Of course the Civil war and the Confederate flag was not about slavery

canndo · Aug 25, 2012

Rob Roy said:
The line you said that makes the most sense is "born into slavery". THAT happens today doesn't it ? Is a person today free to act in a manner that harms nobody, yet offends some arbitrary must do this or not do that kind of law? Isn't that a form of "born into slavery" ?

No, he is not, however no one ever has. The sort of freedom you imagine has never existed. You seem to be claiming that I am not aware that I am "enslaved" when in fact I am quite aware of the invisible pressures that surround me. I am further aware that most of us are devoid of "freedom" because we think freedom is choice.

And no,it is not even close to being born into slavery. What you view as freedom is simply choice and choice is only a selection from a group of predetermined objects or ideas or actions.

cannabineer · Aug 25, 2012

cannabineer said:
You are unfairly conflating "prisoner" and "slave", or "prisoner" and the lesser category of "indentured servant". They are distinct concepts, and hijacking one to dramatize a point does harm to the point, and it degrades the word being hijacked. Imo. cn

See, you self-important little drama shade? What makes youuuu think that, of all the voices, you get to be spokesnutter? cn

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2012

canndo said:
You are indeed downplaying that sort of slavery by comparing something as trivial in comparison as prison.

I can take my body where I please, I can do with it what I wish. What I cannot do is posess certain items or manufacture or grow certain items. These are very different than being a slave.

Note I have posted to you before that I was well aware of how I am manipulated in this culture.

Prison isn't trivial when you are there. I am not downplaying the kind of slavery, wherein one person could sell another and the kind you seem to defend as the ONLY kind of slavery.
I said it was horrible.

Your second line is a contradiction, not being able to peaceably own your body and do with it what you wish absent threats of harm from other is not complete ownership is it?

tomahawk2406 · Aug 25, 2012

Children captured and held in peoples backyards while being raped multiple times for YEARS........thats slavery. Illegal to have heroin 1500ft from school zone, not slavery.

canndo · Aug 25, 2012

Rob Roy said:
Agreed, both are injustices and the ways the slavery is implemented is a matter of degrees and perception or the lack of perception and recognition by some.
Nor do people truly own their property. I know of people who have had their homes seized....had their kids stolen....been put in cages with others that HAVE harmed people. That's not a system I'm willing to ignore or defend.

It is the system that IS. It is reality, it is contrary to wish or imagination. We do not make contracts with wishes but with reality. I agree from one moment to another to do or not do according to law. If I violate that law I am exerting my free will as much as I am when I conciously abide by it. What you seem to be agitating for is the idea that you should be able to push a knife into your heart and not die because it isn't fair that you can't do as you wish regardless of consequences.

cannabineer · Aug 25, 2012

cannabineer said:
See, you self-important little drama shade? What makes youuuu think that, of all the voices, you get to be spokesnutter? cn

Now don't start THAT again. Behave. Once the Chief Eunuch's butthide has healed from the critique of last night's oopsie, expect consequences. cn

Moses Mobetta · Aug 25, 2012

canndo said:
As I said, I know of no law that prevents you from the act of being high except in public places or operating heavy machinery. Correct me if I am wrong please.

What you need protection from are those that would subvert your free will. Government is a distant second on that list. You and I see freedom as a completely different thing and we see choice differently as well.

Not just a public place, in many cases in public view-like on your own front porch if it can be seen from a public area like a sidewalk, the same is true with drinking in view of the public. We do apparently see freedom very differently. I believe government has become far too intrusive and overstepped it's bounds. I also believe we live in the age of the police state.

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2012

canndo said:
No, he is not, however no one ever has. The sort of freedom you imagine has never existed. You seem to be claiming that I am not aware that I am "enslaved" when in fact I am quite aware of the invisible pressures that surround me. I am further aware that most of us are devoid of "freedom" because we think freedom is choice.

And no,it is not even close to being born into slavery. What you view as freedom is simply choice and choice is only a selection from a group of predetermined objects or ideas or actions.

If you are born into a system that automatically limits your ability to control your body, your alleged property and to enjoy fully the fruit of your labor what do YOU call it?

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2012

canndo said:
It is the system that IS. It is reality, it is contrary to wish or imagination. We do not make contracts with wishes but with reality. I agree from one moment to another to do or not do according to law. If I violate that law I am exerting my free will as much as I am when I conciously abide by it. What you seem to be agitating for is the idea that you should be able to push a knife into your heart and not die because it isn't fair that you can't do as you wish regardless of consequences.

So because a particular system IS, that precludes any other system from ever existing in the future ? Hmm. Didn't slavery (your kind of slavery) end ? Wasn't that the system that IS for thousands of years? Why not complete the transition and continue on to a higher level of freedom ? Why couldn't that happen ?

canndo · Aug 25, 2012

Rob Roy said:
Prison isn't trivial when you are there. I am not downplaying the kind of slavery, wherein one person could sell another and the kind you seem to defend as the ONLY kind of slavery.
I said it was horrible.

Your second line is a contradiction, not being able to peaceably own your body and do with it what you wish absent threats of harm from other is not complete ownership is it?

I said trivial in comparison with prison. In prison you are still a U.S. citizen, you are entitled to certain dispensation, meager as that dispensation may be it is not the same as being the property of another.

As I said, so long as you compare by way of calling a thing "slavery" you are diminishing the concept of slavery.

There will always be threats of harm from others, always, there are usually fewer given a reasonable government entity. What you are looking for cannot exist. The sort of freedom you seek is an illusion. You are looking for freedom from consequences.

canndo · Aug 25, 2012

Moses Mobetta said:
Not just a public place, in many cases in public view-like on your own front porch if it can be seen from a public area like a sidewalk, the same is true with drinking in view of the public. We do apparently see freedom very differently. I believe government has become far too intrusive and overstepped it's bounds. I also believe we live in the age of the police state.

Strikes me that this is akin to public nudity. Do you think that laws against public nudity defy your freedoms as well?

Government has indeed become too intrusive but you see government as the only impediment to your freedom. So long as you do, then you will blame government for your lack of freedom, in essence you yourself put them in control over you.

Unless you have lived in a police state, you can't realize that this isn't one. This is one more hot button word akin to "slave" and "murder of the unborn".

These discussions remind me of the pleasantly plump American who's stomach is rumbling because his last meal was brunch and it's 5 oclock. "I'm Staarrving " he says.

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2012

tomahawk2406 said:
Children captured and held in peoples backyards while being raped multiple times for YEARS........thats slavery. Illegal to have heroin 1500ft from school zone, not slavery.

Children stolen. Mom or dad's home stolen. Assets seized. Mom or dad put in jail, raped multiple times. I submit it is a matter of degrees?

Not a fan of heroin myself. Not a fan of telling others what they can or can't do with their own bodies either. Of course alcohol near a school zone or daycare center is okay right?

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2012

canndo said:
I said trivial in comparison with prison. In prison you are still a U.S. citizen, you are entitled to certain dispensation, meager as that dispensation may be it is not the same as being the property of another.

As I said, so long as you compare by way of calling a thing "slavery" you are diminishing the concept of slavery.

There will always be threats of harm from others, always, there are usually fewer given a reasonable government entity. What you are looking for cannot exist. The sort of freedom you seek is an illusion. You are looking for freedom from consequences.

Except in this the case the THREAT comes from those who tell you that you are free. No, I'm not looking for freedom from consequence, exactly the opposite. If a person doesn't harm another there is NO CONSEQUENCE. They should be left alone shouldn't they ?

canndo · Aug 25, 2012

Rob Roy said:
If you are born into a system that automatically limits your ability to control your body, your alleged property and to enjoy fully the fruit of your labor what do YOU call it?

How is your control over your body limited Rob? I call what you are talking about consequences of your actions. It will always be that you are not free to enter a bear's den without the chance that you will be mauled. Does this mean you are not free?

canndo · Aug 25, 2012

Rob Roy said:
Except in this the case the THREAT comes from those who tell you that you are free. No, I'm not looking for freedom from consequence, exactly the opposite. If a person doesn't harm another there is NO CONSEQUENCE. They should be left alone shouldn't they ?

You are looking for that.

Do you really believe that a country or world without government would be a better place?

Moses Mobetta · Aug 25, 2012

A smaller government is more efficient and less intrusive.

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2012

canndo said:
You are looking for that.

Do you really believe that a country or world without government would be a better place?

A world where the default position is to leave others alone if they are not harming somebody would be a better world. This implies that the monopoly and arbitrary use of force by government is part of the problem. They automatically assume authority over ALL.

That doesn't mean I endorse "anarchy and chaos" (oh god run for your life!) I endorse a voluntary world where people are held accountable and responsible. You see this as ONLY happening with a single all encompassing power in a given land mass, I do not.

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2012

canndo said:
How is your control over your body limited Rob? I call what you are talking about consequences of your actions. It will always be that you are not free to enter a bear's den without the chance that you will be mauled. Does this mean you are not free?

How many bears have put your friends in prison ? How many cops acting as agents of an aggressive state ? All any bear ever did to me was steal my picnic basket Boo Boo.

cannabineer · Aug 25, 2012

Moses Mobetta said:
A smaller government is more efficient and less intrusive.

But it is also less capable.
It's easy to grow government, esp. when gov't assumes a role of disbursing money to citizens for living.
However once that policy is in place, discontinuing it is not a humane option. It's a one-way thing ... unless those who want a return to small government acknowledge and approve of the hardship such a retrenchment would bring.

The trick would have been to resist the urge to fund relief measures. Because once they are in place, there is no morally acceptable way to turn them back off. cn

cannabineer · Aug 25, 2012

Rob Roy said:
A world where the default position is to leave others alone if they are not harming somebody would be a better world. This implies that the monopoly and arbitrary use of force by government is part of the problem. They automatically assume authority over ALL.

That doesn't mean I endorse "anarchy and chaos" (oh god run for your life!) I endorse a voluntary world where people are held accountable and responsible. You see this as ONLY happening with a single all encompassing power in a given land mass, I do not.

Can you provide a comprehensive, durable and fully-defined definition of "harm"? Unless that can be codified, and the codification protected from those who would amend it ... we remain in the realm of vague political theory. cn

Of course the Civil war and the Confederate flag was not about slavery

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Ursus marijanus