You are so on point with this post. Scarcity is an illusion. There is enough. If we would give to the capacity that we are capable of giving and lay our selfish habits and lifestyle aside, people all over the world would be able to live a better quality of life. Let us all wake up and be courageous in knowing that there is enough for us all. If nature can reproduce food continually with out getting paid a dime nor does nature look for anything in return, people can give more. Thank you soooo much for this post @clayboyn
Beware of freedom. It's too dangerous. I'm more referenced and quoted than some famous writers out there, thanks to people here on Steemit. The thing is, they don't mention me, but my arguments, and it has becomed annoying. I don't care for your attitude girl, dude, if you used, iyo, "my mistake" to gain some being clever points. In a positively negativiley wa people just want to state their disaggrement with me and everytime make some presumptions of me being guilty on the particular matter and they usually limit their observations on some common’s people perception of “freedom”.
“Liberty” is the power to act and express oneself according to one’s will while “freedom” is the power to decide one’s actions.
“Freedom” is a more concrete concept than “liberty” which is more associated with an individual’s connection with the state rather than with other individuals and circumstances.
So, basically, @fyrst has the liberty in his mind to shoot me with a machine gun. Boom! But he doesn't have freedom to do that. Your poem is based on mistaken terms if you are striking at the state or the law. Liberty is the state of mind. Freedom is always relevant to the state and law affairs. You have liberty to smoke some weed, but you don't have freedom to do that in some countries. Same applies to everything else. In most cases you have both liberty and freedom. But people think, just because my username is freedomnation, I'm a libertarian. Wrong. I’m being called “wandering hitler of vienna or steemit, don’t recall” because I mentioned that fool in my brief history of freedom where it is always connected to the state progress.
I’m looking at freedom as “middle server” or “transmitter” of current societas opinions on what is liberal to do. Freedom acts as a transmitter to the legislative institutions to grant that liberty – a freedom! And finally, there is a state that preserves that freedom/liberty in a way according to law using police force and army if it's needed.
For a more easier example, if all of Steemit nation considered liberal for Fyrst to shoot me with the machine gun, legislative power of the nation would need to consider that matter inside the assembly. Liberty of shooting me would then need to pass the law with majority needed. Is it 51% to 49% or 2/3 etc voters it depends on the level of particular matter… After the law is passed. The liberty of shooting me is now de facto granted to Fyrst but he can’t shoot me yet until the law is ratified again by the constitution assembly and commons assembly which varies in many countries.
When it finally reaches the level of being written in the the specific law codification: criminal & justice, material, family law, property etc. And the law is exactly published with all it's articles in the national journal of internal affairs then, congratulations, – Fyrst can shoot me with a machine gun without any consequences and what's more to celebrate is the fact that he finally has got he’s personal liberty combined with:
FREEDOM – THE STATE OF BEING ABLE TO ACT OR DO SOMETHING WITHOUT SUFFERING THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AFTER THAT ACT IS LEGALLY CONSIDERED DONE/FINISHED!
Because everything we do, even this typing is an activity, and is secured by rights and law.
I'm done with freedom, thank you people for reading. There is so much to discuss about it, maybe next time. But they call my stuff "yunk", so I guess no one would not like to hear about some ancient Persian celestial freedom perceptions and how Roman plebs fought for centuries for a piece of freedom, electorate to lose it all in the end. How my country became independent in 2006, achieving the greatest level of freedom. The whole nation becoming free from the other country jurisdictions and interference.
Thus - Freedomnation. Thanks you.
Oh, you sure you don't want to talk about Aztecs slavery freedom instance and Ming-dynasty lesbian marriages? Haha. :)
Live through deeds of love, and let others live with understanding for each person's unique intentions.
Another novel, sorry if being pretentious and rude. I'm on vacation from now on, see you, best wishes! @clayboyn
Are you trolling now, could you elaborate, and why exactly would we need to aggree over something, just to feel satisfied we didn't have to talk about it ? It's a debate. You ignited it with the poem, defend your position. :) The UN 1966 Rights Covenant on Civil and Political Rights created laws through rights and vice-versa - that never exsisted in the countries applying, because they needed to ratify them first as rights then as laws for to be accepted as the UN members. This is the example of how law-rights generator carries the balance of justice and interactions between citizens/people/humans or companies/industries/countries. If you want lawless country or society, there are plenty around the world. I didn't learn this stuff from books coming from those places, though I wish it will change someday. Have you ever watched the english parliament debates and speaches? There cannot be middle ground between too many people on matters that are threatening to destabilize international law, and through it - the common sense to which international population is adapting quickly and starting to go beyond the previously limited trading, ideas, ideals... I don't believe that laws give us rights. I know that rights gave us laws and vice-versa sometimes. Restriction you are mentioning, well, the posibillity of the endlessnes of violation the particular law would lead to chaos. Also - laws are the restrictions, but every law must state exactly to which extent those restrictions go and what for example is self-defence violation. yunking, again.
My thoughts are that without any of the governments or powers in play restricting rights, they don't need to create laws giving you permission to live. The only law that needs to exist is to not hinder another persons right to exist freely. The illusion that a piece of paper telling you it's okay to own a gun or it's wrong to shoot someone with it is all kind of arbitrary don't you think? You either will or wont get a gun and you will or wont shoot someone with it regardless of what a piece of paper says, it's called morality. You either believe in taking someone's free will away from them or you don't. Laws that claim to give you rights is just a piece of paper saying "hey we give you permission to exist, carry on." Well thank you governor, but I didn't need your permission to exist, you didn't create me and you don't control me. That's my perspective at least.
I don't know where you live but enjoy your free-will and existance without fear, bro. Hinting at the morality and existance, but I had to read this multiple times to realize it makes less sense and it's just a rebellion. Cheers!
You are so on point with this post. Scarcity is an illusion. There is enough. If we would give to the capacity that we are capable of giving and lay our selfish habits and lifestyle aside, people all over the world would be able to live a better quality of life. Let us all wake up and be courageous in knowing that there is enough for us all. If nature can reproduce food continually with out getting paid a dime nor does nature look for anything in return, people can give more. Thank you soooo much for this post @clayboyn
Some veils were meant to be lifted, others were meant to be burnt away with the fire of kindness and compassion.
So true @clayboyn.
You really need some beats for this, good stuff, maybe a collaboration on steemit?
@mrslauren did this:
https://steemit.com/creativcomp/@mrslauren/steemit-red-pill-rap-spoken-word-poetry-rendition
Thanks for sharing this nice poetry
wish you a great day
You too pal!
Congratulations @clayboyn! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPFreedom is a state of mind! This is a point
This is very good. Resonates....
Resteeming
Beware of freedom. It's too dangerous. I'm more referenced and quoted than some famous writers out there, thanks to people here on Steemit. The thing is, they don't mention me, but my arguments, and it has becomed annoying. I don't care for your attitude girl, dude, if you used, iyo, "my mistake" to gain some being clever points. In a positively negativiley wa people just want to state their disaggrement with me and everytime make some presumptions of me being guilty on the particular matter and they usually limit their observations on some common’s people perception of “freedom”.
“Liberty” is the power to act and express oneself according to one’s will while “freedom” is the power to decide one’s actions.
“Freedom” is a more concrete concept than “liberty” which is more associated with an individual’s connection with the state rather than with other individuals and circumstances.
So, basically, @fyrst has the liberty in his mind to shoot me with a machine gun. Boom! But he doesn't have freedom to do that. Your poem is based on mistaken terms if you are striking at the state or the law. Liberty is the state of mind. Freedom is always relevant to the state and law affairs. You have liberty to smoke some weed, but you don't have freedom to do that in some countries. Same applies to everything else. In most cases you have both liberty and freedom. But people think, just because my username is freedomnation, I'm a libertarian. Wrong. I’m being called “wandering hitler of vienna or steemit, don’t recall” because I mentioned that fool in my brief history of freedom where it is always connected to the state progress.
I’m looking at freedom as “middle server” or “transmitter” of current societas opinions on what is liberal to do. Freedom acts as a transmitter to the legislative institutions to grant that liberty – a freedom! And finally, there is a state that preserves that freedom/liberty in a way according to law using police force and army if it's needed.
For a more easier example, if all of Steemit nation considered liberal for Fyrst to shoot me with the machine gun, legislative power of the nation would need to consider that matter inside the assembly. Liberty of shooting me would then need to pass the law with majority needed. Is it 51% to 49% or 2/3 etc voters it depends on the level of particular matter… After the law is passed. The liberty of shooting me is now de facto granted to Fyrst but he can’t shoot me yet until the law is ratified again by the constitution assembly and commons assembly which varies in many countries.
When it finally reaches the level of being written in the the specific law codification: criminal & justice, material, family law, property etc. And the law is exactly published with all it's articles in the national journal of internal affairs then, congratulations, – Fyrst can shoot me with a machine gun without any consequences and what's more to celebrate is the fact that he finally has got he’s personal liberty combined with:
FREEDOM – THE STATE OF BEING ABLE TO ACT OR DO SOMETHING WITHOUT SUFFERING THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AFTER THAT ACT IS LEGALLY CONSIDERED DONE/FINISHED!
Because everything we do, even this typing is an activity, and is secured by rights and law.
I'm done with freedom, thank you people for reading. There is so much to discuss about it, maybe next time. But they call my stuff "yunk", so I guess no one would not like to hear about some ancient Persian celestial freedom perceptions and how Roman plebs fought for centuries for a piece of freedom, electorate to lose it all in the end. How my country became independent in 2006, achieving the greatest level of freedom. The whole nation becoming free from the other country jurisdictions and interference.
Thus - Freedomnation. Thanks you.
Oh, you sure you don't want to talk about Aztecs slavery freedom instance and Ming-dynasty lesbian marriages? Haha. :)
Another novel, sorry if being pretentious and rude. I'm on vacation from now on, see you, best wishes! @clayboyn
If you honestly believe laws give rights and not restrict them then we aren't going to ever reach a middle ground of understanding.
Are you trolling now, could you elaborate, and why exactly would we need to aggree over something, just to feel satisfied we didn't have to talk about it ? It's a debate. You ignited it with the poem, defend your position. :) The UN 1966 Rights Covenant on Civil and Political Rights created laws through rights and vice-versa - that never exsisted in the countries applying, because they needed to ratify them first as rights then as laws for to be accepted as the UN members. This is the example of how law-rights generator carries the balance of justice and interactions between citizens/people/humans or companies/industries/countries. If you want lawless country or society, there are plenty around the world. I didn't learn this stuff from books coming from those places, though I wish it will change someday. Have you ever watched the english parliament debates and speaches? There cannot be middle ground between too many people on matters that are threatening to destabilize international law, and through it - the common sense to which international population is adapting quickly and starting to go beyond the previously limited trading, ideas, ideals... I don't believe that laws give us rights. I know that rights gave us laws and vice-versa sometimes. Restriction you are mentioning, well, the posibillity of the endlessnes of violation the particular law would lead to chaos. Also - laws are the restrictions, but every law must state exactly to which extent those restrictions go and what for example is self-defence violation. yunking, again.
My thoughts are that without any of the governments or powers in play restricting rights, they don't need to create laws giving you permission to live. The only law that needs to exist is to not hinder another persons right to exist freely. The illusion that a piece of paper telling you it's okay to own a gun or it's wrong to shoot someone with it is all kind of arbitrary don't you think? You either will or wont get a gun and you will or wont shoot someone with it regardless of what a piece of paper says, it's called morality. You either believe in taking someone's free will away from them or you don't. Laws that claim to give you rights is just a piece of paper saying "hey we give you permission to exist, carry on." Well thank you governor, but I didn't need your permission to exist, you didn't create me and you don't control me. That's my perspective at least.
I came here to help out but that was a waste of your time, the person is going in circles, TBH.
Common sense is lost on some people, forget the terms and the jargon...... just common sense.
I don't know where you live but enjoy your free-will and existance without fear, bro. Hinting at the morality and existance, but I had to read this multiple times to realize it makes less sense and it's just a rebellion. Cheers!
Right! now I can't stop thinking about all of these
I couldn't agree more with all of those things above
dude you got me speechless :D!
:) I don't work for the pharmaceutical industry, I just manufacture red pills.
Do you love anarchy? The image is very cool: Anarchy + Love = Beautiful Chaos ;)
I love freedom. :) Love is freedom is anarchy. I am my own moral compass and decide what I believe is "right."
I'm a Libertarian and I love freedom too wohoo 😍🗽
Your poetry is influenced by the utopian era.
Change the thoughts and change the world.