To be for the USA is to be for pluralism – which I’m ok with. I like state/fed pluralism.

To be for the USA is to be for pluralism – which I’m ok with. I like state/fed pluralism.a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist.

  It is 🙂 I’m not alt.right and while I think the representation is basically a load of bunk, _generally_ speaking, as a system, it works well enough. States get their freedoms. Fed gets their freedoms. Local gets their freedoms.

Most importantly, the people have freedom of travel.

So if you’re in a state whose ideology doesn’t suit you, you can move to another state in the Union that suits you better.


Exactly. Or look at gun control: I’ve been a long time in two states: NJ had strict gun control (Brady Bill). Age of 30, moved to Florida. They *almost* had Open Carry a few months ago, but generally speaking, it’s a gun friendly state. All because they interpret “state militia” differently.

I like the fact that that sort of flexibility is built into the system.


With every “Freedom to” there’s a corresponding “Freedom from”.


I’d say that “full rights to live his own life as he pleases” is a subjective morality.

Let’s say my neighbor has full rights. In his rights, he can kill my mother. Freedom to / freedom from. You can’t have one side of a coin.


Ah. Automatic weapon + cocaine. Nice mix.
This to me falls in the category of “freedom from”.

You have a neighbor who is doing cocaine on his porch with his automatic weapon.

Cocaine changes the range of what a person is socially capable of into the realm of “not normal” behavior.

The automatic weapon also changes the range of capabilities of a person into a realm where the neighbors have less of a “freedom from”.

To me it hinges upon “What is Reasonable?”

The marvel of having a state vs federal system in place is that one state can say, “Organized militia yes but personal gun ownership, restricted”. Another state can say “Organized militia yes, personal gun ownership, yes”.

But even among personal gun ownership there’s reasonable and unreasonable.

For example, should I decide to arm my tool that is presumably for the purposes of a state militia (although in practice, most gun owners are NOT part of a state militia but they should be, for that’s the reason for it being allowed): let’s say the tool I choose is nuclear.

I have my nuclear weapon in my backyard.

This is acceptable because it’s for the purposes of a free militia, yes?

Or is it excessive?


Within a reasonable range, sure.
But look at property ownership:

It’s owned by what was once called FEMA, then the Eminent Domain program (sometimes utilized by the EPA and other groups), then the Fed military, then the State govt, then County govt, then local Govt, and then you have police, fire access, plus there are mineral deeds, air space and the like.

What’s your property almost isn’t.

On your property, you’re basically “allowed” to be there.


Of course. At the same time, within the range of “What’s allowed”, there are many freedoms.

But remember too: land ownership is a social affair: There are 193 recognized countries on the planet, each with a reasonable level of autonomy.

Yet, there are many more unrecognized countries, holding onto their turf, seeking recognition from the larger body of countries.

That’s the closest thing to the kind of freedom you’re talking about.


For the kind of freedom you want, you might want to start off on another planet because the chances of that happening on THIS one, is nearly nil.


We do have freedom. It’s just not at the level you’re talking about, which is fantasy freedom.


I look at it this way:

You didn’t ask to be born.
You didn’t ask to be born in a society.
You didn’t ask to be born in a society with restrictions.
But you were.

Within those restrictions are freedoms however.

There’s levels of freedoms.

It’s not a mirage of freedom. What you’re talking about is a mirage of freedom because it is fantasy: it’s extraordinarily unlikely to ever actualize in the manner you want.

Real freedom is what we have available to work with.

if you want a fantasy freedom that goes beyond that, you’re better off writing it up in a Sci-Fi novel set in the future. Make it popular. Start a revolution or something.


Degrees of freedom. I can bend my fingers to type. That’s a degree of freedom. I can express my opinion here. That’s a degree of freedom.

If you analyze the amount of degrees (or dimensions) of freedom that you DO have, it’s pretty extensive.

If you want MORE, you can fight for it. Break down a wall here and there. Give yourself more freedom territory – another degree of freedom.

But this ultimate freedom you’re talking about is fictional. All we have available is many degrees of freedom.


Here’s a degree of freedom you’re exercising:

You can talk about anything in fiction. Dream about it. Plan it. Talk about it. In fiction, I can have absolute freedom. In fiction, I can be free of my body and explore the universe as a nebula.

But am I restricted because I can’t REALLY become a nebula? I suppose.



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× one = 8

Leave a Reply