Laws for Freedom

[logroller]

It has become far too commonplace that We (govt on our behalf) create laws which regulate the actions of people in our society, rather than actually increase our freedom. Of course, I realize there a limits to individual freedoms, but what I'm talking about is laws which actually promote freedom, not just protect it. It's not as though our govt doesn't do it for other people; we've spent billions promoting the freedom of oppressed peoples around the globe; yet here at home, our govt sits idle while our own people forgo their rights guaranteed by Our Bill of Rights and Constitution .

As most on here a concerned about the politics of America and how Americans are affected by the laws created, I thought it might be productive to discuss ideas for laws which promote freedom. There is a great deal deal of irony in requiring somebody to do something which is in the interest of freedom; but I would contend the right to not participate in freedom is grounds for losing that freedom--and I believe history would support that.

In a previous thread of JT's (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32479-What-is-the-Purpose-of-the-Concealment-Tax), he'd asked about concealed weapons laws and their intent. I explained the reasoning, if you can call it that; more of a justification really, as follows--


As to why those laws exist, there isn't a majority of our population who possess firearms; 3 in 10 according to gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx)-- Accepting that number most likely is larger, there's an even smaller percentage who are trained in their proper use and handling, so the mere possession of gun doesn't automatically satisfy the 2nd Amendment's well-regulated militia clause. Admittedly I find this an abhorrent state of affairs, dismissive of a free-society, and wish ALL Americans were REQUIRED to partake in firearms training similar to Switzerland, negating the need for this nanny-state law.

So my question is this-- would it be in the public interest to require all capable adults to partake in an annual certification in the proper handling and use of firearms?
(The details would need to be worked out. Like, maybe after ten years you receive a lifetime cert.)

Additionally, what incentives could we build into our public policy that ensure participation in the freedoms guaranteed by COTUS?

It seems to me, that if you refuse to participate in government, then you shouldn't have access to the benefits. Voting, for example. If someone has the right to vote, they should--period-- there's no valid excuse not to. I don't care if you file an empty ballot, but perform the duties of a free person in a democratic society-- or lose your rights to public services. We do this already with things like unpaid child-support or taxes, why not mandate practicing freedom?

[J.T]

So my question is this-- would it be in the public interest to require all capable adults to partake in an annual certification in the proper handling and use of firearms?

So you're prepared to throw away the rights of peaceable Christians and others who abhor violence or otherwise do not wish to participate for... what?

Additionally, what incentives could we build into our public policy that ensure participation in the freedoms guaranteed by COTUS?

People who have lost their taste for freedom only regain it when they have truly tasted tyranny. Unfortunately, I don't see the masses regaining their yearning for liberty until they grow weary of the bitter taste of its opposite. So long as the tyranny is clothed in a fine glove, however, that could be a while.


It seems to me, that if you refuse to participate in government, then you shouldn't have access to the benefits. Voting, for example. If someone has the right to vote, they should--period-- there's no valid excuse not to.
What if you;re a biblical Christian, 'no part of this world' who believes that God wishes you to focus on his law and his will instead of worldly powers and concerns?


I don't care if you file an empty ballot, but perform the duties of a free person in a democratic society-- or lose your rights to public services.
So someone who abstains from an election because they cannot stand any of the options before them or do not feel they are familiar enough with the major candidates should lose the right to drive on public roads? Or to their social security benefits? Or to police protection?
why not mandate practicing freedom?

If it's mandated, then there is no freedom. Freedom implies the liberty to not participate. You might as well mandate everyone join some religious body, as though freedom of religion does not include the freedom to non-religion or the freedom of speech does not cover the right to keep one's silence if one so wishes.

[KartRacerBoy]

logroller, wouldn't such a law (mandating universal gun training) be similar to mandated purchase of healthcare? There are plenty of folks who object to such a mandate as the decrease in freedom.

And I can see an obvious philisophical objection and contradiction. Aren't you limiting the freedom to reject guns? So by trying to assert freedom, you take a little liberty away.

[logroller]

logroller, wouldn't such a law (mandating universal gun training) be similar to mandated purchase of healthcare? There are plenty of folks who object to such a mandate as the decrease in freedom.

And I can see an obvious philisophical objection and contradiction. Aren't you limiting the freedom to reject guns? So by trying to assert freedom, you take a little liberty away.

Similar perhaps, excepting one key condition; that being a Constitutional Amendment exists stating the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of free state. No such Amendment exists for healthcare, (which I'd support BTW). If the law I propose is so dreadfully an affront to freedom, then abolish the 2nd Amendment. I think the vast majority of those who support gun control don't have personal experience in their lawful use; conversely, it's not like the majority of people against univ healthcare have no confidence in healthcare.

As to the latter philosophical objections, your argument is pretty much like saying the people have a right to reject their freedom, which I think they do, and I'm not purposing they couldn't. I'm saying practice freedom first, then decide. You're premise is a far more dangerous contradiction, far more prescriptive of tyranny than the security of freedom and liberty.

[logroller]

So you're prepared to throw away the rights of peaceable Christians and others who abhor violence or otherwise do not wish to participate for... what?
If everybody had guns, and knew how to use them, you wouldn't see as much violence. So your refusal to participate in an action is your's to make, based upon a qualified expression of your freedom, not merely one's ignorance, unwillingness and/ or incapability to secure one's own freedom.

People who have lost their taste for freedom only regain it when they have truly tasted tyranny. Unfortunately, I don't see the masses regaining their yearning for liberty until they grow weary of the bitter taste of its opposite. So long as the tyranny is clothed in a fine glove, however, that could be a while.
What if you;re a biblical Christian, 'no part of this world' who believes that God wishes you to focus on his law and his will instead of worldly powers and concerns?

There you have it. The State should take it upon itself to ensure we don't have to yearn for liberty, and require it's people to secure the means to their own freedom; it's good the People and the government thereof. As for those who refuse, for whatever reasoning, then let their beliefs protect them, not the dutiful service of others.


So someone who abstains from an election because they cannot stand any of the options before them or do not feel they are familiar enough with the major candidates should lose the right to drive on public roads? Or to their social security benefits? Or to police protection?
I didn't say they had to vote for anybody/anything, just participate!


If it's mandated, then there is no freedom. Freedom implies the liberty to not participate. You might as well mandate everyone join some religious body, as though freedom of religion does not include the freedom to non-religion or the freedom of speech does not cover the right to keep one's silence if one so wishes.
Well certainly there are freedoms which are forsaken for the greater good, I mean who would choose to pay taxes, right? The COTUS doesn't state that religion is necessary, quite the opposite, its there should be no establishment by the State; therefore required participation in religion would violate this right. See my response to kart regarding the conditions for tyranny.

[DragonStryk72]

logroller, wouldn't such a law (mandating universal gun training) be similar to mandated purchase of healthcare? There are plenty of folks who object to such a mandate as the decrease in freedom.

And I can see an obvious philisophical objection and contradiction. Aren't you limiting the freedom to reject guns? So by trying to assert freedom, you take a little liberty away.

Nobody is asking a citizen on the United States to shoot at a human being, or even to own a gun, just to learn proper firearm safety. I know of absolutely no organized group in the US campaign against gun safety. What freedom is being decreased, exactly?

[J.T]

You're premise is a far more dangerous contradiction, far more prescriptive of tyranny than the security of freedom and liberty.

KRB advocated liberty and choice. You want to force people to buy and keep arms in direct violation of their personal beliefs- a clear violation of their freedom of religion in the case of biblical Christians, Jainists, and other peace-loving faiths which abhor violence. To then turn around and claim allowing someone to decide for themself whether or not they wish to familiarize themselves with and/or keep tools of death is 'prescriptive of tyranny' is laughable.



I didn't say they had to vote for anybody/anything
You were talking specifically about voting...


who would choose to pay taxes, right?

Someone who wants a police force, a fire department, and paved roads?


The COTUS doesn't state that religion is necessary, quite the opposite, its there should be no establishment by the State; therefore required participation in religion would violate this right.

So freedom of religion means freedom from religion? Take that exact same argument you just made and apply it toward your proposed gun mandate. Congratulations, you've now successfully argued against your original proposition.

[KartRacerBoy]

Nobody is asking a citizen on the United States to shoot at a human being, or even to own a gun, just to learn proper firearm safety. I know of absolutely no organized group in the US campaign against gun safety. What freedom is being decreased, exactly?

It's the govt forcing an individual to engage in some activity. As I said, it's simliar to saying "buy healthcare insurance." I'm not saying that I'm against it. I'm just saying that for those that think the govt shouldn't be able to force folks to commit some positive act (as opposed to laws requiring one to REFRAIN from some act, ie criminal laws, etc), a law like logroller proposes would certainly seem offensive. But of course the govt can and DOES require one to do some things. Like file and pay taxes. Maintain your property (nuisance and health laws), etc. Most don't object to those laws.

Being for gun safety, btw, doesn't mean that the proponet has to learn to safely operate a gun. It can equally mean that if someone decides to buy a gun, the law should require that person to learn about gun safety. I don't see how advocating gun safety means that one would necessarily be required to agree with logroller's proposal. They are separate and distinct.

[KartRacerBoy]

Similar perhaps, excepting one key condition; that being a Constitutional Amendment exists stating the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of free state. No such Amendment exists for healthcare, (which I'd support BTW). If the law I propose is so dreadfully an affront to freedom, then abolish the 2nd Amendment. I think the vast majority of those who support gun control don't have personal experience in their lawful use; conversely, it's not like the majority of people against univ healthcare have no confidence in healthcare.

As to the latter philosophical objections, your argument is pretty much like saying the people have a right to reject their freedom, which I think they do, and I'm not purposing they couldn't. I'm saying practice freedom first, then decide. You're premise is a far more dangerous contradiction, far more prescriptive of tyranny than the security of freedom and liberty.

A right to bear arms is not the same as a requirement. As I said, you can make a philisophical argument in favor of your proposal but I can think of numerous ones against it as well. I don't think requiring learning gun skills/safety does much of anything to enhance freedom compared to engaging in local politics on an active basis. Or just educating oneself in politics. Frankly, most folks go day to day without a thought of politics. They just want to earn their money and pay their bills. Politics only enters the majority's minds when it interferes with those two things (generally).

On a practical basis, I see little benefit to your idea except for actual gun owners (gun safety). I don't think it furthers freedom in any way. On the other hand, it wouldn't especially restrict freedom either except for those who think govt shouldn't be able to require some positive act.

And the prescription for tyranny comment I think is a pretty ridiculous.

[logroller]

KRB advocated liberty and choice. You want to force people to buy and keep arms in direct violation of their personal beliefs- a clear violation of their freedom of religion in the case of biblical Christians, Jainists, and other peace-loving faiths which abhor violence. To then turn around and claim allowing someone to decide for themself whether or not they wish to familiarize themselves with and/or keep tools of death is 'prescriptive of tyranny' is laughable.
What are We to do when advocating fails, and liberty and choice are threatened? The 2nd Amendment was enumerated as a necessity, not a mere suggestion I not saying you must take up arms against another, just stand ready to. rather or not one is willing to defend oneself is moot if one doesn't have the capability.

If the government requires something, then it should be provided; paid for by all who enjoy the protections provided. Conscientious objectors are not exempted from this protection, so an issue of free-ridership exists. What are these peace-lovers to do when a hostile force acts upon them, pray? I'd be willing to bet they'd call the police. Prima facie, this seems functionally benign. However, having willfully given up their capability of self-defense, the conditions are ripe for tyranny; ergo 'prescriptive of tyranny.' I'm sure you can agree that freedom is of primary importance; who's responsible for it's security?



You were talking specifically about voting...


I don't care if you file an empty ballot, but perform the duties of a free person in a democratic society...


re: paying taxes

Someone who wants a police force, a fire department, and paved roads?
and if one doesn't need or want those things, do they have the freedom to not pay their taxes?


So freedom of religion means freedom from religion? Take that exact same argument you just made and apply it toward your proposed gun mandate. Congratulations, you've now successfully argued against your original proposition.

You brought up religion, not I; bu the difference is that of necessity, codified in COTUS as--

Amendment II--A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE).
Does the 1st Amendment say religion is necessary to the security of a free State?


Amendment I--Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.
As to the right of peaceable assembly, the law I purpose makes no mention of requiring people to take up arms against another, just be capable of doing so.


It's the govt forcing an individual to engage in some activity. As I said, it's simliar to saying "buy healthcare insurance." I'm not saying that I'm against it. I'm just saying that for those that think the govt shouldn't be able to force folks to commit some positive act (as opposed to laws requiring one to REFRAIN from some act, ie criminal laws, etc), a law like logroller proposes would certainly seem offensive. But of course the govt can and DOES require one to do some things. Like file and pay taxes. Maintain your property (nuisance and health laws), etc. Most don't object to those laws.

As I said, repeal the 2nd amendment then. If there was an Amendment which said health insurance is necessary to the security of a free state, wouldn't Govt be dutifully bound to provide a means of enforcing that action? But health laws aren't in the constitution, its been interpreted to be pursuant of life, liberty etc.... but it's NOT an enumerated right- while firearms are. So there exists a clear difference, legally,ethically and most importantly- as a necessary means of defending freedom itself. Your argument is that a right of the people isn't a responsibility of the people; that freedom may be construed to undermine itself (treasonous IMO)--which gun ban laws, fees of ownership and the ilk, infringe upon the freedom of the few who stand ready to defend the freedom of all.

[KartRacerBoy]

logroller, you PRESUME violence is required in resistance. I'd suggest you read Martin Luthor King and Ghandi. Some prefer to resist in a nonviolent manner. Not everyone can or should be in a militia.

[KartRacerBoy]

As I said, repeal the 2nd amendment then. If there was an Amendment which said health insurance is necessary to the security of a free state, wouldn't Govt be dutifully bound to provide a means of enforcing that action? But health laws aren't in the constitution, its been interpreted to be pursuant of life, liberty etc.... but it's NOT an enumerated right- while firearms are. So there exists a clear difference, legally,ethically and most importantly- as a necessary means of defending freedom itself. Your argument is that a right of the people isn't a responsibility of the people; that freedom may be construed to undermine itself (treasonous IMO)--which gun ban laws, fees of ownership and the ilk, infringe upon the freedom of the few who stand ready to defend the freedom of all.

I don't know where you pulled the last few lines of your argument from. Not from any logical analysis at least. Are you really saying that it is treasonous to not train with guns? So anyone who is not a soldier is playing with treason? Politicians have no value in a conflict and let's let the soldiers fight it out? Your argument has no coherence to me.

And where did I say guns should be banned? Where did I even HINT that's what I think.

I think you're getting hysterical becz I disagree with our basic proposition. That's ok.

[logroller]

A right to bear arms is not the same as a requirement. As I said, you can make a philisophical argument in favor of your proposal but I can think of numerous ones against it as well. I don't think requiring learning gun skills/safety does much of anything to enhance freedom compared to engaging in local politics on an active basis. Or just educating oneself in politics. Frankly, most folks go day to day without a thought of politics. They just want to earn their money and pay their bills. Politics only enters the majority's minds when it interferes with those two things (generally).

On a practical basis, I see little benefit to your idea except for actual gun owners (gun safety). I don't think it furthers freedom in any way. On the other hand, it wouldn't especially restrict freedom either except for those who think govt shouldn't be able to require some positive act.

And the prescription for tyranny comment I think is a pretty ridiculous.

As a lawyer, I can see why you favor the judicial application of laws-- it's job security~for money to pay bills. But don't be ignorant of the fact--were it not for threat of force, law itself is a lame duck!

Here's an example you may feel a bit more of a personal affection for: a positive action required by government to ensure a right guaranteed by COTUS.---Jury Duty.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't I compelled to respond to a jury summons? What makes that civic duty any less compelling? I've never required jury services, yet been on three (all guilty, all counts BTW); but what's in it for me? $36/day+mileage??? The way I see it, in the off chance I would need a jury of my peers, say in cases where I believe the officers of the court may not afford me a just verdict (for whatever reasons, esp. corruption and tyranny), I would require a jury. Hence, I too have a compelling duty to participate because it secures a freedom for all. It would be far more likely for the courts to become, or be seen as, corrupt were it not for jury services~ as such we are required by law to respond. simply "Not liking" or disagreeing with the justice system doesn't get you out your responsibility. This is not only similar, but nearly identical to my proposition; I'm not saying everybody should be involved in a militia, only that you be qualified to do so before deciding. It's really not all that bad of an idea, not sure why you railroad it to the healthcare debate...what's next, racism?--don't get me started on minority gangs and their failure to know the target and beyond.:laugh:

[logroller]

logroller, you PRESUME violence is required in resistance. I'd suggest you read Martin Luthor King and Ghandi. Some prefer to resist in a nonviolent manner. Not everyone can or should be in a militia.

I make no argument against peaceful resistance, it is preferable; however, actionable forces integrated the school below, not the law alone.
http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/37/3791/J4CIF00Z/posters/arkansas-national-guard-on-duty-during-school-integration-in-little-rock.jpg

[J.T]

What are We to do when advocating fails, and liberty and choice are threatened?

The only one who wants to take away anyone's choice here is you.

If the government requires something, then it should be provided; paid for by all who enjoy the protections provided.
So if the government needs more revenue to pay off its debt to china... you support tac increased to bring in that money, especially from the oil companies who benefit from our military protecting their business?


Conscientious objectors are not exempted from this protection, so an issue of free-ridership exists.
Yes, all those pastors and buddhists are just parasitic little fuckers for not having a fascination with machines designed to kill :laugh:


What are these peace-lovers to do when a hostile force acts upon them, pray? I'd be willing to bet they'd call the police
So you're saying Christians are little pussy bitches or what? What. exactly, is the point you're trying to make?


Prima facie, this seems functionally benign. However, having willfully given up their capability of self-defense, the conditions are ripe for tyranny
Yes... all those evil Christians are ushering in a new age of tyranny- we need more of those rabid, immoral atheists ready to kill without a moment's hesitation because they have no fear of god :laugh:

When did you hang up the Che poster and become a romantic revolutionary idiot?