Bare with me. For this will turn out to be a most excellent truth-kicking topic ever in the history of Hipforums. Speak Free With Freedom Of Speech. Do you do it? Is that all you do? Or, is freedom of speech a ploy to keep action off to the side line? What I think should go into a real constitution, not the current one, is Freedom Of Action. The right to Free Action. What say you all to this? Do any of you have a problem with freedom of action ever becoming a very real constitutional right? Why? With Freedom Of Action you should be enabled and equiped to accomplish whatever you put your mind to in America, even without money. Freedom of Speech doesn't come with any equiping to make sure it is accomplished. Nope, you need money to equip yourself with something so that you may exercize free speech. Am I lying? Heck no! The problem with this country is that you need money to exercize rights. Again, am I lying? Am I ever lying? Rights are held in bondage by way of that you need money to basically exercize them. Hey, why do I need money to exercize my right to bare arms? We know it takes money to buy the firearm of choice, but it shouldn't cost anything if the forefathers intended us our right fortified. I hereby am here to tell you that rights are a gimmick. Go look into the word gimmick. No, really! Does that sound about correct? Tell me, do you see? Are you awake to see that rights are gimmicks so as long as it takes money to exercize them? Take any message board discussion forum or Hipforums for example... it takes money to launch a message board discussion forum that goes into a liked direction of free speech that you say flies. Face it, rights are a pathetic gimmick. It's time we get some real rights... Rights that are made fortified against being gimmicks... Rights that are certain to when a constitution reads you have the right to bare arms, you are given whatever means it takes to get a FREE firearm in your possession or under your ownership. We need genuine rights, not jokes for rights. We need a: "No right a gimmick anymore" type of law. So, what say you the people? This country is in the least bit half-butted with the fact that it (via the courts) provide you with a lawyer free of charge if you can't afford a lawyer. So if they are going to do that half-butted, still gimmick B.S., then where is my appointed gun free of charge??? Hey, I may believe I need a gun for self-defense. But most importantly, I may want to exercize my right to bare arms. It shouldnt take money inorder to exercize my right to get to bare arms. Anyone see what I'm saying? The country called the United States of America is not fa-fa-fa foolin' me. I like that song by Def Leppard. About to play it in a moment to myself. So America, WAKE THE HECK UP! We really honest to God need that NO RIGHT A GIMMICK ANYMORE law put in stone. Alternative America is already awoken. And hey, federal government and Michigan state government, I want me a court appointed firearm. Work on it! rettyplease: You the people should demand no-gimmick rights.
Well, if I request a firearm, to exercize my right, I should be given one free of charge by the very government. Even a bum should be able to exercize the right to bare arms without having to pay up in order to exercize his right. Gimmick rights are real.
No they're not. You just expect the government to take care of you from cradle to grave, which is frankly pathetic. You've got nothing coming to you. Work for what you want or lay down and die, but don't expect someone to shower you with everything your little heart desires. The world doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't.
Maybe for guns that should apply, but not for everything. We do not live as individuals on the plains, we live as part of a society, everything is intertwined and dependent on the being and working together of everyone. The society we should aim for is not a cut throat survival of the finish, this isn't warring tribes. A society that gives everyone basic support is the most functioning society. The fact remains a lot of people have to live really shitty lives for the western world to have the standard of luxury it does, the poor doing it for the rich in western nations, the poor in other countries doing it for the "poor" in first world nations.
The first thing that strikes me is the incompatibility of your proposal with the fundamental principle of US rights theory stating that certain rights are inalienable. An inalienable right can not be legitimately surrendered to the care and control of another but more importantly, even if that surrender occurs, a legitimate government can not accept that surrender and dictate upon those interests. In calling for a, "'No right a gimmick anymore' type of law" you are arguing that government should have a role in the exercise of rights and seem to be saying that someone in authority should have the power to establish the parameters of what constitutes proper exercise of said right and should then facilitate the exercise of rights by providing the means, whatever they may be, for the citizen to exercise his rights "gimmick free." What you describe as "gimmick free" is nothing but a gimmick for government to control the citizen . . . No thanks, I'll continue to struggle along providing for myself without having a bureaucrat telling me how to exercise my rights. The only things I want from government regarding my rights is inaction and impotence.
Even though free speech is protected and supposedly cherished, it is constantly assailed by efforts to enforce social taboo. However the more insidious and virulent inhibitor of free speech is some level of self deceit, the attempt to cultivate favorable opinion as opposed to honest discourse.
And only one is valid when we are discussing the fundamental constitutional principles of the USA. Under our system rights are "exceptions of powers not granted" and many thought listing them was a foolish and dangerous redundancy.
The first thing that struck me on reading this is that the leaches are getting more vocal these days... As for your repeated question of if people get what you are saying.... 100% clearly, you are saying you are a useless punk who thinks the world owes him everything.... If you want it, you 'deserve' it... what if what I want the leeches like yourself to be dragged by horses til dead... should the government supply me with the horses and the rope?
The problem here is with the conception of positive vs. negative rights, as has been said. You can read the rights enumerated in the Constitution as desirable things that everyone should have, or as things people can do on their own which they are not to be prevented from doing. I read it the latter way, and I think that's how it was intended. Saying we have a right to own guns doesn't mean we need to be provided with them; that's not the issue. A right to free speech does not mean that the government has to give everyone a platform to speak -- they just can't prevent you from gaining that platform yourself or take it away from you once you have done so. I'm a firm believer in negative rights, for the most part.
I don't see a single justification for why they should just give it to you. All I see here is you whining that they don't, and they should, without any legitimate reason as to why. Sounds to me like you would argue a right to be born with a house, career, and bank account.
But this raises a question, take free speech, everyone has a born right to it. What happens though when one person's control of the media becomes so overpowering that their speech can dictate entire societal trends, should the government step in to balance it out? Or more relevant, since it was declared corporations are protected under the right to free speech, should congress make laws regulating this so normal people's free speech actually has a leg to be heard on, either by reducing what corporations can do or giving funding to private groups during campaigns to match?
No - then it isn't free speech - it's regulated to be "fair" speech. Take agnosticism and atheism for instance. We are slowly gaining ground in the face of a religious majority that has been active throughout the country's whole history. Under 'fair' speech, Christians wouldn't be able to raise hell (no pun intended) and get billboards that say things like "God loves atheists too" taken down -- IF the government recognized that they had an 'overpowering' voice. But even if they recognized that, our voice would be diluted anyways, because we would have our fair share - and not have to fight for it. How would one's voice be limited anyways? In the limitation, clearly any essence of 'free' is lost.
Christians are not one coherent group though, in fact minus Catholics, the demographic of agnostics/atheists would be larger then any particular Christian domination. If one person is at the top of the chain the sole owner of 70% of a country's media for example is controlled by one person, that is basically a monopoly on information in many sectors. Or the corporations thing, how is justified to give a company the legal free speech rights as a person, to protect actual free speech wouldn't the sane thing have to be to limit the speech powers of the corporations. This is why anti-trust laws also go beyond just money making, even 110 years ago the government was aware of the fact that one person's free speech can in fact begin to infringe on the overall concept of it for everyone if they become too powerful.
Christians are definitely one group in this context. They're moral belief is all based off the same Bible and is essentially the same. Almost none follow the kosher laws, all follow the Ten Commandments, etc. I wouldn't be arguing with you if we were talking Judiasm. But in modern terms, Catholics aren't even much different from protestants (in fact, dioceses of both groups often work together). As far as the corporations - companies already don't have free speech. And a companies' ability to sway an audience's opinion is left to the individual in a free market, because of the anti-trust laws that you mentioned. Mac might be able to tell me that they have a better product than the PC, and Microsoft has every right to attack their claim that they aren't a PC. But I still have every right to turn off the TV, read some old books - and completely ignore their debate. I understand what you are getting at. Companies are growing bigger, especially media corporations (Comcast might buy NBC Universal, actually) - but it still starts at the consumer. If FOX News influences thought, and the Daily Show isn't there to tell us how, our neighbors still can.
Note: The right to bare arms is accomplished simply by rolling up one's sleeves. The Constitution had no intent for government to provide the rights enumerated, but only stated them as existing naturally. In a society made up of many persons, governments become necessary as a means of protecting the rights of individuals from other members of the society. In that government cannot provide individual protection 24/7, it creates laws by which those who violate the rights of others can be exercised to punish those who break the laws. When government begins to provide additional and unnatural rights, it then in many cases has to provide the funding necessary to make those rights available, which means it has to legalize theft by government, and in doing so diminishes the rights of some in order to provide the rights it has created. This requires giving government supreme power over the people and in a democracy allows right and wrong to be defined by a simple majority, ignoring what is truly right and wrong.
