acmariner99
Regular Member
I think this thread has taken an interesting turn - and isn't necessarily off topic. It begs the question: what does liberty/freedom mean to us and what did it mean to those who took part in the revolution?
To me, part of being free is being able to exchange ideas, commodities, or information voluntarily and without fear of reprisal. Here in Washington, we have no obligation or mandate to inform a police officer that we are armed if we are stopped for cause. In that sense we are "free" to volunteer or withhold that information. I will not harp on someone for choosing to reveal that they are armed, nor will I harp on someone who chooses not to. Me personally - I choose not to volunteer unless I am being asked directly and I also choose not to be an @$$. If I have that big a problem with an officers actions, I would file a complaint or initiate a lawsuit. If an officer chooses to be a buffoon, he has the clout of his badge to back him up. I will not risk my safety by getting into a verbal tussle with a cop.
I think freedom is not a top-down concept. That means the rights we have are the rights we are given. Freedom is only maintained if the people who are being governed want to be free. Freedom is not meddling in someone else's affairs because you think the person has too much money, are uncomfortable with their choices, or doing something you otherwise think shouldn't be done. I have noticed that people are quick to claim freedom for themselves, but are just as quick to deny it to someone else. Freedom is not taking what doesn't belong to you. That said, should we be free to trash the environment by dumping toxic waste because it saves a few bucks? Should we be free to shout fire in a crowded building when none exists? I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with setting standards - in the aforementioned cases, you are still mandating someone to not do something. I think we would agree that these rules would be sensible because violating them harms someone else. But when do rules intended to keep others from harm become too much - like fining a kid for their neighborhood lemonade stand because they aren't a vetted and licensed business? The constant battle is where do we draw the line.
To me, part of being free is being able to exchange ideas, commodities, or information voluntarily and without fear of reprisal. Here in Washington, we have no obligation or mandate to inform a police officer that we are armed if we are stopped for cause. In that sense we are "free" to volunteer or withhold that information. I will not harp on someone for choosing to reveal that they are armed, nor will I harp on someone who chooses not to. Me personally - I choose not to volunteer unless I am being asked directly and I also choose not to be an @$$. If I have that big a problem with an officers actions, I would file a complaint or initiate a lawsuit. If an officer chooses to be a buffoon, he has the clout of his badge to back him up. I will not risk my safety by getting into a verbal tussle with a cop.
I think freedom is not a top-down concept. That means the rights we have are the rights we are given. Freedom is only maintained if the people who are being governed want to be free. Freedom is not meddling in someone else's affairs because you think the person has too much money, are uncomfortable with their choices, or doing something you otherwise think shouldn't be done. I have noticed that people are quick to claim freedom for themselves, but are just as quick to deny it to someone else. Freedom is not taking what doesn't belong to you. That said, should we be free to trash the environment by dumping toxic waste because it saves a few bucks? Should we be free to shout fire in a crowded building when none exists? I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with setting standards - in the aforementioned cases, you are still mandating someone to not do something. I think we would agree that these rules would be sensible because violating them harms someone else. But when do rules intended to keep others from harm become too much - like fining a kid for their neighborhood lemonade stand because they aren't a vetted and licensed business? The constant battle is where do we draw the line.