Britain has voted to leave the EU

[artisticsolution]

I never thought of wanting to be 'free' as an obsession...how odd.

The cuba thing was way before gitmo...look it up.

I think you have grown accustom to your government telling you just how much freedom you should have. In my mind, freedom only works if it is for all. One can't only want one's own freedom at the exclusion of everyone elses...freedom doesn't work that way. Until people realize this, they will continue to not understand.

What I am hearing from you is the same I hear from republicans in my country. If you were here...you would totally be a republican...you just don't realize it...because you tell yourself what you think is good and you rationalize your behavior as being for 'better' reasons than the others.

The others are more like you than you realize.

Oh right. I would be a Repuplican. You seem stoned. You have no argument. And you don't make any sense. Too much gambling?

There is no argument to make. Either you want freedom or you don't. The only argument comes in how much freedom one should be allowed. You haven't even agreed that humans should be free...lol...

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with someone who thinks freedom = obsession. That's just ridicules.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I never thought of wanting to be 'free' as an obsession...how odd.

The cuba thing was way before gitmo...look it up.

I think you have grown accustom to your government telling you just how much freedom you should have. In my mind, freedom only works if it is for all. One can't only want one's own freedom at the exclusion of everyone elses...freedom doesn't work that way. Until people realize this, they will continue to not understand.

What I am hearing from you is the same I hear from republicans in my country. If you were here...you would totally be a republican...you just don't realize it...because you tell yourself what you think is good and you rationalize your behavior as being for 'better' reasons than the others.

The others are more like you than you realize.

Oh right. I would be a Repuplican. You seem stoned. You have no argument. And you don't make any sense. Too much gambling?

There is no argument to make. Either you want freedom or you don't. The only argument comes in how much freedom one should be allowed. You haven't even agreed that humans should be free...lol...

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with someone who thinks freedom = obsession. That's just ridicules.

You haven't defined what you mean by 'freedom' or how you would attain this. You haven't presented any arguments or counter-arguments. And you have used passive-aggressive insults. Do you know what irony marks are? When someone puts ' ' around a word?

[artisticsolution]

There is no argument to make. Either you want freedom or you don't. The only argument comes in how much freedom one should be allowed. You haven't even agreed that humans should be free...lol...

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with someone who thinks freedom = obsession. That's just ridicules] You want me to list every 'freedom ' a person could possibly have? That would take a lifetime.

I simply stated one main one. That the,earth belongs to all of us. It is odd to me that some of us can tell others were they can and can't go.

What argument do you want to make against this abstract idea I have presented? "Because I say so" doesn't do it for me. 'Because you're an American and your people had slaves" doesn't work for me either...try again.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is no argument to make. Either you want freedom or you don't. The only argument comes in how much freedom one should be allowed. You haven't even agreed that humans should be free...lol...

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with someone who thinks freedom = obsession. That's just ridicules] You want me to list every 'freedom ' a person could possibly have? That would take a lifetime.

I simply stated one main one. That the,earth belongs to all of us. It is odd to me that some of us can tell others were they can and can't go.

What argument do you want to make against this abstract idea I have presented? "Because I say so" doesn't do it for me. 'Because you're an American and your people had slaves" doesn't work for me either...try again.

I give up. Your only 'argument' is 'we should be allowed to do whatever we want'. That's all you say. That doesn't do it for me. It's just a meaningless sentence with nothing to back it up. If I had the 'freedom' to live anywhere I wanted to I would probably pick some tropical paradise, but it wouldn't stay a paradise for very long if everyone else had the same idea now would it? Ironically your own 'land of the free' has destroyed the freedom of the whole planet to travel where we want to.
I thought this index had a pretty good definition:

''The Index of Freedom in the World (also known as the Freedom Index or Worldwide Index of Human Freedom) is an index of civil liberties published in late 2012 by Canada's Fraser Institute, Germany's Liberales Institut, and the U.S. Cato Institute.[1]

The index is based on measures of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, individual economic choice, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, violence and crimes, freedom of movement, LGBT rights, and women's rights. Other components of the Freedom Index include human trafficking, sexual violence, female genital mutilation, homicide, freedom of movement, and adoption by homosexuals.[2]

The index rates countries on a scale from 10 (most free) to 0 (least free). In 2012, the most free countries were New Zealand (8.73), the Netherlands (8.47), and Hong Kong (8.39). Least free were Zimbabwe (3.38), Burma (3.72), and Pakistan (4.47).[3] The components on which the index is based can be divided into economic freedoms and other personal freedoms. Highest ranking in economic freedoms were Hong Kong (9.02) and Singapore (8.75). Highest ranking in personal freedoms were the Netherlands (9.5) and Uruguay (9.4).[3]

The Freedom Index does not measure democracy, but it does measure freedom of speech and media, press killings, political imprisonment, etc. According to the report, democracy may be the form of government that best protects freedom, but democracy may both increase and reduce freedom. Nevertheless, democracy strongly (0.79) correlates with freedom, as measured by the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index and the Freedom Index.[3]''

The Freedom Index is included as part of the book Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom, written by 13 academics and economists from Canada (Fraser Institute), the United States (Cato Institute, Emory University), Germany (Liberales Institut, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main), and Russia (Institute of Economic Analysis). Among other claims, the report argues that the criminalization of and the war on drugs have restricted many components of freedom.[2]

See also[edit]

[Arising_uk]

It's ridiculous. the EU is more of an encumbrance than a boon.

Hmm...better than taking lumps out of each other tho'

[Gary Childress]

You haven't defined what you mean by 'freedom' or how you would attain this. You haven't presented any arguments or counter-arguments. And you have used passive-aggressive insults. Do you know what irony marks are? When someone puts ' ' around a word?

How about this for a working definition for the moment:

Liberty = the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Freedom = the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Googled.

In any case, liberty and/or "freedom" are the most fundamental values associated with liberalism. The notion is that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit without coercion from anyone else as much as sensibly possible. Any form of coercion of one person by another must be justified and the burden of proof is on the one who would limit freedom to prove that it is justified and necessary to do so.

“By definition”, Maurice Cranston rightly points out, “a liberal is a man who believes in liberty” (1967: 459). In two different ways, liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value. (i) Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man” (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that “the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…” (1963, vol. 21: 262). Recent liberal thinkers such as as Joel Feinberg (1984: 9), Stanley Benn (1988: 87) and John Rawls (2001: 44, 112) agree. This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#NegLib

[henry quirk]

"the depth of your thinking"

One's cat dish is another's Marianas Trench.

And: if 'commie pissant' (as it pertains to Castro) offends how about 'Soviet dupe', or 'commie dictator'? How about 'big commie fish in a small pond'? How about 'murderous fuck'?

All these work for me...how about you?

[uwot]

Either you want freedom or you don't. The only argument comes in how much freedom one should be allowed.

The thing is, freedom from what? Some capitalists wanted freedom from certain European directives that ensure minimum wages and working practises, while some yokels wanted freedom from immigrants. Personally, I wanted all the positive stuff and freedom to travel in Europe, so I'm thinking of becoming Dutch again; might even move there. I also wanted freedom from the price of my house, which is under offer, potentially dropping by who knows how much. Now Scotland and Northern Ireland want freedom from England and Wales. One person's freedom is another's pain in the arse.

[Melchior]

It's ridiculous. the EU is more of an encumbrance than a boon.

Hmm...better than taking lumps out of each other tho'

Huh?

[Dubious]

Though they voted to leave it now appears they're reluctant to upon reconsideration by many. The Brits are going to draw this out for as long as possible in spite of the EU request to get it over with and start proceedings.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Either you want freedom or you don't. The only argument comes in how much freedom one should be allowed.

The thing is, freedom from what? Some capitalists wanted freedom from certain European directives that ensure minimum wages and working practises, while some yokels wanted freedom from immigrants. Personally, I wanted all the positive stuff and freedom to travel in Europe, so I'm thinking of becoming Dutch again; might even move there. I also wanted freedom from the price of my house, which is under offer, potentially dropping by who knows how much. Now Scotland and Northern Ireland want freedom from England and Wales. One person's freedom is another's pain in the arse.

True. Which is why the word means nothing unless you define exactly what you mean.

[FlashDangerpants]

Though they voted to leave it now appears they're reluctant to upon reconsideration by many. The Brits are going to draw this out for as long as possible in spite of the EU request to get it over with and start proceedings.

In our defence there, quickly has never been the EU way of doing anything before. Our current political leadership is getting the boot because they didn't represent the leave camp. When article 50 in invoked, there is a strict 2 year time frame to get the entire deal worked out (it took 7 years to work out the details of a Canadian free trade agreement and Canada trades with Europe on far fewer goods and services than the UK does, so our deal should really take about a decade to work out).

It really doesn't make sense for us to initiate the proceedings and then spend 3 months of the rapidly evaporating time frame on deciding what we are going to ask for. We would only cause a whole new worldwide market crash if we did that.

[Dubious]

Though they voted to leave it now appears they're reluctant to upon reconsideration by many. The Brits are going to draw this out for as long as possible in spite of the EU request to get it over with and start proceedings.

In our defence there, quickly has never been the EU way of doing anything before. Our current political leadership is getting the boot because they didn't represent the leave camp. When article 50 in invoked, there is a strict 2 year time frame to get the entire deal worked out (it took 7 years to work out the details of a Canadian free trade agreement and Canada trades with Europe on far fewer goods and services than the UK does, so our deal should really take about a decade to work out).

What you say is true. However there is a huge difference between working out a free trade deal between Canada and Europe (or anyone else for that matter) and the truncation of the second largest economic player in the EU. The latter causes trauma to all parties and in the case of the EU, as noted many times, they have reason to be concerned on its ramifications on the rest of the EU. When wounded you need to regenerate ASAP for both parties. But you could very easily be right in the whole process going beyond the 2 year mandate. It depends on how pernicious procrastination will be for either or both the UK and the EU in sorting it out. As already mentioned in some editorials if the hope is that the Brits retain most of the privileges they had in the EU without being part of it that would be instantly dismissed by every member of the union.

It really doesn't make sense for us to initiate the proceedings and then spend 3 months of the rapidly evaporating time frame on deciding what we are going to ask for. We would only cause a whole new worldwide market crash if we did that.

I agree. Once article 50 is invoked, which obviously can only be done by the leaving party, that's when negotiations take place and have the arguments for closure ready. In spite of its current decrepit state, the EU holds more aces than the UK in that respect. It now looks that many who voted OUT regret the choice based on implied consequences and the urge to leave for the Brits is opposite that of the Europeans who want to get it over with for good reason. Since the referendum is technically non-binding, it's still up to Parliament (as I understand it) to discuss if the vote should be acted upon especially after the 3 million signatures calling for a second referendum.

[FlashDangerpants]

If the EU were the sort of organisation that ever dealt with a problem decisively OR with speed, they would have more of my attention when requesting alacrity in this instance. But Greece wouldn't be in the Euro, Eurobonds would have existed for 10 years now, and so would internal fiscal transfers to offset interest rate imbalances if that were the case. There would also be a lot more fish still in our seas, an open market for services, and the Common Agricultural Policy would be scrapped by now.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with someone who thinks freedom = obsession. That's just ridicules]

I never said any such thing and you know it. I don't want to hijack uwot's thread, so I suppose I'll respond where the discussion was. You didn't have a point. You never defined what you meant by 'freedom' (no one ever does), and there was nothing I wrote that any normal person couldn't easily understand, and my own comprehension skills are fully intact. It's not my fault you like to talk in riddles, won't define what meaning you are giving the word, and assume others will be able to read your mind. At what point in history did your version of 'freedom' exist? Even 'abstract concepts' have to have some kind of point or logic to them. Bob likes to throw the word 'freedom' about too. I think he defines it as being able to buy any kind of gun you want, and as many as you want. Pretty cowardly btw to hijack a thread to continue a tedious, uphill 'argument' on another thread, that I thought was over with.