Freedom

Ello

This is a false dichotomy

The argument is that slandering someone violates their freedom, but that thought process isn't too different from saying hate speech violates the freedom of minorities

In New York VS Ferber the ACLU pushed for child pornography to be protected under the 1st amendment. I for one argue that it does not fall under thr 1st amendment and the Supreme Court agreed. But that is a limitation of freedom to some extent correct?

>aclu

Freedom

The ACLU pushes for child porn to be protected under the first admendment

If I must choose, security because you can't exercise any rights or liberties if you're dead

wtf

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Security definitely

fellas better debate topic should we just get rid of new york

Civilization and the higher values/principles of society are based on the foundation of power, violence, and security. First you must establish a stable order where there is one dominant force who rules and then people living under this dominion may develop sophisticated ideals

In other words, freedom depends on security.

As bad as it sounds that's true snake.

wanting more freedom nowadays is translated to "ME WANT MORE DOPAMINE"

Wanting more vs defending what we have.

^

100% pure freedom is anarchy. And in my opinion anarchy is a perfect society that can not truely exist in a imperfect world.

Is there justice in a anarchist society?

probs some wild west tier shit

But is there truely justice without due process?

Hey losers

100% I value my security more than freedom.

Ah ha! A opposed opinion.

When people talk about freedom in a libertarian context they're really talking about the right to own property and use it how they see fit (without government interference)

No when lolberts talk about it they mean consensual pedohpilia

if I use my property to rape kids, is it good?

The irony being that to do so requires the maintain of a social order which respects property rights

@Swiss Cheese. No of course not.

LIBERTARIAN SPOTED

To have this requires a dominant force having a monopoly over a territory and securing a united social order

All these abstract concepts that mean nothing 😔

muh rights

muh freedoms

After all, you need a mechanism to ensure that a socialist power doesn't rise and abolish those property rights

Law and Order is required.

And putting *muh* before something is not a valid argument.