Number one: The government should never take away freedom even if that means living with the consequences.
Number two: The government should only take away freedom when it allows someone to hurt someone else such as in cases like: murder, theft, or ràpe.
Number three: The government should take away freedom when it allows someone to hurt someone else AND/OR themselves such as in cases like: suicide or drug intoxication.
-
Number 3
-
2 RepliesLaws and freedoms are two different things.
-
When the consequences of doing so benefit society to a greater degree than allowing the 'freedom'.
-
How do you even answer this question?
-
4 RepliesEdited by M37h3w3: 4/3/2013 6:49:09 AMTwo and three. Though that edges into dangerous waters. Once upon a time, the government ruled that a farmer couldn't grow his own grains to feed his cattle because it disrupted the businesses of the grain industry which profited from selling grain to ranchers as feed.
-
Edited by Cam: 4/3/2013 6:42:21 AMHow is the middle one an option? Hurting others isn't a freedom. And hurting yourself is freedom.
-
I'd say the 2nd option, but only to a specific point. I don't think people should be allowed to own something like White Phosphorus, but you should be able to own something like a firearm.
-
I have no idea what OP is talking about
-
externalwaiting to infil - old
Oh awesome, another politics discussion thread. This will be very enlightening and productive. e_e -
15 RepliesEdited by ThatBoyHero: 4/2/2013 8:26:34 PMNever. Once the government takes away one freedom what will stop them from taking all freedoms? Where's the limit? Freedom should only be taken if one becomes a convected felon.
-
1 Replywhat kind of freedoms are we talking about ?
-
Move to france you freedom-hating surrender commie
-
2 Replies2 and 3
-
I want to exercise my freedom to sell what I want, to whom I want. That's why I sell crack to kids.
-
I don't see how anyone would go for anything other than option 2.