Comments on: Forgoing Freedom for Feeling Good

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:53:46 +0000

I appreciate the “reset” button, no harm, no foul. Look, I realize I’m being somewhat obtuse here (as usual), after all I’m arguing in the philosophical realm rather than the practical, but that’s just what I’m about. Anyway, my view of liberty means you have to take a lot of bad to have the good (ie our agreement on wiretaps).

When we dislike the consequences of the bad, we have the opportunity to correct our behavior, but we also have the temptation to impose that correction on everybody else; that’s when things go haywire.

To put it in practical terms, I don’t pour chemicals in your water because 1) it’s wrong and 2) it’s in my self interest (if I did there would be consequences - you’d come and do the same thing to me). With a ban, there are similar restraints, but there’s an important distinction between the two: the ban places a government between you and I, a watchful parent to keep the children from working it out as individuals. We are no longer bound to each other through mutual respect, we are bound to each other because of the whip that a parent holds over us.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:16 +0000

Note: I really feel, as a first time commenter on MT Misanthrope, we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot.
Obviously, you and I have some ideological differences - obviously. However, from reading a large number of your posts, I think you are my kind of conservative. That is, I, along with a great deal of progressive Montanans, often find common ground with people of your political leanings due to our general libertarian leanings. Heck, we’re all Montanans, so we’re all a bit (or a lot) libertarian.
In any case, I very much appreciate your dedication and passion for liberty. You aren’t the kind of conservative that is pro-gun while pro-wire tapping (tell me if I’m wrong, that’s just my guess).
In any case, I digress.
The point is, we’re going to disagree on a lot of stuff. But I’m going to try to be more constructive with our discourse, because I do feel that we have some common, ideological bones.
There are some health-related issues that I often find myself in the libertarian-corner, which puts me at odds with some in my more general ideological group, which is fine. This is just one issue that I don’t think the liberty-label applies to. I don’t think it’s the end of the world either way, but I do support a ban on some chemicals that have the potential to enter our water supply.
I can very much sympathize where you are coming from on this, but on in terms of the practical and pragmatic, I just don’t see the problem with these kinds of bans.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:07:13 +0000

So, please explain to me why I should have to put up with your choice to dump harmful chemicals in the water I use to cook, clean, drink, etc.?

I didn’t realize that walking over to your neighbors well and dumping dain-o into it fell under “liberty.” I guess we should allow lead paint to be used again, because of “liberty.”

It honestly disturbs me that we are evening using the term liberty in this discussion. I think it lessons the great value of the word.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:16:22 +0000

No, I don’t believe I suggested that one should break any law one chooses. I am suggesting that when stupid laws get passed, they won’t be followed by a whole lot of people, and for a good reason (liberty).

In your first comment, you gave me a choice between clean water versus laziness. Now, you’re giving me the choice between breaking any law I choose and full compliance. Sorry, I don’t subscribe to any of the limited choices you offer.

Finally, I suppose I should apologize for saddening you. I didn’t realize that you would allow someone as pathetic as myself to have so much control over your emotions.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:37:08 +0000

I assume, Doug, that you are suggesting that I should break any law I damn well please because it would be “complying.”

Your reasoning is sadly pathetic [apply to post and comment].

By: Big Swede

Big Swede — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:13:54 +0000

Al Gore must have forgotten to note the hour in his day planner.

>>Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research —the same organization that also found Gore’s home consumes 20 times more electricity than the average household — told Yeas & Nays that Gore’s Belle Meade-section mansion did not go dark during the global campaign’s designated hour between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.
Johnson did admit that although it wasn’t as bright as can be, Gore did have on “a dozen or so” floodlights on his trees, a light shining on his address number, and a noticeable “bluish glow” from his powered-on televisions and computers coming from inside his house.

“It was very noticeable compared to the fact that even the streetlights on his street were off for the hour,” Johnson said. He also added how ironic it was that Nashville was one of the “official” U.S. cities of “Earth Day.”

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:24:44 +0000

Well done, Swede. As for me, I wasn’t even aware of the event, so I only dumped the usual 55 gallon drum of used motor oil into the wetlands out back.

By: Big Swede

Big Swede — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:43:13 +0000

On a related note I was wondering what you guys did to celebrate Earth Hour this weekend?

I self cleaned the oven, and burned some tires.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:04:53 +0000

“Get real?” No, I think the term you were looking for was “comply.”

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:19:25 +0000

Yeah! Because I should have my water supply harmed due to some lazy PoS who can’t even wash a dish by hand.
Hmmm… clean water supply versus lazyness… yeah, that’s a tough one.
Don’t be ridiculous. If you’re idea of “freedom” is dish washer soap, well, I don’t know what to tell you… get real?