Quote:
|
Well, just remember freedom is a two edged sword. Pursuing "freedom" as an idealism is absurd because one persons freedom can directly negate anothers freedom.
|
Quote:
|
But the point is, as you realise, that one mans freedom is another mans restriction. So the freedom and rights card itself is double sided and its value depends on which side you look upon the card.
|
Well, that's why I proposed a comprimise via city zoning ordinance establishing a minimum % of each. Yorick, again, let me turn this on you: you are the one who insists on restricting my liberty by banning my legal act in all bars. I don't want to keep you out of bars, so I proposed as system whereby you and I could each have places to go as patrons and/or work at as employees. Telling me "you can still smoke -- at home" is like me telling you "you can still work -- elsewhere." I want a place to drink AND smoke, and I think you have no right to deny me that.
You point the "double-edge sword" of liberty argument at me, and I say your argument actually goes against you.
I note that legally, Wellard's membership solution is about the same as my solution. My problem with his solution is that it would restrict me from enjoying bars when not near my local "membership" bar. In effect, it would limit me to ONE bar or A FEW bars rather a certain minimum % of bars across the land. How boring! Oh, and, Wellard, cigar bars operate as businesses and not private clubs over here.
To your expansion of this discussion to include every liberty-related issue, Yorick, addressing each in turn would drag this thread into 18 different directions. I know that it's fun to "get meta" and discuss big-picture relationships and theories, but there's a fine line between that and an inability to FOCUS, MAN, FOCUS.
[ 03-31-2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]