Do American people have too much freedom?

[Elegiac]

But from where did the idea of murder being bad come from? Nearly everybody on the planet, regardless of many factors such as political stripe agrees.

The only possible explanation is that for the most part human nature is inherently good.

Where did the idea of stealing being bad come from? Again, human nature is neither "good" nor "bad" because morality itself is a rational construct. It's just selfish. Humans can be altruistic when it serves them.

[Scinder]

The premise of this entire thread is absolutely ridiculous. If you don't like the freedom you have in this country then by all means, pack your stuff and move.

[Gheld]

Where did the idea of stealing being bad come from? Again, human nature is neither "good" nor "bad" because morality itself is a rational construct. It's just selfish. Humans can be altruistic when it serves them.

al·tru·ism
/ˈaltro͞oˌizəm/
Noun

1.The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
2.Behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

The very definition of altruism precludes the possibility of it being self serving.

Let's say I'm at a restaurant. I know I make a hell of a lot more money than my server. And if I see that they are trying really hard, but otherwise having a terrible day, I'll give them a ridiculously large tip. It doesn't benefit me in any way other than the fact that it makes me feel warm and tingly inside. Some inherent part of me provides me with an emotional award for helping out other human beings.

So Either A. I'm different from most people, and my selfishness is broken. Or B. I'm not different from most people, and most people are programmed to want to cooperate with one another.

But honestly, let's expand upon this idea of terrible humans.

Here's a few examples of horrible atrocities;

Adolf Hitler, who considered himself a socialist.
Joseph Stalin, who considered himself a communist.
Pick any ethnic cleansing or similar atrocity in Africa for your next example, where one might argue that economically many of the disputed regions of Africa are unbridled capitalism.

Politically there is absolutely no common denominator, and you have more victims than offenders.

The common denominator is that you have narcissistic douche bags (in Africa it would be the warlords) who stew around thinking "Humans are bad, but not me, no I'm above the flawed nature of humanity and have some moral imperative to make things better by whatever means necessary"

But when you bring that attitude to an economic system, both Socialism and Communism require somebody to act in a "super-natural" position, above human nature, in order to determine the 'optimal' distribution of wealth.

Capitalism is the ONLY economic system in which nobody has to necessarily have political power over others in order for it to function; It sometimes ends up working out that way, but in Communism/Socialism, that outcome is necessary for the society to function. Which is why the installation of every single communist dictator in the world has resulted in a bloodbath.

Quoting a bunch of art history professors and throwing around terms of Freudian psychology doesn't change the obvious;

Human nature is for the most part good, save for a few narcissistic monsters who believe otherwise.

And it's laughable that people are willing to present themselves as violent monsters who are otherwise under the restraint of the almighty government in order to argue to the contrary.

[mvaliz]

But when you bring that attitude to an economic system, both Socialism and Communism require somebody to act in a "super-natural" position, above human nature, in order to determine the 'optimal' distribution of wealth.

Capitalism is the ONLY economic system in which nobody has to necessarily have political power over others in order for it to function; It sometimes ends up working out that way, but in Communism/Socialism, that outcome is necessary for the society to function. Which is why the installation of every single communist dictator in the world has resulted in a bloodbath.

Captialism also allows for a "super-Natural" position above human nature, to determine what products they will sell. The larger the company, the more influence it has.

Captialism only works when there are equal small companies. Today those companies are no longer small. Making it a free market today would basically give all the corporate owners the ability to design their own regulations in-place, because SO many people depend on those corporations today as fewer alternatives exist. The corporations would simply replace the old government and become the new government.

[Speaknoevil]

The answer is yes, but all humans have both too little, and too much freedom.

[Halicia]

The answer is yes, but all humans have both too little, and too much freedom.

No such thing as too much freedom, only too few morals.

[Speaknoevil]

No such thing as too much freedom, only too few morals.

I laughed, these things are hand in hand.

Humanity has not progressed to it's full potential, so my answer remains unchanged; Both yes, and no.

[Seranthor]

I have never met a single person who objectively watches CNN, MSNBC and FOX news equally. I do not believe such a person exists... the same goes for people who read fringe/alternative web-news sites and blogs.

You're following your multiple sources... One assumes your "multiple sources" tend to be skewed towards your line of thinking, or are very persuasive of their own line of thinking. You may not believe that they're not and that you really are being objective, but trust me... you really aren't. :P

Even if you did, you would filter all of what you hear into your own basises, knowledge base, and upbringing - which all have an effect on your way of thinking.

As I've said earlier before: If you're a high IQ objective person brought up in a Facist community, chances are very high that you will be a high-fuctioning, fact-checking Facist.

As I recall, I say read/view as many as you wish, then draw your own conclusions. I'm not sure if you are attempting to insult folks for being informed, or for wanting unbiased information, or for where they happen to live. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain.

[Deleted]

The problem I have is that people these days seem to think they can say anything because they are covered by their so called "freedom" to do it. I love the contradiction though, the person has the "right" to say offensive comments yet the person on the receiving end has a human right not to be mistreated. A line needs to be drawn on what is acceptable and what isn't, hate speech should be illegal.

Live and let live. As long as someone isn't harming another learn to shut the fuck up and live your own life.

[Deleted]

The problem I have is that people these days seem to think they can say anything because they are covered by their so called "freedom" to do it. I love the contradiction though, the person has the "right" to say offensive comments yet the person on the receiving end has a human right not to be mistreated. A line needs to be drawn on what is acceptable and what isn't, hate speech should be illegal.

Live and let live. As long as someone isn't harming another learn to shut the fuck up and live your own life.

Except that's not true. No one has the right not to be offended.

In any free society I should be able to throw out racial slurs without being imprisoned. The consequences of my actions will be social. People will shun me for saying these things and being an asshole.

[Daerio]

I love the contradiction though, the person has the "right" to say offensive comments yet the person on the receiving end has a human right not to be mistreated. A line needs to be drawn on what is acceptable and what isn't, hate speech should be illegal.

Live and let live. As long as someone isn't harming another learn to shut the fuck up and live your own life.

I feel like these sentences here are pretty contradictory. No, people do not have the 'right to not be offended', because then nobody would be able to say anything that wasn't in line with the majority. The Earth would be flat and the center of the universe. People would not be able to differ with religious views, because THAT could offend somebody. It goes on and on.

Indeed, if you are not directly hurting someone else, (this does not include feelings) then it should be live and let live. People do have the right to share their views in the proper forum, even if other people don't agree. I don't agree with hate speech, but I don't want our country to outlaw it.