- precisely why I am not interested in anything 'collective'. Get it?
It's an individual who wants to win, he can be understood rationally as an entity that wants to win. He or she wants to win in whatever race that they participate in, that's why they try to do things, like invest their savings, run a profit, build an income stream.
In order to do that in a free society they can either go and steal and kill people or they can participate in market activity - try to produce and try and sell something to other individuals.
If they do too much stealing and killing in a free society eventually they will themselves be stopped one way or another, majority of people do not operate that way, because it's a very risky business.
People have been cooperating to eke out a better life for thousands of years. Precisely because it is in their best interest.
- yeah, and about 200 years ago people figured out the BEST way SO FAR to cooperate is to have a free market, and that was the discovery that made it possible for an agrarian society that USA was, an afterthought, way behind Europe, this allowed USA to become a major player, a major industrial producer, exporter, the biggest creditor nation. USA has achieved this before the WWI, mostly this was done in the freest period of its life - after Civil war and before 1913, when the gov't figured out how to use the newly discovered riches of the Free Society and steal from the middle class - professionals and businesses. This was done with cooperation between politicians and some of the shrewder type bankers, who understood it was extremely profitable to run a financial ponzi scheme, starting with the Fed printing fake currency.
Free society produced the most wealth on this planet in the shortest time period, and then it turned into the bread and circuses system that then squandered that wealth and ran into the most debt that any nation has ever had in the history of the world.
As to Somalia - I said on multiple occasions that they are a former British colony, a former Communist nation, that got from under that dictatorial system via a bloody internal conflict.
It's not a rich nation, it certainly doesn't hold any specific 'libertarian ideals', but it is actually now a proud holder of the MOST STABLE CURRENCY in the world.
AFAIC it's an undervalued place, an interesting investment opportunity. You clearly don't understand anything about it though.
Your rugged individualism is more like anti-social behavior to me. I also understand just how thoroughly committed you are to that viewpoint.
- you are right, my position comes out of very strong principles, no doubt about it.
I don't believe in 'perfect society', that's why I don't subscribe to any socialist principles, because they are the ones that operate on a belief that people are not rational actors, who are doing things for their own interest, but they hold a belief that people want to do things out of some weird sense of 'patriotism' or 'goodness'. It's the socialist systems that want to change the person, while free systems are based on a completely rational understanding that people want to win and free systems don't try and make people into something they are not.
I don't believe Volkswagen Beetle could have become the world's longest running and most manufactured car in the world if it was unsafe as you are purporting.
It is not just web business that is being destroyed in USA due to this destruction of freedoms and liberties (and Patriot Act is a very ironically named piece of the most unpatriotic legislation that USA has probably ever passed so far, notwithstanding the latest NDAA bill).
Patriot Act has destroyed the competition in the securities, finance, investment brokerage, banking business, and of-course all this information businesses as well.
You see, when USA was actually a free society, it was after the Civil War and before the Fed was established and IRS started collecting income taxes, that's when everybody wanted to come TO USA to do business, because how free the country was.
Who wants to go TO USA to do business today? Well, if you are a large monopolistic bank, a central bank of some sort, then you want to be friends with the Fed, but those are not companies that produce value, they are in business of stealing everybody's money, that's all.
But all this nonsense designed to 'protect' the people of USA is protecting them alright, protecting them from having an economy and a society. Protecting them from being able to invest or work and from being able to save in their own money.
As to Canada, it should really decouple itself from USA, because it looks like it's going the same path at a somewhat slower pace, it really should take a step back and rethink everything, from its failing medical and pension systems to its central banking mechanism.
P.S. Canada only started its central bank in 1935 and what good did that do to its economy? The moment when the healthcare became 'single payer' or universal in Canada, it had a good health care system, and because of that inertia it took quite a number of years to start seeing deterioration of the kind, where people are forced into insane lines to get treatment (or you have to be lucky to know a doctor, or maybe you are a politician, then you are OK).
I suppose it is my problem if my next door neighbor hires a bunch of thugs to steal my car? What makes the latter a problem that the government is supposed to fix, and not the former?
- you are correct, this is also NOT a government problem. It is your problem.
Have you ever tried asking government to watch over you, what do you want, an armed guard? They can do it, it's called a jail cell.
Police can come afterwards and clean up the remains, whatever mess there is on the floor and the walls, but that's all. They can start an investigation, but the purpose of it is not to help you, the purpose is to get rid of the type of people who do not care about authority. What good is it to you, if you are dead?
If you need actual protection from thugs, that's your problem, you didn't know that? It's your problem, and you can deal with it, it's called private security.
so I'm fine with the government outlawing abortion except where the life of the mother is at stake
- so you are consistently into other people's business, that's at least something.
In this case, my choice of wearing a helmet only impacts my health, and not others. That makes them none of your concern. However, your choice to vaccinate or not DOES impact the health of others, which makes them my concern.
- that's your business to walk around with a helmet, but it's none of your business to force other people from walking around you without pillows strapped to them, or to prevent other people from driving where you are going, because you know, they can run you over.
However, the end results are the same in both cases, and the means are not unreasonable, so I think the end does justify the means in this case.
- the ends never justify the means, when the means are restriction to individual liberty to do with ONESELF as one sees fit. It's not about your health, it's about ability of person to control his own body.
All the more reason to just prevent the problem in the first place. The threat of civil lawsuit is not sufficient deterrent to cause behavior in the public interest.
- yeah, well, you are wrong on this completely.
The only interest that is of any consequence is that of an individual, preserving his freedom. There is no public interest that is above individual interest, not with a government threat of violence, that is. A personal choice of doing something for so called 'public interest' is just that - a personal choice.
-- And the last part - you don't have principles, if you had them, you wouldn't be changing them. What you change are not principles. You can have principles and change characteristics of it when you develop the principles further, but saying that you had principles and then you went away from them and changed them to something else, that is the point - you never had principles.
I might not have the vaccine, and neither might my kids.
- well that is YOUR problem, not a problem that government is supposed to be "fixing".
strongly influenced by voluntary decisions by others to not vaccinate.
- it's their choice. It's their bodies.
How about abortions, do you want government to control who gets them and who doesn't, if they are legal at all or not?
I might have the vaccine, and yet I can still get sick and die from the disease the vaccine is designed to protect against. Vaccines are not 100% effective, and they never will be.
- do you walk around with a helmet on? Because you know, something may fall on your head too. Somebody can run into you!
Your examples, I am not going to quote, I'll just say this about them: I do not want to live in a world where people are forced to do things to themselves. It's a freedom concept you are missing. It's the same with the TSA in the airports, I am AGAINST TSA in the airports, yet it is POSSIBLE that a 'terrorist' can bring some weapon on him. I rather live in a free society than in a bubble wrapped one with chains on top.
Now, in the perfect "libertarian" paradise we can then all go to court and sue each other
- you can't win a lawsuit against somebody just because they sneezed on you on a street.
I used libertarian in quotes up there as I don't really see this as a legitimate libertarian position.
- being a 'libertarian' implies having a position, as in a principle. I don't think you ever had them, people don't drop principles just because their circumstances change. It means you never understood what the hell you thought you were.
Well, isn't that just sad that you can't get your vaccine? Well, you'll just have to take your risks, or do you also walk around wrapped in bubbles and with a helmet on? Because, you know, you can fall or somebody can run into you.
No, what is irrational is the idea that you can force people to do something to their own bodies that they clearly are objecting to.
NOTHING is 100% effective, you walking on a street is not always going to end well because there are other people around you, you can get hurt. Why don't you quit walking or maybe become a dictator and force everybody else to be wrapped in pillows while walking around?
My opinion on this subject is always the same: you are the enemy of freedom, a wannabe tyrant.
A parent who wants to immunise his kid will do so, and the one who doesn't immunise his kid won't, so one kid had the vaccine, the other doesn't. So if the one who doesn't have the vaccine gets sick, supposedly this won't be transmitted to the one with the vaccine, so this point is a ruse.
Your hidden point is of-course that you want to force people to take that shot and if they don't want to you want gov't to force them. That is you, using threat of violence to force other people to behave the way you want. By that logic, by the way, you should use gov't to stop everybody from driving as well, after all, what if they run you over when you get out of your basement?
Sure, it's your freedom to say whatever, however that freedom is only between you and your government, and we all are well aware how far your government is willing to go when they decide that they do not like what is being said.
You want your government to control what goes into you, well, you already have that. You have no freedoms, given your self-description on this site it doesn't bother you too much. So when exactly did they attach that mind-controlling slug, that parasite to your head? Don't you scratch it?
You are absolutely right about it. My feet are none of your concern, and clearly you are taking an argument into something it is not - making it personal? I wonder why, is it because you have no more arguments left? Obviously you do not.
1. I have no problem with vaccines. 2. You are free to have your vaccines. 3. Other people who may have problems with vaccines must have their right not to be abused by the threat of violence because of assholes like you. 4. You are free to avoid those other people, you can go as far away from them as your little heart desires, not only can they give you a communicable disease, they can also kill you accidentally or even on purpose!
AFAIC you are the troll obviously, as you pretend that you have a shred of intelligence, declaring that your vaccinated kids are somehow in danger of contracting a disease from unvaccinated ones, so you want everybody to do as you please, for your pleasure, and you'd use gov't threat of violence to achieve that goal also, and you are calling me a troll? You are not only a troll, you are the real danger to society, as you'd descend it into the dark ages of tyranny with your well laced intentions.
I am doing my darnest to live in as close to a libertarian society as I can possibly find. I do not in fact have a problem with vaccines, whatever the hell you may believe, but I do have a problem with assholes like you, telling other people how to live their lives, no matter what it is.
You are absolutely free NOT to send your kids to a place where other children can congregate, you are also free to sit in your house and not go outside, you may get hit by a car.
That guy's sister can certainly start that case, but while everybody's right to be an asshole is supposed to be Constitutionally protected, the judge is supposed to protect that very Constitution that protects assholes' rights.
Today you hear all about 'activist judges', but whoever says it means something else altogether. An activist judge, is a judge who chooses NOT to uphold and protect the Constitution, but chooses instead to act against the letter and/or the spirit of that law.
A judge is NOT an activist judge for upholding the Constitution, and if this means striking a law down that is unconstitutional, then it's his authority and responsibility to uphold the Constitution and take down that law.
But of-course people love to muddy the water and redefine what words mean, it's double plus good in their mind, that they do it with impunity (for now).
I explain to you once more: there is nothing that is actively done to hurt you.
In fact, when did/. not only lose its individualism but also its intelligence? If you have your vaccine, your kids have their vaccine, what do you worry about? That some other people, who do not have that vaccine may get sick?
It's their problem, not yours. You want to vaccinate yourself and your kids - it's your choice.
They don't want to vaccinate themselves and their kids - it's their choice.
If they get sick with something that you are vaccinated against, they are clearly not hurting you in any way.
If they get sick and you are not vaccinated against it, well, it's like everything else in life. Do you want everybody who is outside to stop driving before you go outside, because they may run you over?
When did this place become a place of unintelligent paranoid pussyfied slaves exactly?
This lawsuit must be thrown out, it's bullshit (at least if you subscribe to the concept of free speech) and telling telling somebody to go kill themselves is not an order and nobody has to follow it.
Now, when you are in the military and your commander tells you to go kill yourself in a roundabout way: "Soldier, go over there, secure that position and stay there", and you do it, then it's an order, of-course that's a different situation, the soldier knew he could get killed because of orders (but even in the military there are bounds of reason that cannot be crossed, a soldier shouldn't be complying with illegal orders for example).
Again, people can be assholes, but they must have their right to be assholes.
Since when somebody playing music is a problem exactly? Do you mean playing it at night, when people are intending to sleep?
That's actively interfering with people's life, and anybody can come to that neighbour and it's between them two.
Your examples are about somebody actively getting in front of you, doing something to you.
But this is about doing something to oneself, not to you. If you were allergic to red hair, would you then expect all people with red hair to shave it off, just so that you wouldn't have a reaction to their hair? They are not getting in front of your drive way with their red hair on purpose, they may just walk by one day.
You are not talking about somebody limiting your freedom, you are talking about limiting freedoms of others even in the sense that they have to do something actively to accommodate you. Well, tough luck.
Unlike you, with your appropriate nickname over there, I actually have principles, and all my positions result from my principles, and I do not change them based on the changes to my own circumstance.
Yeah, well, it's just a world, and we are born into it and we should want freedom, even freedom to be total asses, regardless of all the 'do-gooders' and people who stick their noses where they don't belong.
based on your idiotic posts, I can only imagine the type of shackles you'd want to put people into today, so that your perfect future scenario plays out (in your head only) tomorrow.
My comment was an observation, of-course you don't understand what that means.
Slashdot Mirror
Collectively, people aren't rational actors
- precisely why I am not interested in anything 'collective'. Get it?
It's an individual who wants to win, he can be understood rationally as an entity that wants to win. He or she wants to win in whatever race that they participate in, that's why they try to do things, like invest their savings, run a profit, build an income stream.
In order to do that in a free society they can either go and steal and kill people or they can participate in market activity - try to produce and try and sell something to other individuals.
If they do too much stealing and killing in a free society eventually they will themselves be stopped one way or another, majority of people do not operate that way, because it's a very risky business.
People have been cooperating to eke out a better life for thousands of years. Precisely because it is in their best interest.
- yeah, and about 200 years ago people figured out the BEST way SO FAR to cooperate is to have a free market, and that was the discovery that made it possible for an agrarian society that USA was, an afterthought, way behind Europe, this allowed USA to become a major player, a major industrial producer, exporter, the biggest creditor nation. USA has achieved this before the WWI, mostly this was done in the freest period of its life - after Civil war and before 1913, when the gov't figured out how to use the newly discovered riches of the Free Society and steal from the middle class - professionals and businesses. This was done with cooperation between politicians and some of the shrewder type bankers, who understood it was extremely profitable to run a financial ponzi scheme, starting with the Fed printing fake currency.
Free society produced the most wealth on this planet in the shortest time period, and then it turned into the bread and circuses system that then squandered that wealth and ran into the most debt that any nation has ever had in the history of the world.
As to Somalia - I said on multiple occasions that they are a former British colony, a former Communist nation, that got from under that dictatorial system via a bloody internal conflict.
It's not a rich nation, it certainly doesn't hold any specific 'libertarian ideals', but it is actually now a proud holder of the MOST STABLE CURRENCY in the world.
AFAIC it's an undervalued place, an interesting investment opportunity. You clearly don't understand anything about it though.
Your rugged individualism is more like anti-social behavior to me. I also understand just how thoroughly committed you are to that viewpoint.
- you are right, my position comes out of very strong principles, no doubt about it.
Have fun.
I don't believe in 'perfect society', that's why I don't subscribe to any socialist principles, because they are the ones that operate on a belief that people are not rational actors, who are doing things for their own interest, but they hold a belief that people want to do things out of some weird sense of 'patriotism' or 'goodness'. It's the socialist systems that want to change the person, while free systems are based on a completely rational understanding that people want to win and free systems don't try and make people into something they are not.
You need to stop believing in Santa Clause.
I don't believe Volkswagen Beetle could have become the world's longest running and most manufactured car in the world if it was unsafe as you are purporting.
The GP is absolutely right in all his points.
Do you remember the question/story on /., that went like this: Is the Government Scaring Web Businesses Out of the US?
Well, I said then that it is not just web businesses.
It is not just web business that is being destroyed in USA due to this destruction of freedoms and liberties (and Patriot Act is a very ironically named piece of the most unpatriotic legislation that USA has probably ever passed so far, notwithstanding the latest NDAA bill).
Patriot Act has destroyed the competition in the securities, finance, investment brokerage, banking business, and of-course all this information businesses as well.
You see, when USA was actually a free society, it was after the Civil War and before the Fed was established and IRS started collecting income taxes, that's when everybody wanted to come TO USA to do business, because how free the country was.
Who wants to go TO USA to do business today? Well, if you are a large monopolistic bank, a central bank of some sort, then you want to be friends with the Fed, but those are not companies that produce value, they are in business of stealing everybody's money, that's all.
But all this nonsense designed to 'protect' the people of USA is protecting them alright, protecting them from having an economy and a society. Protecting them from being able to invest or work and from being able to save in their own money.
As to Canada, it should really decouple itself from USA, because it looks like it's going the same path at a somewhat slower pace, it really should take a step back and rethink everything, from its failing medical and pension systems to its central banking mechanism.
P.S.
Canada only started its central bank in 1935 and what good did that do to its economy? The moment when the healthcare became 'single payer' or universal in Canada, it had a good health care system, and because of that inertia it took quite a number of years to start seeing deterioration of the kind, where people are forced into insane lines to get treatment (or you have to be lucky to know a doctor, or maybe you are a politician, then you are OK).
I suppose it is my problem if my next door neighbor hires a bunch of thugs to steal my car? What makes the latter a problem that the government is supposed to fix, and not the former?
- you are correct, this is also NOT a government problem. It is your problem.
Have you ever tried asking government to watch over you, what do you want, an armed guard? They can do it, it's called a jail cell.
Police can come afterwards and clean up the remains, whatever mess there is on the floor and the walls, but that's all. They can start an investigation, but the purpose of it is not to help you, the purpose is to get rid of the type of people who do not care about authority. What good is it to you, if you are dead?
If you need actual protection from thugs, that's your problem, you didn't know that? It's your problem, and you can deal with it, it's called private security.
so I'm fine with the government outlawing abortion except where the life of the mother is at stake
- so you are consistently into other people's business, that's at least something.
In this case, my choice of wearing a helmet only impacts my health, and not others. That makes them none of your concern. However, your choice to vaccinate or not DOES impact the health of others, which makes them my concern.
- that's your business to walk around with a helmet, but it's none of your business to force other people from walking around you without pillows strapped to them, or to prevent other people from driving where you are going, because you know, they can run you over.
However, the end results are the same in both cases, and the means are not unreasonable, so I think the end does justify the means in this case.
- the ends never justify the means, when the means are restriction to individual liberty to do with ONESELF as one sees fit. It's not about your health, it's about ability of person to control his own body.
All the more reason to just prevent the problem in the first place. The threat of civil lawsuit is not sufficient deterrent to cause behavior in the public interest.
- yeah, well, you are wrong on this completely.
The only interest that is of any consequence is that of an individual, preserving his freedom. There is no public interest that is above individual interest, not with a government threat of violence, that is. A personal choice of doing something for so called 'public interest' is just that - a personal choice.
--
And the last part - you don't have principles, if you had them, you wouldn't be changing them. What you change are not principles. You can have principles and change characteristics of it when you develop the principles further, but saying that you had principles and then you went away from them and changed them to something else, that is the point - you never had principles.
Principles are not a pair of socks.
I might not have the vaccine, and neither might my kids.
- well that is YOUR problem, not a problem that government is supposed to be "fixing".
strongly influenced by voluntary decisions by others to not vaccinate.
- it's their choice. It's their bodies.
How about abortions, do you want government to control who gets them and who doesn't, if they are legal at all or not?
I might have the vaccine, and yet I can still get sick and die from the disease the vaccine is designed to protect against. Vaccines are not 100% effective, and they never will be.
- do you walk around with a helmet on? Because you know, something may fall on your head too. Somebody can run into you!
Your examples, I am not going to quote, I'll just say this about them: I do not want to live in a world where people are forced to do things to themselves. It's a freedom concept you are missing. It's the same with the TSA in the airports, I am AGAINST TSA in the airports, yet it is POSSIBLE that a 'terrorist' can bring some weapon on him. I rather live in a free society than in a bubble wrapped one with chains on top.
Now, in the perfect "libertarian" paradise we can then all go to court and sue each other
- you can't win a lawsuit against somebody just because they sneezed on you on a street.
I used libertarian in quotes up there as I don't really see this as a legitimate libertarian position.
- being a 'libertarian' implies having a position, as in a principle. I don't think you ever had them, people don't drop principles just because their circumstances change. It means you never understood what the hell you thought you were.
Well, isn't that just sad that you can't get your vaccine? Well, you'll just have to take your risks, or do you also walk around wrapped in bubbles and with a helmet on? Because, you know, you can fall or somebody can run into you.
No, what is irrational is the idea that you can force people to do something to their own bodies that they clearly are objecting to.
NOTHING is 100% effective, you walking on a street is not always going to end well because there are other people around you, you can get hurt. Why don't you quit walking or maybe become a dictator and force everybody else to be wrapped in pillows while walking around?
My opinion on this subject is always the same: you are the enemy of freedom, a wannabe tyrant.
Yeah, this guy figured it out, and he was probably high while doing it.
A parent who wants to immunise his kid will do so, and the one who doesn't immunise his kid won't, so one kid had the vaccine, the other doesn't. So if the one who doesn't have the vaccine gets sick, supposedly this won't be transmitted to the one with the vaccine, so this point is a ruse.
Your hidden point is of-course that you want to force people to take that shot and if they don't want to you want gov't to force them. That is you, using threat of violence to force other people to behave the way you want. By that logic, by the way, you should use gov't to stop everybody from driving as well, after all, what if they run you over when you get out of your basement?
Sure, it's your freedom to say whatever, however that freedom is only between you and your government, and we all are well aware how far your government is willing to go when they decide that they do not like what is being said.
You want your government to control what goes into you, well, you already have that. You have no freedoms, given your self-description on this site it doesn't bother you too much. So when exactly did they attach that mind-controlling slug, that parasite to your head? Don't you scratch it?
Freedom does trump EVERYTHING.
You are absolutely right about it. My feet are none of your concern, and clearly you are taking an argument into something it is not - making it personal? I wonder why, is it because you have no more arguments left? Obviously you do not.
1. I have no problem with vaccines.
2. You are free to have your vaccines.
3. Other people who may have problems with vaccines must have their right not to be abused by the threat of violence because of assholes like you.
4. You are free to avoid those other people, you can go as far away from them as your little heart desires, not only can they give you a communicable disease, they can also kill you accidentally or even on purpose!
Run.
AFAIC you are the troll obviously, as you pretend that you have a shred of intelligence, declaring that your vaccinated kids are somehow in danger of contracting a disease from unvaccinated ones, so you want everybody to do as you please, for your pleasure, and you'd use gov't threat of violence to achieve that goal also, and you are calling me a troll? You are not only a troll, you are the real danger to society, as you'd descend it into the dark ages of tyranny with your well laced intentions.
I am doing my darnest to live in as close to a libertarian society as I can possibly find. I do not in fact have a problem with vaccines, whatever the hell you may believe, but I do have a problem with assholes like you, telling other people how to live their lives, no matter what it is.
You are absolutely free NOT to send your kids to a place where other children can congregate, you are also free to sit in your house and not go outside, you may get hit by a car.
As I said, your nick is appropriate.
That guy's sister can certainly start that case, but while everybody's right to be an asshole is supposed to be Constitutionally protected, the judge is supposed to protect that very Constitution that protects assholes' rights.
Today you hear all about 'activist judges', but whoever says it means something else altogether. An activist judge, is a judge who chooses NOT to uphold and protect the Constitution, but chooses instead to act against the letter and/or the spirit of that law.
A judge is NOT an activist judge for upholding the Constitution, and if this means striking a law down that is unconstitutional, then it's his authority and responsibility to uphold the Constitution and take down that law.
But of-course people love to muddy the water and redefine what words mean, it's double plus good in their mind, that they do it with impunity (for now).
You know things are getting pretty bad when you start longing for the days when a former Nazi was giving NASA moral leadership.
- yeah, today's Nazis are much more boring, it's all about oil and dollar domination, but who is supposed to think about dominating the Uranus?
I explain to you once more: there is nothing that is actively done to hurt you.
In fact, when did /. not only lose its individualism but also its intelligence? If you have your vaccine, your kids have their vaccine, what do you worry about? That some other people, who do not have that vaccine may get sick?
It's their problem, not yours. You want to vaccinate yourself and your kids - it's your choice.
They don't want to vaccinate themselves and their kids - it's their choice.
If they get sick with something that you are vaccinated against, they are clearly not hurting you in any way.
If they get sick and you are not vaccinated against it, well, it's like everything else in life. Do you want everybody who is outside to stop driving before you go outside, because they may run you over?
When did this place become a place of unintelligent paranoid pussyfied slaves exactly?
This lawsuit must be thrown out, it's bullshit (at least if you subscribe to the concept of free speech) and telling telling somebody to go kill themselves is not an order and nobody has to follow it.
Now, when you are in the military and your commander tells you to go kill yourself in a roundabout way: "Soldier, go over there, secure that position and stay there", and you do it, then it's an order, of-course that's a different situation, the soldier knew he could get killed because of orders (but even in the military there are bounds of reason that cannot be crossed, a soldier shouldn't be complying with illegal orders for example).
Again, people can be assholes, but they must have their right to be assholes.
Principles is what makes a person. Not having principles is being just another animal, but I am not surprised at your stance, Mindcontrolled.
Since when somebody playing music is a problem exactly? Do you mean playing it at night, when people are intending to sleep?
That's actively interfering with people's life, and anybody can come to that neighbour and it's between them two.
Your examples are about somebody actively getting in front of you, doing something to you.
But this is about doing something to oneself, not to you. If you were allergic to red hair, would you then expect all people with red hair to shave it off, just so that you wouldn't have a reaction to their hair? They are not getting in front of your drive way with their red hair on purpose, they may just walk by one day.
You are not talking about somebody limiting your freedom, you are talking about limiting freedoms of others even in the sense that they have to do something actively to accommodate you. Well, tough luck.
Unlike you, with your appropriate nickname over there, I actually have principles, and all my positions result from my principles, and I do not change them based on the changes to my own circumstance.
And you have all the right to say what you want to say.
And it's their right not to care about what you say.
You may be absolutely right, but it doesn't mean you should have any authority to enforce your ideas upon others against their will.
Yeah, well, it's just a world, and we are born into it and we should want freedom, even freedom to be total asses, regardless of all the 'do-gooders' and people who stick their noses where they don't belong.
based on your idiotic posts, I can only imagine the type of shackles you'd want to put people into today, so that your perfect future scenario plays out (in your head only) tomorrow.
My comment was an observation, of-course you don't understand what that means.
And once again, FREE MARKET is blamed for something, that could not be FURTHER from any free market than the most distant star.
TSA is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY, you dumb shit.