Liberty Frightens People

Freedom from unconstitutional laws that force people to purchase a product, or pay tax penalties including possible jail time.

 

There is only one reply to idiocy like this

 

Such foolishness lol. Break the law, and suffer.

 

No, it's an old foolish idea.

 

Not true. Liberals radicalism did.

 

So I guess you wouldn't be an abolitionist.
see, you guys always give yourselves away. Slavery was once legal, and now you admit that going against the slavery grain is a foolish idea.

You always always always give yourselves away.

 

Hardly. Classical liberalism was defined long ago. Neo-liberals are trying to redefine it. It is today's liberals that try to dismiss the true liberals of the past, the Framers, as racist white guys.

 

Yes, and as laws are discovered to be wrong we change them.

But you don't get to put out an idiotic statement such as "I can pick and choose which laws I want to follow" and not be called out on it.

Fools always always always give themselves away. You are a prime example lolol.

Many people think speeding is harmless to. Or drinking and driving. Should they get to choose? Such foolishness.

 

I guess the difference between us is that I have moral agency, whereas you do what you are told. When slavery was legal, you would have followed that law to the letter. I would have been an abolitionist.

 

I suppose if someones life was on the line, I woudl choose to break some traffic laws to get them to the hospital

many choose to break laws if something is prohibited for no valid reason, alchol and marijuana being examples, while I choose to follow the law, I support and am glad some choose not too

 

I would have had it abolished and not partake in it.

You, will drink and drive and pretend it's ok because you say so.

You have no moral agency except in your own mind.

 

Well liberalism is not what it is supposed to be. So faux liberals just stole that term. From what I can tell, faux liberalism was created by a disconnect from reality, and it was replaced with a reality composed of wishful thinking, ideals, abstractions, that cannot exist due to the great inhibitor...human nature. The believe you can change humanity by changing the environment, and this will then create people who are not affected by the negative side of human nature. This idea was seen in Marxism. Of course as we found out human nature will corrupt any such contrived environment and mold it to that human nature. And henceforth create a total failure. Faux liberals are not astute enough to see you cannot change man by fabricating an environment which is contradictory with human nature.

 

Then you agree with me.

Not all laws are moral.

 

In the past.

But presently I cannot think of any laws that are so atrocious that warrant a blanket statement such as "I choose with laws I want to adhere to". Such a statement is asinine and essentially anarchy.

 

Liberty does not grant anyone the right to impose their will on someone else against that other person's will. This isn't simply limited to acts that prove damages rendered, it can also include the tolerance of another person's choice of public-actions. For example if you wanted to go to the bathroom on your driveway, you cannot because despite that being your proper, you are still in public view.

 

In the past, but not now? How do you get from A to B?

If A (not all laws) is true, but now you say that B (all laws) is true, how do you square that circle with saying that we can't decide which laws to follow?

Yesterday we could decide which laws were moral, but not today!

Dude, you need to study logic. Just some friendly advice because you're killing yourself here.

 

Liberty frightens many people. That's why there will always be cradle-to-grave socialists.

 

One can choose to not comply with a law, but one would also be wise to do a cost benefit analysis as the cost may outweigh the benefit or have no benefit at all.

 

Of course. This doesn't mean you will advocate for that law you find abhorrent. It means you are being forced to do something that goes against your principles. My friends on the left are saying that because a law is a law, then it is naturally righteous to follow that law. It is the law, therefore it is a righteous law.

 

No existing such law that I can think of is unconstitutional. But if you think it is unconstitutional, you are free to challenge it in court. But that was already done and it was found to be constitutional. Try again.

 

Because there are no immoral laws as of today in this country. How you couldn't come to that conclusion on your own says you need to take your own advice on logic lolol.

 

Who says there are no immoral laws today? You? lol!!!!!!

Sorry, but you walked right into that one. There are about a quazillion laws on the books now. You don't know them alll, and neither does anybody.

That, and just saying that all laws on the books today are moral tells me I have won this debate.

 

Liberty puts fear into those who don't think certain groups should have liberty.

Like Christians with LGBTQ people getting married.

 

Ok let me rephrase.

There are no laws on our books that are actually applied today that are immoral.

So my statement still stands true. You only won in your mind lol.

Go ahead and tell your jailor that drinking and driving above 0.8 blood alcohol level is ok and it's your duty to not obey it lolol.

 

That's just rephrasing your statement. Who says it? You do!