Watching Gold Rush, yah, you guessed it, my government is a bunch of losers.

[timshufflin]

I believe you have to have some standards set to actually be negligent. If there were no regs or guidelines to follow there would only be chaos. You can't live in a society without laws. People are inherently bad, give most a chance to do the wrong thing and they will do it. You want total freedom? The answer is to completely withdraw from society. I doubt you complain about the other restrictions to your freedom on the road... those pesky speed limits!

Even the Founding Fathers had rules in place to govern.

I don't know how many people I have to say this too but here goes again. I'm not saying I want anarchy, what I want is freedom so long as your freedom does not infringe on another. It's really a simple concept to grasp. When I'm on a road, I don't own the road so that's what I call a strawman argument. My argument was specifically for a person who owns their own business on their own land and invites someone to come and work there.

Under this situation, NOBODY has their freedoms infringed upon by following or not following some stupid government regulation. If the Schnabels are mining gold, and they hit someone with a steam shovel, that person had their freedom violated and a law suit is in order. If the Schnabels are mining gold, and someone steps into a hole not guarded with a warning, the law will again have the answer.

The regulations that my inept government makes up to solve for another law that already exists is laughable. You all already know this though don't you? Repetitive gun laws are a prime example.

I can assure you all that the founding fathers would NOT have had a law to tell someone how to run a mine on their own property. Heck they wouldn't have even taxed it!

[cuppednlocked]

Ok then, if you own the land you can do what you want as long as no one else is infringed upon. To a certain degree I agree with you.

Hunting seasons are dictated by the govt. They tell you how and what you can do on your own property. At what point should your use be restricted for the common good? Should you be free to eliminate every animal from your property? Animals don't know property lines. The animals from your neighbor wonder onto your land... and you kill them too. Now your freedom has infringed upon your neighbor.

What if you don't own the land? Getting back to the thread, I don't know if the Schnabels own their claim or lease it. I know the Huffman's lost theirs to Dakota Fred because they missed a lease payment. The owner would have to dictate what policies are in place. Once that happens the system of control is now in place.

I agree that the govt is far too involved in daily life, and politicians establish laws because the average Joe is "too dumb" to think for themselves.

What you seek is impossible in society. The nature of living within a group of people is that certain "freedoms" are given up for the common good. You are supposed to have the liberty to make your own decisions within the social context.

Adams addressed the need for and the role of govt:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.

John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

I think people should be concerned not for "freedom" per se, but rather "liberty" to be safe from tyrannical govt, religious persecution, etc. The two things do not necessarily mean the same thing. We have the freedom to try and change the govt to fit society. Unfortunately the people "we" put in office in our recent history have a different direction than you or I have.

[KnickKnack]

I have been a firefighter for 40 years. When I first started, I already knew where my helmet, canvas coat and rubber hip boots were kept on the truck. I knew that you put water on the fire and eventually it would go out. I was taught how to do this all safely by guys that had "been there, done that" and learned from their mistakes. Some had been taught by the Government, via their time in the Navy. But we had no regulations. We did have Government instructors available if we wished to use them. Other then smoke inhalation and a few minor burns once in awhile, none of our guys got seriously hurt or killed. Those from other fire departments that had been burnt learned fast not to do that stupid things again and were quick to tell others of their mistakes. Now, we have tons of OSHA training that is repetitive each year and takes time away from our actual firefighting training. Much of what is in the training does not even apply to us and is boring. I have yet to see a video or a piece of paper protect a life. I can assure you that 95% of the people who take this training go away feeling the same way as when they entered the room. Either they will act in a safe manner or they won't. It's personal choice and responsibility. You can't change people with a Government program. All you can do with that is make the Government richer and bigger. Each year, the standards and regulations changed, based on one incident or because some manufacturer needs to sell more stuff. For example, we all used to wear our helmets in the truck while on the way to a fire. Now the standard is that they must be secured, because one "may" fly off in an accident and hurt someone else. So we either have to put them in already overcrowded equipment compartments, or buy special brackets that cost $200 each. A new standard that just came out says that any helmet over 10 years old must be replaced. Doesn't matter if it even went to a real fire or not. It has to be trashed and you have to buy a new one. Helmets aren't cheap either. My first leather helmet had been in the fire department for probably 20 or more years and it worked just fine. And it didn't weigh a ton like the new ones do with all the crap they've added to them in the name of "safety". I know it's the same with other items, like safety harnesses and breathing apparatus bottles. Stupidity and no common sense is the rule now. More time and money is spent on trying to comply with all the regulations then it is on actual equipment and meaningful training.

[KnickKnack]

Ok then, if you own the land you can do what you want as long as no one else is infringed upon. To a certain degree I agree with you.

Hunting seasons are dictated by the govt. They tell you how and what you can do on your own property. At what point should your use be restricted for the common good? Should you be free to eliminate every animal from your property? Animals don't know property lines. The animals from your neighbor wonder onto your land... and you kill them too. Now your freedom has infringed upon your neighbor.

What if you don't own the land? Getting back to the thread, I don't know if the Schnabels own their claim or lease it. I know the Huffman's lost theirs to Dakota Fred because they missed a lease payment. The owner would have to dictate what policies are in place. Once that happens the system of control is now in place.

I agree that the govt is far too involved in daily life, and politicians establish laws because the average Joe is "too dumb" to think for themselves.

What you seek is impossible in society. The nature of living within a group of people is that certain "freedoms" are given up for the common good. You are supposed to have the liberty to make your own decisions within the social context.

Adams addressed the need for and the role of govt:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.

John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

I think people should be concerned not for "freedom" per se, but rather "liberty" to be safe from tyrannical govt, religious persecution, etc. The two things do not necessarily mean the same thing. We have the freedom to try and change the govt to fit society. Unfortunately the people "we" put in office in our recent history have a different direction than you or I have.

What Adams was talking about here was that Government should exist to protect the People, and the Government is the People. Therefore, in times of need, the People should come together for their common protection and decide their course of action. He also is addressing the fact that no one man, such as a King or Governor, should profit from the formation of the Government. I am sure that he would not agree that a man cannot do what he likes on his own property. Remember, they were defying a tyranical Goverment and forming a new one. They believed that when Government interferes with man's freedoms and liberties, then the People have the right to form a new Government, not just change the old one. There comes a point when "change" is not enough. And Adams is saying that that point is when a man, or group of men, profits from the existing Government at the expense of the other People. He was not advocating Socialism here. He was justifying the overthrowing of the old Government and the establishment of a new one, at the expence of all he owned, including his life, if necessary.

[cuppednlocked]

I'm not trying to say that we need big govt, only that there are responsibilities that the feds have taken upon themselves to mandate.

Take what Adams said any way you want, but the fact is the govt is there to support and protect the people. It does not matter if federal or state. Living within a society restricts "freedom" to a certain degree. It's a simple social concept. There is a common good that everyone agrees to (certain set of laws, etc that helps regulate the citizens).

Have things gotten out of hand? Yes, they have.

[timshufflin]

Ok then, if you own the land you can do what you want as long as no one else is infringed upon. To a certain degree I agree with you.

Hunting seasons are dictated by the govt. They tell you how and what you can do on your own property. At what point should your use be restricted for the common good? Should you be free to eliminate every animal from your property? Animals don't know property lines. The animals from your neighbor wonder onto your land... and you kill them too. Now your freedom has infringed upon your neighbor.

Didn't you just answer for me? This is exactly correct. If you kill all the game available in an area, you have infringed upon your neighbors game getting abiliity. This is a PERFECT example of a SINGLE item the the government has a role in. Add water and air usage to the mix and we are getting to about the ONLY things the government has a role in.

if you don't own the land? Getting back to the thread, I don't know if the Schnabels own their claim or lease it. I know the Huffman's lost theirs to Dakota Fred because they missed a lease payment. The owner would have to dictate what policies are in place. Once that happens the system of control is now in place.

If the owner of the land says you can control the land than there is no discussion. The owner of the land has used his freedom to make a profit by renting his land to let you make a profit. This pesky freedom thing really is a simple concept. Just try to think in terms of the nose on your face. If someone is not hurting your nose, it is probably not infringing upon you.

I agree that the govt is far too involved in daily life, and politicians establish laws because the average Joe is "too dumb" to think for themselves.

What you seek is impossible in society. The nature of living within a group of people is that certain "freedoms" are given up for the common good. You are supposed to have the liberty to make your own decisions within the social context.

Wrong, the average Joe is NOT so stupid as to not think for themselves. It is the Nanny's among us, who just can't resist thinking for the average Joe, that are STUPID. What I am seeking is NOT impossible and it did exist before. This situation existed, in its finest form, at the onset of this country's founding. It has gone down hill every single day since then because some of us think that it is okay to worry about what our neighbor is doing with their own property or body;
1. My neighbor is having sex for money oh my
2. My neighbor is drinking booze oh my
3. My neighbor is taking cocaine oh my
4. My neighbor is digging a giant hole oh my
5. My neighbor is hunting on Sunday oh my
6. My neighbor is walking naked in their home oh my
7. My neighbor is using profanity oh my
8. My neighbor has an old car parked on their property oh my
9. My neighbor owns a lot of guns oh my

It is the constant Nanny type, no good, sissy reflex, nerd in high school, can't take care of my own problems, mentality that has taken us from a more pure place to this terrible terrible place we are in now. LEAVE YOUR NEIGHBORS ALONE. If you don't like what your neighbor is doing, DON'T LOOK AT THEM. Unless you can smell them, feel them, hear them, or taste them, STAY OUT of your neighbors business!

Adams addressed the need for and the role of govt:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.

John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

I think people should be concerned not for "freedom" per se, but rather "liberty" to be safe from tyrannical govt, religious persecution, etc. The two things do not necessarily mean the same thing. We have the freedom to try and change the govt to fit society. Unfortunately the people "we" put in office in our recent history have a different direction than you or I have.

I have not one single departure from Adams said. The reason the people "we" put in office go down the road they have is because people CAN'T mind their own business! LEAVE YOUR neighbors alone. Is this not simple to do? Quit worrying about what religion, color, activities that don't affect you, who could get hurt, or anything about what your neighbor is doing. If your neighbor kills themselves, so what? If they kill someone else on their property, so what? The law will sort this out if someone's rights have been violated and it is not up to some worry wart sissy to incrementally strip us all of our personal freedoms in the name of safety.

If you worry about what your neighbor/local business/local church does, even though it hasn't hurt you, you are part of the problem.

Lastly, I completely disagree with the statement "people are inherently bad". I am a conservative and conservatives do not hold true to that liberal value. We hold it true that people are inherently GOOD. Leave people alone and they will act in their self interest which, more times than not, will benefit someone else. Russel Kirk covers this value very well in the book "The Conservative Mind".

[canes7]

There will never be a shortage of Nannys that are more than willing to judge and impose their will on you.

That how we got where we are today. Perfect example is prohibition.

[Punch The Clown]

WTH is with this time-out BS?

If I take longer than 2 sec. to post it times out. Does not make it easyt to be very verbose.

If you're on a roll use notepad and then copy and paste. Gets around some of those pesky forums with that 2 second rule crap. Free men don't need a 2 second rule. Just more infringement on my rights.

[canes7]

If you're on a roll use notepad and then copy and paste. Gets around some of those pesky forums with that 2 second rule crap. Free men don't need a 2 second rule. Just more infringement on my rights.

Yep. I've been on a roll lately, not that anyone would know (except my wife).

[cuppednlocked]

I'm too tired to reply in line but yes, I did answer for you regarding the game laws as you did for me. All I am trying to say is that there IS a place for some govt control and not this notion of absolute "freedom". It is Pandora's Box.

If more people worried about what was happening in their own world and less about what someone else was doing the world would be much simpler.

I'm not sure if I stated things the best way but I was trying to say the politicians believe the people are too stupid to make decisions and they need to establish laws because they don't think "we" are smart enough.

Regarding inherently good vs bad: I feel most people in the world, if put in the correct circumstance, would do wrong. That does not mean more control is necessary. Right vs wrong is a subjective measure based on personal beliefs. I'm not talking about people acting in their own best interest. We are survivors, it is in our nature to act in our own best interest.

Doing the wrong thing is easy... those types do not work hard at doing the right/good thing. It takes effort to stay the course. I really believe that the majority of Americans will take the easy way out (handouts, bailouts, etc) and are not willing to make the sacrifices and go without because they feel entitled for some reason. You call them the Nanny's, I call them the "not fair crowd". Invariably you will hear a soundbite where they mention something about "not being fair".

Those are the one's you need to look out for. The nation is on a dangerous path with more people wanting something for nothing.

I guess I am hung up on the fact you keep referring to these "laws" that will be in place that will sort out various situations. If govt only has a role in several small areas (game, air, and water rights) how can society be constructed to protect those infringed upon?