By definition: FREEDOM, LIBERTY, LICENSE mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion.

Does anyone have a relatively short overview of their perception of freedom as it's expressed in U.S. society.

Or maybe "what other areas could freedoms be restored to compensate for any freedom lost in the Pact"?

I think of the number of people in American prisons ..... what is it, like one in ten adult males?

I think people would be more inclined to give up some of their freedoms if the "Freedom pool" wouldn't shrink.

Freedom is a big word and meaning, is there such a thing as real freedom these days. I live in the u.k and laws are forever changing but its got to the point where i live, that your not allowed to walk in groups more than three, so soon i fill we will have to walk only on the left and etc, and freedom will slowly be taken away.

However i do understand there needs to be rules to keep a place safe and secure otherwise nations would fall , but where do these rules stop.

__________________
The past is what makes us who we are dont make it your burdern

I can tell you quite simply where they stop. Every man possesses a right to life, liberty, and property. One man's liberty stops when he infringes on another person's right to life, liberty, and/or property. Until he gets to that point the government has no business restricting his liberty. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property. This means that the government itself should not infringe on these rights, while at the same time it accomplishes its duty by stopping individuals from infringing on one another's rights. Does walking in groups of more than 3 infringe upon another person's life... upon their liberty.... upon their property. No. Therefore the government should not restrict it. The only liberty we give up in our social contract is the liberty to act in a manner that infringes upon another person's life, liberty, and property.

Right on

Well put. But therein lies the problem. We have overvalued the individual/minority in order to protect them from the majority. Staying true to Lale's post, I'll keep my response philosophical, but there are numerous examples where we now infringe upon the rights of the majority in an effort to stop an infringement upon a minority (i.e. the exception to the rule). The sheer number of minor laws of which most law abiding citizens break daily are a good example of this.

p.s. Lale, am I wrong but didn't you post that you were done with this forum? Even though you have the liberty to post whenever you want

Check the date OS. She left this past weekend. This thread was started last friday. This is one of her last posts.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

Why did she leave? I didn't read that post.

Freedom.... our country seems to be losing it...

__________________
"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the
same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present."
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

It was said earlier that the government shouldn't infringe upon the rights of liberty. How exactly is saying that no group of children is allowed to be on the streets after 9pm without the risk of the police moving you on, taking you home, or worst case scenario arresting you. That is not liberty.

I think that if it were to become a fair law then it should at least count for everyone. Some groups of minors can be very responsible whereas some groups of adults can be highly dangerous on the streets. Even if it did count for everyone it still infringes on our civil liberties. Should be able to choose to stand and talk to a group of friends after nine o'clock without worrying whether or not the police are going to catch me for it.

The law has gotten so ridiculous now that nobody takes much notice of most of it. I can't drive but how many of you out there have not noticed whether or not you were speeding. It’s got so stupid now with the government only after as much money as it can get that not many people care any more because no matter how hard you try there will always be something they can fine you for. If the government wanted to be taken seriously they should stop creating new laws that make the average person's life even harder, get rid of some of the paperwork that is forced upon the average Briton and make sure that the laws that exist make sense, are simple and can actually be followed up. For instance, the new thing the government will bring in about a parent's right to discipline their child fairly. However much people may agree o disagree that this law is a good one, surely everyone can see that there isn't a cat's chance in hell that the law can be followed up, and it is another law that will make people check what they do.

In Britain, and I assume many other parts of the world, no ordinary person can be confident that what they have done during their day has all been legal. Eventually the law will get so stupid that people will be going to sleep thinking "I wonder if I stapled those documents together with a legally sized staple."

As FeatheredFool put it,

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

I reckon that the laws will become so populous and petty that the people of the country may refuse to abide by the whole system, saying that the whole (*)(*)(*)(*) thing is a joke...

__________________
"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the
same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present."
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus