Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
it's comical how some people like to take some terms and turn them in to singular definitions, with no possibility of any other alternative. This is sometimes called 'extremism'.
|
I imagine one would find comical the position of many without fully understanding it or desiring a clarification or qualification.
Quote:
|
'Absolute' doesn't mean 'anarchy' unless it's defined by someone that doesn't care to recognize personal responsibility. Absolute freedom has always come with responsibilities, generally not to cause harm to any other person. It's been this way since the time of the founding fathers, yet lately gets misconstrued in order to promote a statist society......the belief that government MUST legislate behavior lest we fall in to a state of lawlessness and disorder.
|
Personal responsibly does not need to be taken into account within the concept of absolute freedom. With absolute freedom, personal responsibility is optional.
What you're talking about is another matter, not absolute freedom, and it predates the time of America's founding fathers by at least several decades, if not centuries. Could you provide any examples of specific ideas that imply that freedom and liberty exist outside of the state and state authority, one that you'd subscribe to?
I mean, why form a government at all?
Are you talking about Kant's categorical imperative? Buddhism's Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path?