Are you willing?

Don't forget that it was an American that said " Give me Liberty or give me death" and he wasn't standing on a soapbox but rather a gallows at the time.

Errrrr .....it was an american standing on a soapbox quoting an englishmen who had attributed a phrase to a roman.

Please get your national myths straight and drop the drama.



Anyway, does anyone find the initial story in this topic somewhat fishy?
The poll itself is actually meaningless since Americans seem unable to decide what rights they really have or what the constitution means by its words

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

does anyone find the initial story in this topic somewhat fishy?

publicity stunt.
note found months later in backpack(assuming school bag).
1 other concern by another parent.
a loss for words.
biased opinions.
note looks like it was written by an adult, made to look like a child's.
teacher says she had nothing to do with it.
and more...

[Armistead]

I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.
My rights are to make me safer, not to make you feel safer. Plus, it doesn't and hasn't ever worked where tried.

I can see the future, we carry our ID papers, can be stopped on demand without cause, no firearms....geesh, what has history taught us.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.
My rights are to make me safer, not to make you feel safer. Plus, it doesn't and hasn't ever worked where tried.

I can see the future, we carry our ID papers, can be stopped on demand without cause, no firearms....geesh, what has history taught us.

You are a candidate to read Hoppe, believe me.

BTW, rights never make somebody safer, felt or in real. Only the ability to enforce said rights, or to defend yourself.

The state is the monopolist who can make laws (that regulate taxes and define the service he provides), and who can rob said taxes. Like any monopolist, this one also tries to raise the prices while delivering less service in return.

Hoppe would argue that instead of a government it is better to have a network of insurance companies providing you with security services and legal mediation for a fee. Said insurer'S best own interest would be to be able to provide that (police and legal mediation) service for sure, else they lose customers who lose their trust, and to provide measures and means that make environments safer (to reduce damages they have to compensate for), also they would want to cooperate with other insurers to collectively reduce conflicts and costs (from compensations), and to reduce fees they must demand from their customers (price competition). You would get - in this idealised situation - better protection with less centralised power and a lower impact on your private finances - becasue it is in the very own best interest of the insurers as well (whereas one could argue it is in govenrment'S interst to have a socially unstable, critical and unsafe situation so to gain their self-legitimation for their own existence from hinting at that and say: that is what you need us for to protect you from!). A lawmaking (self-legalising) state/government (power monopolist) taking your taxes (blackmailing for protection money), is not needed in that.

Insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves. Nevertheless they must be powerful enough - both in policing and military force and financial power - to provide their services where being challenged - even against military attacks from other parts of the world. If they are allowed to form cartels and monopoles, they just turn into a new centralized government like the ones they have replaced.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Errrrr .....it was an american standing on a soapbox quoting an englishmen who had attributed a phrase to a roman.

And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time, but in a church at a meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In fact his only involvement in the Revolution was to make speeches; he never served in a military role.

To make matters worse, it's questionable whether he ever said it at all. The only record comes from a biography written forty-two years after the fact, with no intervening documentation.

And by-the-by...

Originally Posted by magic452

With all do respect

It's "due" respect, meaning something that is owed. "Do" means to perform an act.

[magic452]

It was 3 o'clock in the morning, with all due respect I plead I just missed that one. One of many.

Magic

[Sailor Steve]

Excellent!

Now, about Patrick Henry...

And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time

I know Steve, which is why I said he was standing on a soapbox, a political soapbox.

I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.

Why?
Surely it all depends on what the individual thinks are their rights in the first place and what they think they are giving up
Simplest example would be on the 2nd as that is a recurrent current theme.
1st person says that uninfringement means no regulation at all.
2nd person says I don't want my neighbour to have nukes
3rd person says I want backround checks to prevent criminals walking into a store and buying a gun.
4th person says why would anyone need a AK when my glock suits me fine

Add in dozens of more examples and to each person you can have a different theme.
All make sense apart from #1 who himself will think that none of the others make sense.
Works exactly the same way if you do it with free speech.

It is why the question put forward is actually meaningless.

[yubba]

So, if you live, 30 or 40 minutes from town, who do you plan on saving your butt when someone is breaking in your house with ill intent.??????? I bet that nuke would start to look pretty good....

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by yubba

So, if you live, 30 or 40 minutes from town, who do you plan on saving your butt when someone is breaking in your house with ill intent.?

Put his brains on the ground in the quickest fashion possible.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by magic452

Don't forget that it was an American that said " Give me Liberty or give me death" and he wasn't standing on a soapbox but rather a gallows at the time.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time, but in a church at a meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In fact his only involvement in the Revolution was to make speeches; he never served in a military role.

To make matters worse, it's questionable whether he ever said it at all. The only record comes from a biography written forty-two years after the fact, with no intervening documentation.

Forget it, he's rolling

[Platapus]

This topic does give a chance to, yet again, post one of my favourite quotes

These are dangerous times. When we are afraid, we want to be protected

Since we can not protect ourselves against such horrors as mass murder by bombers, we are tempted to run to the government.

A government that is always willing to trade the promise of security in exchange for our freedom, which left as always the question:

How much freedom are we willing to relinquish for such a bald promise?

-- Gerry Spence

The issue is that often we are being asked to accept, with no uncertainty, an infringement of a right and being offered only the hope that this certain infringement may, somehow, make things a little bit better. That just does not sound right.

Am I ever willing to give up a right? Sure, I can imagine a circumstance where I might consider it. However, there better be a demonstrated guaranteed result that will compensate the citizen.

Since that won't ever happen, the answer would be no then.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Father Goose

Oh, I'm sorry, I just noticed you're from Florida. That explains it all.

It explains where I live and nothing more.And back in 2000 it was only a few counties that had those hole punch ballot deals.In most counties they use a ballot where you mark using a scan tron machine.This happens the moment they are done marking so there is no way to alter the vote unless the person made a mistake themselves.At the end of the day the machines are opened and the ballots are counted.I was not in the country for the 2000 vote at the time I was in the military and I only volunteered the one time in 2008 and have not done it since it was a little too boring for me to have sit in one place for hours on end.

[Ducimus]

I think everyone here knows what my answer would be.

In a word. Never.

But I will elaborate in my own words, and not just toss out quotes from my nations founding fathers.

I have seen and experienced enough of this world to know that not everything is worth fighting for, and lofty words like "freedom" and "liberty" can seem like hallow, empty words. But there is a single word, that I would fight and die for with all my heart and soul.

Home.


The word home is many things. It's your house, your car, all your stuff. It's where you lay you head down at night, its your sanctuary, it's where your kids are, where your wife is, it is your friends, it your family, it's your neighbors. It is every thing you know and love. But it's that and more. It's about having choices, it's about being able to come and go as you please, it's about being the decider of your own actions, it's about making your own choices, its being able to plot the course of your own future, it's about the pursuit of happiness.

Now, everyone in the world comes from somewhere, everyone has their roots. One cannot take flight forever, you eventually have to land somewhere. Somewhere, you'll eventually have to make a stand. Home isn't always perfect, but it's still home, and home is worth fighting for more then anything else in the world.

So no, i would never surrender my constitutional rights in order to feel safer. The safety of myself, my loved ones, my home, is my responsibility. I love it too much to entrust that to someone else.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are a candidate to read Hoppe, believe me.

BTW, rights never make somebody safer, felt or in real. Only the ability to enforce said rights, or to defend yourself.

The state is the monopolist who can make laws (that regulate taxes and define the service he provides), and who can rob said taxes. Like any monopolist, this one also tries to raise the prices while delivering less service in return.

Hoppe would argue that instead of a government it is better to have a network of insurance companies providing you with security services and legal mediation for a fee. Said insurer'S best own interest would be to be able to provide that (police and legal mediation) service for sure, else they lose customers who lose their trust, and to provide measures and means that make environments safer (to reduce damages they have to compensate for), also they would want to cooperate with other insurers to collectively reduce conflicts and costs (from compensations), and to reduce fees they must demand from their customers (price competition). You would get - in this idealised situation - better protection with less centralised power and a lower impact on your private finances - becasue it is in the very own best interest of the insurers as well (whereas one could argue it is in govenrment'S interst to have a socially unstable, critical and unsafe situation so to gain their self-legitimation for their own existence from hinting at that and say: that is what you need us for to protect you from!). A lawmaking (self-legalising) state/government (power monopolist) taking your taxes (blackmailing for protection money), is not needed in that.

Insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves. Nevertheless they must be powerful enough - both in policing and military force and financial power - to provide their services where being challenged - even against military attacks from other parts of the world. If they are allowed to form cartels and monopoles, they just turn into a new centralized government like the ones they have replaced.

insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves.

IOW they would have to be govt. controlled with regulation, thus turning them into another special interest group.

No, I don't need to read Hoppe, in fact, he can kiss my ass.