North Carolina, a voting rights hellhole.

[7437]

What are you talking about? Are you off your meds or something?

Yes. Booze is expensive at airports.

And i mean as long as we are in fantasyland aboit making up a dictator who shares no traits with actual dictators, can our made up one be a wizard?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes. Booze is expensive at airports.

And i mean as long as we are in fantasyland aboit making up a dictator who shares no traits with actual dictators, can our made up one be a wizard?

Hey dumbass, notice I said "hypothetically" and "Practically speaking this is not likely"

If you're not going to address the point then piss off.

 

[7437]

Hey dumbass, notice I said "hypothetically" and "Practically speaking this is not likely"

If you're not going to address the point then piss off.

Touchy today huh?

 

[kpt018]

Why? I understand skepticism of a system that's too democratic in the sense that it might empower mob rule but I don't think that skepticism need lead to the conclusion that any sort of voting is bad.

If I have a right to self defense but can have my access to the most practical and effective weapons system barred its not really much of a right. Its like having the right to vote but not for the President or the right to free speech but not the right to publish freely.

At that point you're basically just free to punch back in a fist fight if they threw the first punch.

Do you have a point where it's too much or becomes a slippery slope? Should citizens own tanks? Just curious.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Hypothetically if there was a benevolent dictator who secured various kinds of rights for his people, like the right to free speech, religion, assembly, firearms, due process etc, but did not allow his people to choose their leader would his citizens not be free?

Practically speaking this is not likely but if such a system existed where the leaders were not chosen democratically but existed within a framework where various important rights were respected I wouldn't say it was a unfree system.

Jack's right, the definition of freedom is self-governance. I understand what you're saying here, you can lack self-governance and if lucky can have things that we consider free people to have, but if you do not have the ability to choose (vote) for your government you are by definition not free. Another way to say it is you're at the mercy of whatever the fuck the dictator wants for you.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

She's hot.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Dont know how many times something has to be declared a violation of civil rights based purely on racism before you can accept that its real.


Im gonna guess never, under any circumstance.

So black people are incapable of getting IDs... that are free??

 

[Islam Imamate]

Touchy today huh?

Definitely and I don't apologize for it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Do you have a point where it's too much or becomes a slippery slope? Should citizens own tanks? Just curious.

Should they own tank? Idk but do I want a tank? Hell yeah. Anyway, I guess I don't have a very hard and fast point and if anything my instinct is to lean towards more options for the citizenry than less but firearms are most certainly something that should be protected IMO. Would you disagree with that?

Jack's right, the definition of freedom is self-governance. I understand what you're saying here, you can lack self-governance and if lucky can have things that we consider free people to have, but if you do not have the ability to choose (vote) for your government you are by definition not free. Another way to say it is you're at the mercy of whatever the fuck the dictator wants for you.

Freedom has many definitions and many don't require self governance. Besides, self governance in the sense we're talking about here(democracy) can also lead to a lack of freedom if unconstrained.

Let's say in this hypothetical country of mine you had all the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights including some extra ones like the right to healthcare and an education which were constitutionally guaranteed in theory and in practice with the only caveat being that the leader was not chosen by the people, would you say the citizens of this hypothetical country were not free? They could freely engage in all sorts of activities without interference from the government, how is that not freedom in some meaningful sense of the word?

 

[Greoric]

[Insert Non-argument]

Legit question, no?

 

[Greoric]

Waaaay further along on the Asperger's continuum.

 

[kpt018]

Should they own tank? Idk but do I want a tank? Hell yeah. Anyway, I guess I don't have a very hard and fast point and if anything my instinct is to lean towards more options for the citizenry than less but firearms are most certainly something that should be protected IMO. Would you disagree with that?

I am totally fine with people owning guns. I have preferences, like mandatory training and stuff like that but it's just not a big issue for me.

And I don't think there is a hard and fast point either, but I easily see a slippery slope. Shit, as technology improves in this area we're probably already there. I won't get into it in detail because I just don't enjoy the topic but to finish my point we probably don't need citizens owning some of the stuff they have (powerful rifles that can kill lots of people quickly).

Freedom has many definitions and many don't require self governance. Besides, self governance in the sense we're talking about here(democracy) can also lead to a lack of freedom if unconstrained.

It's the big one though. No other freedoms are guaranteed without it, right? I take your point that there is a spectrum or other definitions but when we talk about free society this is the big one.

Let's say in this hypothetical country of mine you had all the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights including some extra ones like the right to healthcare and an education which were constitutionally guaranteed in theory and in practice with the only caveat being that the leader was not chosen by the people, would you say the citizens of this hypothetical country were not free? They could freely engage in all sorts of activities without interference from the government, how is that not freedom in some meaningful sense of the word?

I would say they are not free because they do no have the right to choose their government. All the freedoms you listed where granted by this hypothetical leader but the will of the people is not represented, they're just lucky that the stuff they want is given to them.

I assume you know how easily this hypothetical can go bad so it's probably not worth getting in to. I do take your point that there are other freedoms or a spectrum here, but for me the ability or inability to choose who rules you overrides everything else.

It's like having a good parent or a bad one, but in either case the kid is not free to do whatever they want. If the kid can pick the parent they want if the one they have isn't what they like that kid is definitely free.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Waaaay further along on the Asperger's continuum.

Spoiler

 

[Greoric]

Spoiler

Hotter.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Like this, but worse:

The system is flawed. It should use proportional voting. The entire state can vote the same candidates/parties, boom, no more gerrymandering. If a candidate from a party gets a lot more votes than he needs they will be reallocated to his party, that's a weakness but it's better than that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I am totally fine with people owning guns. I have preferences, like mandatory training and stuff like that but it's just not a big issue for me.

And I don't think there is a hard and fast point either, but I easily see a slippery slope. Shit, as technology improves in this area we're probably already there. I won't get into it in detail because I just don't enjoy the topic but to finish my point we probably don't need citizens owning some of the stuff they have (powerful rifles that can kill lots of people quickly).

Let's just agree to disagree I guess

It's the big one though. No other freedoms are guaranteed without it, right? I take your point that there is a spectrum or other definitions but when we talk about free society this is the big one.

No, not right and in fact this freedom could very well lead to losing other freedoms. What if a country elects a candidate who ran on a platform of restricting the rights of a minority? Or a candidate who promised to shutdown unpopular speech?

No offense but this claims strikes me as sillier than the claim that the freedom to bear arms is the freedom which guarantees other freedoms.

I would say they are not free because they do no have the right to choose their government. All the freedoms you listed where granted by this hypothetical leader but the will of the people is not represented, they're just lucky that the stuff they want is given to them.

I assume you know how easily this hypothetical can go bad so it's probably not worth getting in to. I do take your point that there are other freedoms or a spectrum here, but for me the ability or inability to choose who rules you overrides everything else.

I don't really define freedom as the right to choose my government, I define it as the ability to act, think, or speak as I choose without hindrance or restraint from the government within certain limited limitations. It doesn't matter how that freedom is granted, if the citizens of nation X have that ability then they are free as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't necessarily agree with this. Hypothetically if there was a benevolent dictator who secured various kinds of rights for his people, like the right to free speech, religion, assembly, firearms, due process etc, but did not allow his people to choose their leader would his citizens not be free?

I'd say no. Compare it to a shut-in who is under house arrest. By coincidence, the constraints on his freedom don't come into play in a practical way, but they're still there. Likewise, someone agreeing with everything the gov't does isn't going to feel constrained by an inability to do anything to change it.

Practically speaking this is not likely but if such a system existed where the leaders were not chosen democratically but existed within a framework where various important rights were respected I wouldn't say it was a unfree system.

Yeah, it's angels on a pinhead stuff in your example, but in the real world, the ability to have say in governance is fundamental to freedom. And much moreso than the ability to own any particular tool.

 

[kpt018]

Let's just agree to disagree I guess

I'm fine leaving it there but what do we disagree on?

No, not right and in fact this freedom could very well lead to losing other freedoms. What if a country elects a candidate who ran on a platform of restricting the rights of a minority? Or a candidate who promised to shutdown unpopular speech?

That would reflect the will of the people. Could be a mistake and in a democracy that mistake could get corrected, which isn't possible in your hypothetical.

No offense but this claims strikes me as sillier than the claim that the freedom to bear arms is the freedom which guarantees other freedoms.

Why is it silly? If your hypothetical dictator decided he was no longer a fan of free speech because he didn't like what CNN and folks on twitter are saying about him the freedom is gone. In a democracy you vote out people who pass policy you don't like. In your hypothetical you what, revolt?

I don't really define freedom as the right to choose my government, I define it as the ability to act, think, or speak as I choose without hindrance or restraint from the government within certain limited limitations. It doesn't matter how that freedom is granted, if the citizens of nation X have that ability then they are free as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, well if you're into making up your own definitions I don't see the point of discussing it! I mean it's literally the definition in the dictionary. And just to push back here, if the government says fuck your definition you no longer have free speech, what is your recourse? Again, in a democracy you vote the fucker out (and in an advanced liberal democracy a guy like that wouldn't win or have the power to do this) but in your hypothetical it's revolt or accept it, which is why it's the most important freedom.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Let's just agree to disagree I guess

No, not right and in fact this freedom could very well lead to losing other freedoms. What if a country elects a candidate who ran on a platform of restricting the rights of a minority? Or a candidate who promised to shutdown unpopular speech?

Yeah, voting is meaningless without freedom of speech (which should really be understood as the freedom to tell the truth to the best of your ability) so I'd call that fundamental, too (in the sense that if you remove it, the structure collapses). Ditto for equality under the law, at least for people on the bad side of inequality--not something that should be subject to votes but a pre-condition for having the votes in the first place.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm fine leaving it there but what do we disagree on?

The rifles thing, you're basically treading towards the assault rifle argument which I disagree with.

That would reflect the will of the people. Could be a mistake and in a democracy that mistake could get corrected, which isn't possible in your hypothetical.

So "will of the people" equals "freedom" even if the will of the people is to restrict freedom?

Why is it silly? If your hypothetical dictator decided he was no longer a fan of free speech because he didn't like what CNN and folks on twitter are saying about him the freedom is gone. In a democracy you vote out people who pass policy you don't like. In your hypothetical you what, revolt?

In that hypothetical then the citizens would cease to be free if the dictator decided so. Obviously its a very precarious freedom but maybe in some sense that's the case in every system. We're free in any country until we aren't

Ok, well if you're into making up your own definitions I don't see the point of discussing it! I mean it's literally the definition in the dictionary. And just to push back here, if the government says fuck your definition you no longer have free speech, what is your recourse? Again, in a democracy you vote the fucker out (and in an advanced liberal democracy a guy like that wouldn't win or have the power to do this) but in your hypothetical it's revolt or accept it, which is why it's the most important freedom.

Huh? Dude, I literally Googled freedom and that was one of the definitions. You know what wasn't? Yours bruh. Cite me a dictionary that says freedom equals democracy and we can keep talking.

 

[kpt018]

The rifles thing, you're basically treading towards the assault rifle argument which I disagree with.

No, I purposefully avoided using "assault rifle".

So "will of the people" equals "freedom" even if the will of the people is to restrict freedom?

Not necessarily, but I am saying you can't be free if you cannot participate in government.

In that hypothetical then the citizens would cease to be free if the dictator decided so. Obviously its a very precarious freedom but maybe in some sense that's the case in every system. We're free in any country until we aren't

Yeah, so the freedom to participate in government was never there. Not sure why you're missing this.

Huh? Dude, I literally Googled freedom and that was one of the definitions. You know what wasn't? Yours bruh. Cite me a dictionary that says freedom equals democracy and we can keep talking.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

#2. A political right.

I am not saying there aren't different definitions dude, chill the fuck out. But this is the one that is applicable to your original error. If you do not have the political right to choose your government you are not free. If you want to talk about it in different senses, fine, but this is the definition as it pertains to governance (and how Jack used it, which you objected to).