#1
what civil liberty do you not have for whatever reason, and wish you did? and why?

examples (smoking weed, driving as fast as you want on highways, public nudity, etc etc.)

civil liberty probably isnt the best term, but i think you get what im trying to say.
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
#3
I wish they would get rid of speed limits and just leave in place a reckless driving law. Speeding isn't dangerous but most people who really speed are normally the ones weaving in and out of heavy traffic and cutting people off.
#4
id be good with all the ones ts said
Quote by HaKattack
Woman tone, eh?

Set treble to PUT THE TOILET SEAT DOWN WHEN YOU'RE DONE
Mids to YOU'RE DRIVING TOO FAST
Bass to WHAT DO YOU MEAN, "MAKE ME A SANDWICH"?
Gain to NOT TONIGHT, I HAVE A HEADACHE.

starter of the nadsat group
#5
Quote by ViperScale
I wish they would get rid of speed limits and just leave in place a reckless driving law. Speeding isn't dangerous but most people who really speed are normally the ones weaving in and out of heavy traffic and cutting people off.
Presumably you mean on motorways. It would be senseless to remove speed limits in residential areas.
#6
Quote by freedoms_stain
Presumably you mean on motorways. It would be senseless to remove speed limits in residential areas.


I mean everywhere. Doesn't mean you should go flying at 100 down a neighborhood street where kids are out playing. But around where i live most of the street speed limits are 35 but it is a major road in front of houses owned by old people. There is no risk of someone playing out in the street and no reason why I shouldn't be able to go faster then 35.

Like i said driving recklessly aka going 100 where kids are playing in the street would still be illegal.
#7
Quote by ViperScale
I mean everywhere. Doesn't mean you should go flying at 100 down a neighborhood street where kids are out playing. But around where i live most of the street speed limits are 35 but it is a major road in front of houses owned by old people. There is no risk of someone playing out in the street and no reason why I shouldn't be able to go faster then 35.

Like i said driving recklessly aka going 100 where kids are playing in the street would still be illegal.


so everywhere you go you know the houses where children live?


on a side note, why is the pit so excited about public nudity? i dont even agree with that but i threw it out there as a good example. apparently the pit thinks that they would finally have a chance to see boobs in real life
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
#8
Quote by ViperScale
I mean everywhere. Doesn't mean you should go flying at 100 down a neighborhood street where kids are out playing. But around where i live most of the street speed limits are 35 but it is a major road in front of houses owned by old people. There is no risk of someone playing out in the street and no reason why I shouldn't be able to go faster then 35.
But if someone does go say 50 down a street and a kid steps out in front of a car they have far less chance of stopping in time than if they were at 30, and the chance of surviving a hit at 30 is significantly higher than even 40.

Small streets necessitate faster reaction time which makes a legal speed limit necessary. Slapping someone with a reckless driving offense after they've plowed someone down is like putting a plaster on a hatchet wound.

This is why Germany has no speed limit on their autobahns and enforce a speed limit in built up areas.
#9
Quote by NoLaurelTree000
so everywhere you go you know the houses where children live?


on a side note, why is the pit so excited about public nudity? i dont even agree with that but i threw it out there as a good example. apparently the pit thinks that they would finally have a chance to see boobs in real life
I wouldn't mind being able to check my mail without having to worry about how I'm dressed and getting stuck with a felony charge becuase a child sees my penis. Somehow scarring it for life even though it's something that 50% of the population has.
#10
Quote by garett
I wouldn't mind being able to check my mail without having to worry about how I'm dressed and getting stuck with a felony charge becuase a child sees my penis. Somehow scarring it for life even though it's something that 50% of the population has.


its that much work to put on a pair of pants?
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
#11
They can ban everything for all I care. I enjoy breaking the law.
#12
Ok we DEFINITELY need speed limits. People in US drive to stupidly. And no, public nudity would be bad. A lot of people should not have that right (the uggos).

Smoking weed should be legal, though.
#13
Quote by freedoms_stain
But if someone does go say 50 down a street and a kid steps out in front of a car they have far less chance of stopping in time than if they were at 30, and the chance of surviving a hit at 30 is significantly higher than even 40.

Small streets necessitate faster reaction time which makes a legal speed limit necessary. Slapping someone with a reckless driving offense after they've plowed someone down is like putting a plaster on a hatchet wound.
And enforcing preemptive laws that punish innocent people before they've harmed anyone is not freedom.

Currently it is impossible to be a fully functioning member of society and not break any law at some time or another. Government is always trying to do something even when something needs not be done. I have 2 small kids and see idiot drivers speed down our street all the time (regardless of speed limits). I don't question their motives because I don't think that anyone really wants to harm a child. Running over a kid is a pretty life-changing experience whether you were speeding or not. And anyway, imposing speed limits in residential areas doesn't really do a damned thing given that there's never a cop around to catch the speeders. Speed limits are pretty pointless. They're legislation for the sake of legislation. Gives everyone a good safe feeling even though it doesn't really do anything. Instead you end up catching random speeders on high ways with radars even though most of the time they're just following traffic which is the safest way to drive. It makes government richer and doesn't do a damned thing to keep the streets any safer.
#15
Quote by NoLaurelTree000
its that much work to put on a pair of pants?
Does it matter ? It's funny how someone people can praise freedom but there's very simple, fundamental freedoms that we simply don't have. Now, you can argue all day about how traumatic and inconvenient it is to see someone unattractive in the flesh, but you can't really point to any logical reasons for "why", despite how you were raised. It's legislated morality. There's not really any practical reason.
#16
Quote by frottage
The freedom to not have to pay the government to let me have a job.
Without getting into a debate on taxation, you don't have to pay the government to have a job. You have to pay the government when you are enriched monetarily. Even though most people don't claim the $10 they got in their birthday card on their tax return, legally you're supposed to. Has nothing at all to do employment.
#17
Quote by garett
And enforcing preemptive laws that punish innocent people before they've harmed anyone is not freedom.

Currently it is impossible to be a fully functioning member of society and not break any law at some time or another. Government is always trying to do something even when something needs not be done. I have 2 small kids and see idiot drivers speed down our street all the time (regardless of speed limits). I don't question their motives because I don't think that anyone really wants to harm a child. Running over a kid is a pretty life-changing experience whether you were speeding or not. And anyway, imposing speed limits in residential areas doesn't really do a damned thing given that there's never a cop around to catch the speeders. Speed limits are pretty pointless. They're legislation for the sake of legislation. Gives everyone a good safe feeling even though it doesn't really do anything. Instead you end up catching random speeders on high ways with radars even though most of the time they're just following traffic which is the safest way to drive. It makes government richer and doesn't do a damned thing to keep the streets any safer.


the speed limits allow cops to do something about people driving ridiculously fast in residential areas though. without a speed limit, i could go 80 through a residential area, and when i get pulled over, say that i didnt see any kids around so i felt i could go that fast. the cop would have to let me go. it might not stop people from speeding, but it allows cops to do something about it (which is a good thing).

on highways however, i think that they should be more lenient about speeds.
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
#18
When it comes to speeding, yeah, a cop pulling me over for speeding isn't too bad. However having to pay $215 for going 80 in a 65 on an interstate, I'm not too big on that. I just think that punishment is very disproportional.

I also don't support drug prohibition. It's just worsening the problem.
#19
Quote by The Madcap
When it comes to speeding, yeah, a cop pulling me over for speeding isn't too bad. However having to pay $215 for going 80 in a 65 on an interstate, I'm not too big on that. I just think that punishment is very disproportional.

I also don't support drug prohibition. It's just worsening the problem.



+1


...in most cases, at least.
#20
I really do like the stupid laws the UK currently has. They put those of us that realise which are unenforceable and take advantage way ahead of the game.
#21
Quote by garett
Does it matter ? It's funny how someone people can praise freedom but there's very simple, fundamental freedoms that we simply don't have. Now, you can argue all day about how traumatic and inconvenient it is to see someone unattractive in the flesh, but you can't really point to any logical reasons for "why", despite how you were raised. It's legislated morality. There's not really any practical reason.


i understand what you are saying about morality in being raised, and i agree with you to some extent. but on the other hand, if you walked into a grocery store, and saw a couple shopping naked, wouldnt it create a huge disturbance? amercians arent ready or able to except nudity in their everyday life.

and by exercising your right to be nude in public, you are infringing on the rights of others that dont want to see people naked (because they think it is a sin or whatever). what makes your opinion better than theirs? everyone has the right to exercise their freedoms until they infringe on the freedoms of others.
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
#23
Quote by NoLaurelTree000
the speed limits allow cops to do something about people driving ridiculously fast in residential areas though. without a speed limit, i could go 80 through a residential area, and when i get pulled over, say that i didnt see any kids around so i felt i could go that fast. the cop would have to let me go. it might not stop people from speeding, but it allows cops to do something about it (which is a good thing).

on highways however, i think that they should be more lenient about speeds.
Just what we need. Cops to have more power.

You can make the argument that it's ridiculously stupid to go 80mph down a residential street, and I don't think too many people would disagree with you. However, the amount of people who do stupid things does not decrease with the amount of power that authority has. That's not justice, it's preemptive law. It's the same mind set that gets people voting in favour of profiling 5 year-olds to see how likely they are to become future criminals so that their names can be added to watch-lists (something that has actually been proposed). Preventing crime never works but it's one of the most proven methods of giving government more power.
#24
Quote by garett
Just what we need. Cops to have more power.

You can make the argument that it's ridiculously stupid to go 80mph down a residential street, and I don't think too many people would disagree with you. However, the amount of people who do stupid things does not decrease with the amount of power that authority has. That's not justice, it's preemptive law. It's the same mind set that gets people voting in favour of profiling 5 year-olds to see how likely they are to become future criminals so that their names can be added to watch-lists (something that has actually been proposed). Preventing crime never works but it's one of the most proven methods of giving government more power.

So you'd rather we let children get run over then to punish the drivers, rather than trying to prevent children being run over in the first place?

The bolded sentence is utter nonsense.
#25
Quote by garett
And enforcing preemptive laws that punish innocent people before they've harmed anyone is not freedom.

Currently it is impossible to be a fully functioning member of society and not break any law at some time or another. Government is always trying to do something even when something needs not be done. I have 2 small kids and see idiot drivers speed down our street all the time (regardless of speed limits). I don't question their motives because I don't think that anyone really wants to harm a child. Running over a kid is a pretty life-changing experience whether you were speeding or not. And anyway, imposing speed limits in residential areas doesn't really do a damned thing given that there's never a cop around to catch the speeders. Speed limits are pretty pointless. They're legislation for the sake of legislation. Gives everyone a good safe feeling even though it doesn't really do anything. Instead you end up catching random speeders on high ways with radars even though most of the time they're just following traffic which is the safest way to drive. It makes government richer and doesn't do a damned thing to keep the streets any safer.
Unless 100% of people choose to significantly break speed limits in residential areas your point is moot.

Traffic accidents happen even at legal speed, but traffic fatalities are more common at unsafe speeds.

I think you're dead wrong about it keeping the streets safer, if even only 50% of people chose to drive at or below the speed limit there would be a significantly lower number of road fatalities.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5f73EHRhA
#26
Quote by NoLaurelTree000
i understand what you are saying about morality in being raised, and i agree with you to some extent. but on the other hand, if you walked into a grocery store, and saw a couple shopping naked, wouldnt it create a huge disturbance? amercians arent ready or able to except nudity in their everyday life.

and by exercising your right to be nude in public, you are infringing on the rights of others that dont want to see people naked (because they think it is a sin or whatever). what makes your opinion better than theirs? everyone has the right to exercise their freedoms until they infringe on the freedoms of others.
Witnessing someone in the flesh is not an infringement on freedom. To go with your grocery store example, grocery stores are private property and if they want to mandate that their clientelle wear clothes they are free to do so. In fact, we don't even have to get in to hypothetical scenarios to illustrate it. As long as your genitals are covered you can go outside wearing as little as is necessary to fulfill that requirement (shorts and nothing else if you're a guy or a girl living somewhere that allows women to go topless). Yet I don't know of a single store that will let you in without a t-shirt on. As a home-owner I can require you to hop on one foot and recite a nursery rhyme upon entering my house if I so choose. Private property is just a different ball park entirely.

Now with all due respect, your logic with regards to freedom to not view people naked is extremely weak. I can put up posters, legally, with the most offensive, vile and disgusting language you can imagine and it's protected as freedom of expression (as long as I'm not broadcasting it under an FCC controlled medium ... and hey, that brings us to a completely different set of violations on our freedom that we could talk about). Hell, to use a looser analogy I could put up a poster advertising my rock gig and, according to you, it would infringe on people's rights to not see posters advertising rock-n-roll shows. That's ridiculous. No one has the "right" to be protected from expression. You can't control what people see and hear (well some powers have tried to). How about my right to never have to listen to a crying baby in a restaurant ? Those rights are something that you and I have just made up. They don't exist.
#27
I think the US has too many civil liberties as is. It's gotten disgusting to see how many people complain so much over for so little, when truly you can live without.
#28
Quote by garett
Just what we need. Cops to have more power.

You can make the argument that it's ridiculously stupid to go 80mph down a residential street, and I don't think too many people would disagree with you. However, the amount of people who do stupid things does not decrease with the amount of power that authority has. That's not justice, it's preemptive law. It's the same mind set that gets people voting in favour of profiling 5 year-olds to see how likely they are to become future criminals so that their names can be added to watch-lists (something that has actually been proposed). Preventing crime never works but it's one of the most proven methods of giving government more power.



if preemptive law saves lives, without taking away some of my rights, i would support it. i dont think that having to leave my house five minutes early to get to work on time as being an infringement of my rights. get rid of all speed limits for 2 years and see how many more people are hit by cars and killed in car accidents.

i would consider alot of my views to be libertarian, but there are instances where people need to be legislated. granted its a slippery slope, where some legislation turns into lots of legislation, but a government of some sort is necessary in the world today.
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
Last edited by NoLaurelTree000 at Oct 2, 2008,
#29
Quote by Kiwi Ace
So you'd rather we let children get run over then to punish the drivers, rather than trying to prevent children being run over in the first place?

The bolded sentence is utter nonsense.
I didn't say anything about not punishing people who inflict harm. My problem is punishing people before they have inflicted harm. That is utter nonsense in my opinion.

The only reason speeding is illegal is because we have introduced legislation allowing the government to impose arbitrary speed limits on certain roads. If you drive above those limits, even if you have not harmed anyone, you can be punished. Not only punished, but your punishment will enrich the local government. Where's the incentive to loosen speed limits when the government gets rich from speeders and the public falsely feels safe (as you have just illustrated) with the speed limits in place ? I realize I'm playing total devil's advocate here but my basic, fundament philosophy is in favour of justice and not in favour of crime prevention which, despite others disagreeing with me, does not work.
#30
Quote by garett
Witnessing someone in the flesh is not an infringement on freedom. To go with your grocery store example, grocery stores are private property and if they want to mandate that their clientelle wear clothes they are free to do so. In fact, we don't even have to get in to hypothetical scenarios to illustrate it. As long as your genitals are covered you can go outside wearing as little as is necessary to fulfill that requirement (shorts and nothing else if you're a guy or a girl living somewhere that allows women to go topless). Yet I don't know of a single store that will let you in without a t-shirt on. As a home-owner I can require you to hop on one foot and recite a nursery rhyme upon entering my house if I so choose. Private property is just a different ball park entirely.

Now with all due respect, your logic with regards to freedom to not view people naked is extremely weak. I can put up posters, legally, with the most offensive, vile and disgusting language you can imagine and it's protected as freedom of expression (as long as I'm not broadcasting it under an FCC controlled medium ... and hey, that brings us to a completely different set of violations on our freedom that we could talk about). Hell, to use a looser analogy I could put up a poster advertising my rock gig and, according to you, it would infringe on people's rights to not see posters advertising rock-n-roll shows. That's ridiculous. No one has the "right" to be protected from expression. You can't control what people see and hear (well some powers have tried to). How about my right to never have to listen to a crying baby in a restaurant ? Those rights are something that you and I have just made up. They don't exist.


you make some good points but i think that in your examples you stray too far from the original topic.

let me ask you a question. why should you have the right to be nude in public? and why does your right to be nude in public trump the right of others that dont want to see other people nude?
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
Last edited by NoLaurelTree000 at Oct 2, 2008,
#31
Quote by garett
I didn't say anything about not punishing people who inflict harm. My problem is punishing people before they have inflicted harm. That is utter nonsense in my opinion.

The only reason speeding is illegal is because we have introduced legislation allowing the government to impose arbitrary speed limits on certain roads. If you drive above those limits, even if you have not harmed anyone, you can be punished. Not only punished, but your punishment will enrich the local government. Where's the incentive to loosen speed limits when the government gets rich from speeders and the public falsely feels safe (as you have just illustrated) with the speed limits in place ? I realize I'm playing total devil's advocate here but my basic, fundament philosophy is in favour of justice and not in favour of crime prevention which, despite others disagreeing with me, does not work.



So if we see a guy walking through a playground with a loaded shotgun,screaming satanic messages, we should wait until he shoots a child to try and stop him?
#32
Quote by SeveralSpecies
So if we see a guy walking through a playground with a loaded shotgun,screaming satanic messages, we should wait until he shoots a child to try and stop him?
I'll go along with this. Let's assume that your hypothetical scenario happens, in present time with current laws. Let's also assume it happens in the US. The police will show up, pull out their guns, aim it at him and tell him to drop his weapon. Assuming that he complies and is cooperative they will detain him and question him to find out what he was actually up to. From there it's up to the police to determine if he actually broke any laws, because in your example all you did was say "we should put an end to people who scare us" rather than actually point to any other preemptive laws that make sense that I would like to do without (I'm assuming that was your intention, point out how sensible it is to have legislation that allows police officers to preemptively punish people who scare others in the name of saving lives).

I'm not really sure what the gun laws are like in the US ... I know that carrying a concealed weapon is a crime. But I'm not so sure that carrying a visible weapon in public is a crime assuming that you've got a license for it. Obviously in your example you would be asking for attention. You may even get stuck with a disorderly conduct for scaring the bejebus out of the surrounding public. But I'm not sure that in your example any laws would have actually been broken assuming that the firearm was registered and he was abiding by all other gun regulations. In fact, your example almost sounds like a clear case of constitutionally protected expression. The only variable being the loaded shot gun.

It's worth noting that I'm also assuming that he doesn't actually point the gun at any individual. If he does you would have a pretty clear case of a "death threat". And while I'm sure you would find that contradictory of me, I think the argument can be made pretty easily that threatening someone's life with a gun constitutes as "harm done". I'm pretty certain that I would be fairly traumatized if it were to happen to me.
#33
Quote by NoLaurelTree000
you make some good points but i think that in your examples you stray too far from the original topic.

let me ask you a question. why should you have the right to be nude in public? and why does your right to be nude in public trump the right of others that dont want to see other people nude?
The problem is that you're confusing rights. The only "rights" we have are defined in the constitution / bill of rights and you have no right to not be offended. What we're actually arguing is freedom. Why should I be free to walk around nude when it would offend the values of certain individuals ?

Well, we're arguing within the confines of a democracy so if the majority of the population feel that their values reflect legislating public decency then I'm out of the luck and we both know that I fully realize that if the law is repealed and the population is divided then civil unrest may be introduced as a consequence. But please don't refer to a "right to not view something" because that right doesn't exist. No one has the right to not be offended. If you did then you could have me arrested for calling you an idiot (for example, I'm not actually calling you an idiot). No one has the right to not view someone naked. If you did then you could have someone arrested if you happen to look through his bedroom window and witness him get changed (but as laws would have it, he could have you arrested under peeping tom laws). Public decency laws do not enforce a right, they restrict a freedom because the public insisted long ago that it was necessary to maintain public order.
#34
Quote by garett
I'll go along with this. Let's assume that your hypothetical scenario happens, in present time with current laws. Let's also assume it happens in the US. The police will show up, pull out their guns, aim it at him and tell him to drop his weapon. Assuming that he complies and is cooperative they will detain him and question him to find out what he was actually up to. From there it's up to the police to determine if he actually broke any laws, because in your example all you did was say "we should put an end to people who scare us" rather than actually point to any other preemptive laws that make sense that I would like to do without (I'm assuming that was your intention, point out how sensible it is to have legislation that allows police officers to preemptively punish people who scare others in the name of saving lives).

I'm not really sure what the gun laws are like in the US ... I know that carrying a concealed weapon is a crime. But I'm not so sure that carrying a visible weapon in public is a crime assuming that you've got a license for it. Obviously in your example you would be asking for attention. You may even get stuck with a disorderly conduct for scaring the bejebus out of the surrounding public. But I'm not sure that in your example any laws would have actually been broken assuming that the firearm was registered and he was abiding by all other gun regulations. In fact, your example almost sounds like a clear case of constitutionally protected expression. The only variable being the loaded shot gun.

It's worth noting that I'm also assuming that he doesn't actually point the gun at any individual. If he does you would have a pretty clear case of a "death threat". And while I'm sure you would find that contradictory of me, I think the argument can be made pretty easily that threatening someone's life with a gun constitutes as "harm done". I'm pretty certain that I would be fairly traumatized if it were to happen to me.



But by your logic, "death threats" don't actually cause harm. It wouldn't matter if he pointed the gun at people, it doesn't hurt them, it only makes them feel threatened. No physical harm done. By your logic, he hasn't committed any crime until someone has actually, physically harmed. This applies to speeding as well.

If I am living in a neighborhood and people are driving through at lucrative speeds, I'm going to be living in a very fearful environment. I am going to feel very threatened when there are cars going around at crazy speeds constantly. Whether it is a speeding bullet or a speeding car, it's very obvious that we need preemptive control to keep ourselves safe. I don't care if it makes you less free, it saves lives.
#35
Quote by SeveralSpecies
But by your logic, "death threats" don't actually cause harm. It wouldn't matter if he pointed the gun at people, it doesn't hurt them, it only makes them feel threatened. No physical harm done. By your logic, he hasn't committed any crime until someone has actually, physically harmed. This applies to speeding as well.

If I am living in a neighborhood and people are driving through at lucrative speeds, I'm going to be living in a very fearful environment. I am going to feel very threatened when there are cars going around at crazy speeds constantly. Whether it is a speeding bullet or a speeding car, it's very obvious that we need preemptive control to keep ourselves safe. I don't care if it makes you less free, it saves lives.
You were the first person, just now, to ever use the term "physical harm". I never once specified physical harm. I understand you're trying to punch holes in my logic but when you put words in people's mouth it reflects quite poorly on yourself.

Equating driving fast to someone directly threatening an individual's life... I have a hard time believing that even you can't see the flaws in that argument. Regardless of speed limits drivers are still expected to drive defensively and speed limits have not done anything to prevent idiots from driving too fast down my street. This has been gone over already.

So now we've come full circle. With regards to "saving lives" I don't buy it as good enough. It's a scapegoat. It's a way for government to tighten it's grip on the population. Every time something tragic happens the government says "we can prevent this from ever happening again you just have to agree to this" and we do because we're fearful. The list of things we give up for the sake of saving lives keeps growing and growing. Admittedly, speed limits are extremely low on my target list. We've lived with them for a long time and will continue to. I'm not inconvenienced, I'm just arguing principle and I have nothing else to say on the subject. Anything else is completely circular. So feel free to have the last word.
#36
The liberty to kill Politicians and lawyers.
Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
Wiggy = legend.

Devil's Advocate