NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that absolutely everyone here either is or pretends to be a civil libertarian. Even the most conservative of people here who think that the people's sex lives should be regulated by the government would typically claim to want freedom.

Nobody, no matter how authoritarian they actually are, will admit to it.

What do you think?

It seems that absolutely everyone here either is or pretends to be a civil libertarian. Even the most conservative of people here who think that the people's sex lives should be regulated by the government would typically claim to want freedom.

Nobody, no matter how authoritarian they actually are, will admit to it.

What do you think?
I think several of the pseudo-Nazis have admited to it.

I think several of the pseudo-Nazis have admited to it.
I don't know. I think I remember even "The Hitler Jugend" once trying to pass himself off as pro-freedom.

Well, gee. Freedom is something everyone takes for granted because in our Western society politics has essentially become a debate between different types of Liberals. Hell, even Hitler claimed to be protecting freedom to some extent: freedom from the Jews, freedom from the alienating masses of democracy... The thing is that people who agree on basic values always argue a heck of a lot louder than people that disagree on those basics (Just look at the violent arguments between Luxemberg and Lenin or Kautsky and Trotsky, all communists). If you don't like freedom, you don't like freedom and in large part there's really nothing to say to those that do. There's no argument to speak of when the basic criteria are different. It's like trying to argue abstract poetry against science... not a whole lot to say.

It seems that absolutely everyone here either is or pretends to be a civil libertarian. Even the most conservative of people here who think that the people's sex lives should be regulated by the government would typically claim to want freedom.

Nobody, no matter how authoritarian they actually are, will admit to it.

What do you think?

I think you're spot-on. Only on one forum have I seen people actually admit to not wanting freedom (said people soon got banned for some... convincing photos they posted).

I'm anti-gun freedom. Does that count?

I'm anti-gun freedom. Does that count?
I don't think so. Freedom in general always means some restrictions in particular. Otherwise we'd all be anti-freedom if we thought murderers should be imprisoned.

I think several of the pseudo-Nazis have admited to it.
I think Facist Emerica admitted to being facist (go figure)

I think Facist Emerica admitted to being facist (go figure)
According to many fascists, this does not mean that they are anti-freedom. :rolleyes:

According to many fascists, this does not mean that they are anti-freedom. :rolleyes:
Sure. Freedom's okay for a fascist like Rocco, but society's interests are the most important goal. Freedom can be granted when it benefits the society as a whole, just not for its own sake.

I'm anti-gun freedom. Does that count?
depends how anti you really are.

Is this freedom or Freedom™?

Is this freedom or Freedom™?
Yeah, no kidding.

I'll admit that I think freedoms should be limited by the federal government. There I said it! :D

Is this freedom or Freedom™?
I think it's cake (r)

Actually, a lot of extreme left wingers on here won't admit it, but they basically want to hand over control of people's lives to the government. Not only fascists are anti-freedom, you know.

Shouldn't the question of this thread be," would you like to live in anarchy?"

Shouldn't the question of this thread be," would you like to live in anarchy?"

That is a great point.

Few on here do not actually believe in at least some curtailment of some freedoms. The question is which freedoms they would limit and how much they would limit them.

While I am in favour of freedom I can appreciate that there are times when the community is best served by a reduction of liberties, such as during times of war.

It seems that absolutely everyone here either is or pretends to be a civil libertarian. Even the most conservative of people here who think that the people's sex lives should be regulated by the government would typically claim to want freedom.

Nobody, no matter how authoritarian they actually are, will admit to it.

What do you think?

I sympathize somewhat with commumanitarianism, centrism, and conservatism, and believe that people should be willing to give up freedoms in the name of scientific advance, improved healthcare, improved education, national security, environmentally concious management, and efficient management of resources.

I believe myself to be something of a centrist on civil liberties rather than an authoritarian as such, but I do readily believe in restraining them for the purpose of societal engineering on small scales.

It seems that absolutely everyone here either is or pretends to be a civil libertarian. Even the most conservative of people here who think that the people's sex lives should be regulated by the government would typically claim to want freedom.

Nobody, no matter how authoritarian they actually are, will admit to it.

What do you think?
It seems (not surprisingly, I guess) that people are often utterly unaware of the hypocracy that comes out of their mouths during debate.

A common one is in the freedon of speech category, on campuses, often. Things like this:
"We advocate freedom of expression for everyone on campus: students, faculty, and guests, EXCEPT [insert wahtever group they have a thing against...say, Israeli prime ministers] which is where we draw the line. We will not legitimize [said group] and nor should this university!!! We will physically oppose the presence of [such a person] on campus, and anything anyone does about it is jeapordizing OUR freedom of expresion!!"
This hypocracy is so painfully common- If you claim to advocate freedom on some level, chose the limitations and stick to it.

I don't know. I think I remember even "The Hitler Jugend" once trying to pass himself off as pro-freedom.
:D That was the funniest sentence I've read all day!

Because freedom has many different definitions. It extends farther in some peoples opinion than others.

It seems that absolutely everyone here either is or pretends to be a civil libertarian. Even the most conservative of people here who think that the people's sex lives should be regulated by the government would typically claim to want freedom.

Nobody, no matter how authoritarian they actually are, will admit to it.

What do you think?

I've very authoritarian in principle, but I realize that like a working Communism, a benevolent dictatorship simply cannot happen.

If I was in charge, I'd give people the personal freedoms I deemed necessary. But if I wasn't in charge, I'd hate to have someone else chose the freedoms I kept and those I gave up. I'm here, admitting to being authoritarian, but also admitting that I would only like to be truely authoritarian if I held the authority.

Should Americans give up certain freedoms to ensure the safety of the nation? Certainly. Should the extent of this be regulated? Definately. Who is my suggestion for the job of regulator? I'm not sure. It's too hard of a topic to give a one-word answer to.

If I have the time, I'll think about it and get back to this thread.

My dream, is for an omnipresent non-corrupt government.

That way the government knows everything you're doing.

I say "If you've done nothing wrong, what's there to hide?"

Of course, cases will sometimes be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

And it's not to say they're always watching, but they'll have the cameras to look back on, when it happens.

Now say goodbye to all drug users and dealers, robberies, murder and rape. Well can't say totally goodbye, but at least we can lock them up.

As for cases that are never reported...unless it's something serious, like a non-reported murder, it would be left alone.

That is how i want the government to be... But i doubt that will happen in the near if ever future.

The only freedom that matters is moral freedom, the freedom to determine for oneself what is right and what is wrond and, more importantly, the ability to transcend morality.

Laws and government are, by their very nature, advesarial to freedom. They restrict human choice and they impose artificial morality.

The best form of Government is Utopian Communist Anarchy, in this society everyone gives freely for the good of society. No one jusges the actions of other. There is no money and the idea of trading things of value for other things of value is considered absurd. Roads, spaceshuttles, and otehr public comedies are created and maintained by consortiums of interested citizens.
However, we all know that that aint going to happen.

The only freedom that matters is moral freedom, the freedom to determine for oneself what is right and what is wrond and, more importantly, the ability to transcend morality.

This is absurd. What good is "moral freedom" if you don't have the freedom to live by those morals? Aren't basic freedoms of movement, expression, self-protection the fundamntal ones? I'm a believer in starting from the nessesities of life, and moving up: " You are what you eat" rather than "I think therefore I am".
Would you clarify what exactly you mean by "the freedom to transcend morality"?

I don't know. I think I remember even "The Hitler Jugend" once trying to pass himself off as pro-freedom.
I fully support the freedoms we have right now, but under a National Socialist government things would be very different. We must work within the democratic boundries to bring about change, just as our Fuhrer did....then we can banish these silly Liberal things known as "freedoms."

The only freedom that matters is moral freedom, the freedom to determine for oneself what is right and what is wrond and, more importantly, the ability to transcend morality.

Laws and government are, by their very nature, advesarial to freedom. They restrict human choice and they impose artificial morality.

The best form of Government is Utopian Communist Anarchy, in this society everyone gives freely for the good of society. No one jusges the actions of other. There is no money and the idea of trading things of value for other things of value is considered absurd. Roads, spaceshuttles, and otehr public comedies are created and maintained by consortiums of interested citizens.

That's exactly what I believe.

Freedom is what you make of it!

And the ultimate freedom is do what you want but if that imparts on someone else it is null and void so freedom is a never achievable goal!(except for loner Hermits fapping off to 70's porn in the forest!

I fully support the freedoms we have right now, but under a National Socialist government things would be very different. We must work within the democratic boundries to bring about change, just as our Fuhrer did....then we can banish these silly Liberal things known as "freedoms."

lmao, first of all

second, if you "fully support" our current freedoms, you would not be inspired to change.

I fully support the freedoms we have right now, but under a National Socialist government things would be very different. We must work within the democratic boundries to bring about change, just as our Fuhrer did....then we can banish these silly Liberal things known as "freedoms."

Just one question:
Whose trolling little puppet are you?

second, if you "fully support" our current freedoms, you would not be inspired to change.
You clearly do not believe in the power of National Socialism.

You clearly do not believe in the power of National Socialism.

Just as you clearly do not believe in the power of your own brain.