It means you get to choose.

The choice if you don’t like it leave it but given the other places to leave to a complainer will chose to stay where it’s comfortable.

Hypocrite!

Ah liberty it’s a good thing if you can keep it.

It's doing anything you want that doesn't result in harm to someone else. It's also a good fiddle tune and the name of my wife's granddaughter.

Here's a pretty good description, at least I think so:

the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases (within reason and without hurting others). b : freedom from physical restraint. c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control. d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.

Liberty: to be able to live as you please with the only legitimate restraints on your actions being those actions which would prevent others from living as they please. And "being able to live as you please" only means that there are no restraints on your own efforts to live as you please. It does not mean that anyone else must provide you with what you desire in order to live as you please.
Liberty exists whenever and wherever there is no Power exercised over others, and is reduced or eliminated by the degree of Power exercised over others.
Power: the ability to force others, by threat of violence, to do that which they would not, or to prevent others, through threat of violence, from doing that which they would if not restrained.

I like this Bill to a point but that’s why there are privacy fencing and rural property.

“Liberty: to be able to live as you please with the only legitimate restraints on your actions being those actions which would prevent others from living as they please.”

Unless you are a beautiful lady that has been blessed with ahem....Certain attributes Keep your curtains closed.

In a social context (that is how we all experience life) liberty is the collective freedom from tyranny and from circumstance deliberately imposed against common consent.

In the modern world an individual cannot be truly free if his or her compatriots are subject to tyranny.

Tyranny is not the presence of power; tyranny resides in who and how power is wielded.

If there is no Liberty for the individual then there is no Liberty for anyone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

If there is no Liberty for the individual then there is no Liberty for anyone.

---

Which of the following, if any, would you deem an infringement of individual liberty:

a) major highway 55mph speed limit.

b) international passport.

c) inclusion on a police DNA database.

d) compulsory motorbike helmet.

e) temporary riot 8pm-8am curfew

f) compulsory car seat belts

g) compulsory jury service

h) bar on racially offensive terms.

i) income tax

Liberty in society means that there are some restrictions on personal liberty. And through this personal liberty for more is maintained. It's the difference between liberty for me and liberty for us.

A bell with a crack in it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Bell

I use to run a metal saw that advanced the stock in exact measurements to the thousands of an inch. 

It was called the Kentucky. I can't figure out what you really call it! If it jammed up & you had to reset its brain the code was 1776!

good would be a useless word without bad to give it a reason to exist---
same goes for liberty vs enslaved---
since we are hot and heavy into the liberty holiday ,liberty in this country would have to be looked at in a percentage --it is not some 100% fact--our revolution heroes looked and made a great observation on which liberty values would fit --after they beat the brits the first time.
In a time of witch dunking ,slave holding and public hanging entertainment ,it makes on ponder at their futuristic thinking.But it was amazing and pulled off --thank goodness to them and even many times more for the ones that have bled it into this century

--"Which of the following, if any, would you deem an infringement of individual liberty:

a) major highway 55mph speed limit. * I don't own the roads, so infringement only if they enforce speed limits on my own property.

b) international passport. * No one should need a passport or need permission to leave or re-enter their OWN country. But we should abide by the laws of countries which we visit.

c) inclusion on a police DNA database. * Huge violation of privacy, can only lead to abuses.

d) compulsory motorbike helmet. * Not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.

e) temporary riot 8pm-8am curfew * Not infringement for a specific place and specific time due to a specific event only. But no general curfew should ever be tolerated.

f) compulsory car seat belts * Not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.

g) compulsory jury service * Any forced service is infringement.

h) bar on racially offensive terms. * When and where and how? Context matters. Words are expressions of thought. Not the government's job to decide which thoughts are allowed. But shouting insults is beyond "words".

i) income tax * That one will have to wait for another time.

Thanks for your answers.

We opened up our squirrel guns
And gave ‘em Bunker Hill

We set them free

True liberty would be not knowing you have it.

No liberty is having to name it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

... Which of the following, if any, would you deem an infringement of individual liberty:

a) major highway 55mph speed limit.

b) international passport.

c) inclusion on a police DNA database.

d) compulsory motorbike helmet.

e) temporary riot 8pm-8am curfew

f) compulsory car seat belts

g) compulsory jury service

h) bar on racially offensive terms.

i) income tax

---

... making lists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrphysics55

... making lists.

---

Haha that made me laugh. I'm not usually a fan of lists either. I was just trying to establish what Bill considers are reasonable checks (if any) on his idea of liberty.

Can we sensibly refer to liberty when we have created a world of frontiers where we can’t autonomously and spontaneously go, live or work anywhere we choose?

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

>d) compulsory motorbike helmet. * Not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.<

---

Beyond the general truism that no-one likes being told what to do, the reason you give is interesting.

I agree that it's not a government's 'job' to 'protect us from ourselves'. But any individual or body has a responsibility to ensure they use knowledge to minimise preventable harm. We could argue that would be a public campaign to communicate the data on motorcyclist head injury and survivability with and without wearing a helmet. Then, possessed of that knowledge, we get to choose how we act.

But there is a significant - collective - additional medical and welfare cost for multiple cases of treatment for serious head injury and ongoing long-term disability support when motorcyclists survive but lose functioning capacity.

Therefore, within a community with diverse need and finite resources, isn't the real crux not a perceived 'nannying role' of government to 'protect us from ourselves' but a government's responsibility to use finite resources efficiently and fairly and our individual responsibility not to place avoidable burden on or deny our fellow citizen's treatment needs?

Consider yourself not part of a community and the responsibility diminishes. But we cannot ignore that we are fundamentally and by definition part of a community.

Liberty is doing whatever one wants to do in accordance with the law.

What about when a law is enacted (without our explicit consent) that we have reason to feel infringes our personal liberty?

PARTIAL quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

 

"Consider yourself not part of a community and the responsibility diminishes. But we cannot ignore that we are fundamentally and by definition part of a community."

 

---

Lumpty-bump years ago, I read an essay where the Author wrote about the AMERICAN IDEAL of the Rugged Individual, alone against the wilderness, with just his axe and his rifle.

And the author asked ABOUT the axe and the rifle:

Who made them?

And even if the Rugged Individual made his own axe and rifle, who made the tools with which he made his axe and rifle?

His point seemed to be that, like it or not, humans are (by and large) social beings, interdependent.

And then there was the college lecture one of my sisters heard, where the guy said that ONE person on an otherwise uninhabited island is totally free. But if there are TWO people on the island, then they MUST take some notice of where they poop and where they step. And THAT would be the start of RULES.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

PARTIAL quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

 

"Consider yourself not part of a community and the responsibility diminishes. But we cannot ignore that we are fundamentally and by definition part of a community."

 

---

Lumpty-bump years ago, I read an essay where the Author wrote about the AMERICAN IDEAL of the Rugged Individual, alone against the wilderness, with just his axe and his rifle.

And the author asked ABOUT the axe and the rifle:

Who made them?

And even if the Rugged Individual made his own axe and rifle, who made the tools with which he made his axe and rifle?

His point seemed to be that, like it or not, humans are (by and large) social beings, interdependent.

And then there was the college lecture one of my sisters heard, where the guy said that ONE person on an otherwise uninhabited island is totally free. But if there are TWO people on the island, then they MUST take some notice of where they poop and where they step. And THAT would be the start of RULES.

 

 

---

Yes. 

The ability to decide for ones self n act on thos decisions...

General rules of not infringing on others applys...

It may be safe to say that liberty means differnt things to differnt people..