short of nuclear war, mutant virus, or the planet getting smacked by a decent sized comet).

My observation had nothing to do with things being better or worse per se, except in one respect: we used to speak the same language. If you spoke of freedom, everyone understood what was being discussed even if they disagreed on specific threats to freedom or the relative importance of different freedoms. How can we come together and agree on how to preserve freedom, much less maximize freedom, when we cannot even agree on what the concept means?

 

[Amused]

You aren't free if you yourself can die for want of funding for a medical procedure that our society is capable of performing.

The fuck I'm not. My freedom does NOT include the right to be a burden on others. I am NOT free to take the work product of others by force just to sustain my own life (or for any other reason). To do so would make them NOT free. My freedom does not abrogate the right to liberty of others.

Why is this very simple concept so hard to understand?

How about this? I latch myself onto you surgically (you have no choice in the matter, and are forced to consent). To remove me would mean my death. To keep me alive, you have to drag me around all day listening to me bitch. Now, does my right to "life" abrogate your right to liberty?

Of course not.

My right to life cannot preclude another's liberty. Right to life is not, and cannot be an obligation unto another, for to do so would abrogate their right to liberty. Period.

Now, let me add this: Someone may, and many people do, volunteer to take on the obligation of sustaining the lives of those who cannot. This is admirable and is their LIBERTY to do so. But to FORCE others to sustain your life is a violation of THEIR liberty.

 

[Red Dawn]

Thank you. I just wish I knew what to do about it. Considering that the progressives own the public education system, I suspect that "freedom" fifty years from now will be completely unrecognizable from "freedom" fifty years ago.

Well Gomez by the looks of your picture you'll be needing life saving procedures by the time your 60 so you shouldn't worry about what freedom will be like in 50 years.