Philosopher questioned "strange" free will measure in science paper + Lee McIntyre

[confused2]

Years ago I was of the opinion that everyone should have freedom limited by the constraint that it should not interfere with the the freedom of anyone else. It was close to 'Love is the law and shall be the whole of the law' (I was much younger then). Many years later and after a few battles won and many more lost I am too drained to judge whether it was even a principle worth fighting for.
Any comments?

[Syne]

You probably have to have the wherewithal to fight your own battles (armed citizens) to truly appreciate how much you've lost.

[C C]

Years ago I was of the opinion that everyone should have freedom limited by the constraint that it should not interfere with the the freedom of anyone else. It was close to 'Love is the law and shall be the whole of the law' (I was much younger then). Many years later and after a few battles won and many more lost I am too drained to judge whether it was even a principle worth fighting for.
Any comments?

Borders on sounding familiar.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." --Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

"Any alleged right of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, isn’t and can’t be a right." --The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, Ayn Rand

[Syne]

Borders on sounding familiar. 

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." --Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

"Any alleged right of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, isn’t and can’t be a right." --The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, Ayn Rand

That's exactly why the US Constitution only enshrines negative rights, which do not levy any obligation on others to provide, but rather only oblige people not to act against each other. These are opposed to the left's penchant for positive rights, such as universal, single-payer healthcare and free college, which not only rely on productive members of society to provide the funding for others, but also obligate the direct providers themselves to do for another, as a unquestionable right, rather than in fair trade for their own benefit.

[confused2]

You probably have to have the wherewithal to fight your own battles (armed citizens) to truly appreciate how much you've lost.

Yep, I've seen the same film. The Indians circle sending burning arrows into the homestead while the heroes pick off the Indians with their Winchester rifles.

In the UK the real psychopaths get locked up for killing (hopefully) someone else and disputes are more about territory and whether or not you intend to call the police. In thirty years in the city I only called the police once - they did nothing. I could have stopped what happenned next but chose not to. The local police went with- 'what goes around comes around'. Hardly a win but at least Karma was on my side.

[Syne]

That's an obvious lie when the UK has things unheard of in the US, like "glassings" (broken bottle used as potentially lethal weapon often enough to need a name for it) and making carrying table cutlery a crime. Where US citizens in free states enjoy lower crime rates due to criminals knowing the likelihood of someone shooting back, we don't have to just "hope" we don't become a victim, we can be proactive in ensuring our own safety, augmenting the police. You know, preventing deaths, instead of only locking up people after they've already killed.

But hey, sounds like you've made your peace with it possibly coming around to you one day.

[Ostronomos]

Citizens of the US far exceed the rest of the world by being given the right to bear arms. It is a God given right that grants them the freedom to protect their property. However arguably guns and the mentally unstable are never a good mix. But we must be sure to use them responsibly.