[Revised] A Limit to Freedom

[United States of White America]

Apologies for the poor OP last time.

Firstly, let us look at freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose and to exist without interference. Freedom, essentially, is mankind being able to do whatever it wants. However, the line is blurred between what man wants and what man needs. Man needs God. Man needs a leader, even if it isn't necessarily God. Absolute freedom will lead to anarchy, a prospect I do not entertain.

I think a limit to freedom is in order. I think that in order to live, one must be aware of limits. One must obey and respect authority and must not encourage dissidents. That is not relevant to Christianity or Islam or any other religion. It is about freedom, specifically the freedom to choose. So many people make the wrong choices and end up hurting others. It is time to crack down on drugs, alcohol, prostitution and attacks on religion. By doing so, freedom must be limited- not eliminated, but limited.

[Lockdownn]

Man doesn't need a god, and man doesn't necessarily need a leader.

Yes, there should be a limit to freedom.

[United States of White America]

Man doesn't need a god, and man doesn't necessarily need a leader.

Yes, there should be a limit to freedom.

What limit to you?

[BK117B2]

So what you're saying is that you want an authoritarian state in place to punish Person A for the deeds of Person B

[Threlizdun]

The majority of the global population disagrees with your understanding of God. Your native country has great religious diversity, which is protected by its constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion. You claim that we must respect existing authorities, but such authorities deny you the ability to force your beliefs on to others. You also cannot change your argument to claiming that these forces are illegitimate, as the Bible calls to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". The Roman Empire was certainly not a Christian state at that time, though this did not matter, as you were still to obey it. So you may advocate for the obedience of others all you want, but know that this is an individual whim that cannot be forced on others, as you are to respect the existing institutions which clearly forbid you from doing so. In short, your argument is self-defeating and you don't have a thread.

[Valyrian Freeholds]

Freedom to work, to set up businesses, to travel, to marry, to speech, to healthcare, to life, to vote and to freely express religion are good enough

[Amuaplye]

Freedom can't be achieved with a deity, as deities aren't real.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Apologies for the poor OP last time.

Firstly, let us look at freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose and to exist without interference. Freedom, essentially, is mankind being able to do whatever it wants. However, the line is blurred between what man wants and what man needs. Man needs God. Man needs a leader, even if it isn't necessarily God. Absolute freedom will lead to anarchy, a prospect I do not entertain.

I think a limit to freedom is in order. I think that in order to live, one must be aware of limits. One must obey and respect authority and must not encourage dissidents. That is not relevant to Christianity or Islam or any other religion. It is about freedom, specifically the freedom to choose. So many people make the wrong choices and end up hurting others. It is time to crack down on drugs, alcohol, prostitution and attacks on religion. By doing so, freedom must be limited- not eliminated, but limited.

OK, so banning drugs, alcohol and prostitution is understandable, if slightly paternalistic. I disagree, but it's not wildly unreasonable.

What the hell does "attacks on religion" mean though? And why do I suspect it will include being gay or an atheist?

[Socialist Tera]

There should be limits to freedom of speech, read On contradiction.

[Lockdownn]

Man doesn't need a god, and man doesn't necessarily need a leader.

Yes, there should be a limit to freedom.

What limit to you?

Murder, rape, needless destruction, torture, you know like the laws we already have?

[Valyrian Freeholds]

Being a prostitute is setting up a business, it should be allowed, you are exchanging goods or services for money.

[Lockdownn]

Apologies for the poor OP last time.

Firstly, let us look at freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose and to exist without interference. Freedom, essentially, is mankind being able to do whatever it wants. However, the line is blurred between what man wants and what man needs. Man needs God. Man needs a leader, even if it isn't necessarily God. Absolute freedom will lead to anarchy, a prospect I do not entertain.

I think a limit to freedom is in order. I think that in order to live, one must be aware of limits. One must obey and respect authority and must not encourage dissidents. That is not relevant to Christianity or Islam or any other religion. It is about freedom, specifically the freedom to choose. So many people make the wrong choices and end up hurting others. It is time to crack down on drugs, alcohol, prostitution and attacks on religion. By doing so, freedom must be limited- not eliminated, but limited.

OK, so banning drugs, alcohol and prostitution is understandable, if slightly paternalistic. I disagree, but it's not wildly unreasonable.

What the hell does "attacks on religion" mean though? And why do I suspect it will include being gay or an atheist?

You don't fix the problem by banning it.

Cause it's in his sig.

[New Grestin]

The limitations of freedom should be, as I've already said, as minimal as possible.

If you start murdering people, then the government needs to intervene. Unless your activities actively harm others, then it's none of the authority's business.

Nor is it the business of your archaic beliefs regarding a nonexistent deity.

EDIT: Oh, look. OP Ran away again. How bloody shocking.

[Grave_n_idle]

Apologies for the poor OP last time.

Firstly, let us look at freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose and to exist without interference. Freedom, essentially, is mankind being able to do whatever it wants. However, the line is blurred between what man wants and what man needs. Man needs God. Man needs a leader, even if it isn't necessarily God. Absolute freedom will lead to anarchy, a prospect I do not entertain.

I think a limit to freedom is in order. I think that in order to live, one must be aware of limits. One must obey and respect authority and must not encourage dissidents. That is not relevant to Christianity or Islam or any other religion. It is about freedom, specifically the freedom to choose. So many people make the wrong choices and end up hurting others. It is time to crack down on drugs, alcohol, prostitution and attacks on religion. By doing so, freedom must be limited- not eliminated, but limited.

I agree with you. Freedom has to be limited for people to survive alongside each other - your right to swing your fist has to be curtailed before it hits me, for example.

But I find it hard to understand what you mean when you say things like drugs and alcohol need to be cracked down on - are you saying that people shouldn't be able to make any of these choices for themselves? I'm going to point out, the US tried banning alcohol and it didn't work out well, and the Drug War has largely been a bust, too.

Also, what are attacks on religion? That sounds awfully like you're trying to impose religion - and that sounds like a generally bad idea.

[United States of White America]

The limitations of freedom should be, as I've already said, as minimal as possible.

If you start murdering people, then the government needs to intervene. Unless your activities actively harm others, then it's none of the authority's business.

Nor is it the business of your archaic beliefs regarding a nonexistent deity.

EDIT: Oh, look. OP Ran away again. How bloody shocking.

I dont want to murder people.

[United States of White America]

There should be limits to freedom of speech, read On contradiction.

Screw Chairman Mao. I want to limit freedom, not abolish it for a backwards ideology.

[Grave_n_idle]

There should be limits to freedom of speech, read On contradiction.

Screw Chairman Mao. I want to limit freedom, not abolish it for a backwards ideology.

Like Christianity?

*nods*

[New Grestin]

The limitations of freedom should be, as I've already said, as minimal as possible.

If you start murdering people, then the government needs to intervene. Unless your activities actively harm others, then it's none of the authority's business.

Nor is it the business of your archaic beliefs regarding a nonexistent deity.

EDIT: Oh, look. OP Ran away again. How bloody shocking.

I dont want to murder people.

No, you want to impose your archaic beliefs on the need for an authority figure and religion. I can't abide that in any context.

Authority should merely exist to keep the peace, not to enforce some arbitrary moral code.

[BK117B2]

There should be limits to freedom of speech, read On contradiction.

Screw Chairman Mao. I want to limit freedom, not abolish it for a backwards ideology.

You want to limit it in support of your own backward ideology

[Ashmoria]

society needs rules and order but we also need to figure out what rules are necessary and what ones are counterproductive.

drug laws, for example, turn out to be a terrible idea (as we have them today in the US). they encourage crime, ruin lives and funnel money to terrorists with no real upside.

[Deuxtete]

Freedom is already limited.
No place has absolute freedom, the question is baseless.

[Wallenburg]

Hell no. We don't need a police state. And I certainly don't need some pretentious god to know what is right and what is wrong.

What you want is to scrap the entire Constitution and establish a Christian dictatorship. I will have no part in that.

[Deuxtete]

society needs rules and order but we also need to figure out what rules are necessary and what ones are counterproductive.

drug laws, for example, turn out to be a terrible idea (as we have them today in the US). they encourage crime, ruin lives and funnel money to terrorists with no real upside.

Yeah, prohibition never serves any purpose beyond creating and financing criminal behavior.

[Grave_n_idle]

Hell no. We don't need a police state. And I certainly don't need some pretentious god to know what is right and what is wrong.

What you want is to scrap the entire Constitution and establish a Christian dictatorship. I will have no part in that.

Worst thing - we've tried them before. They didn't work.

[Deuxtete]

Hell no. We don't need a police state. And I certainly don't need some pretentious god to know what is right and what is wrong.

What you want is to scrap the entire Constitution and establish a Christian dictatorship. I will have no part in that.

Strange the op specifically excluded religion.
What a pretentious pointless comment of you to include, but I suppose its just your nature.