[SteveM]

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest


"Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities."

[jeffkrol]

If every dollar paid to a rich person was freely given (like people lining up at a rock concert or to buy the latest Windows or iPad), then millions have voted to reward them their wealth, I am happy for them.

I don't become resentful that I'm not rich, and I certainly don't blame them for making me less rich. Ask for help by all means if you need it in an emergency and nearly everyone will step up to do so, but let us not live as if others are in control of our happiness and success. No one owes us a living. Focusing on the character flaws of the wealthy is besides the point. If they were criminals they should be prosecuted; no one is arguing against that. Yes criminals can be rich, but being rich is not criminal.

Neither do I but I've seen too many times where they "look down" upon their fellow man..and for every winner there is a loser..sure you can give them your dollars freely for an ipad.. all the while ignoring the conditions used to create that product.. or the resources lost.. ect.. but that is a bit beside the point..One of the greatest blessings of being poor and self sufficient.. you don't make others suffer..well , as much... (we all have some skin in the game)

Not focusing on the character flaws is like not focusing on a dictator.. who rewards some, massacres others..and praising the good while ignoring the bad

Economics IS power.. equal (and greater in the sense it is not tied to a gov.) to gov. yet w/ no moral compass.. It is not just "stuff".. but lives attached to the making of the stuff.. and the society providing the environment to make the stuff and sell the stuff...

Unfortunately considering all the ramifications and legislating against it is also counter productive...

and yes I judge the rich at a slightly higher scale of character than the poor due to that very fact..
Like saying your neighbor was a petty thief in his youth but you judge him/her as a good person BUT would you vote for him? Would society accept him??
Would you allow him to be your banker??
would you give him/her power over you?? We always judge those in power to a higher degree. be it political or financial.

Take a simple example of a rich rock star who treats his "minions" poorly.. Many would walk away except that 1)their welfare depends on them 2)there may be side things (i.e fellow workers/environment) that make it "tolerable" ect.. so yes in my mind he has semi-free will to stay there..One can't just abandon their livelihood on a whim because of a jerk.. They have responsibilities (btw: responsibility is almost opposite of "free will") .......

I've known plenty of nice rich people.. most of whom recognize the fact "they didn't build it themselves"....
I've known nice rich people who have done not so nice things.. but at least know what they did,,
I've known those who thought of themselves as nice.. yet the mirror wouldn't show that..... most thought they were nice by their "charitable giving" which usually also involved a big ego stroke for them (naming things, free perks, which of course they "paid for", not to mention the toadys who line up and the prestige showered on them by society)

Give me a rich person who also paid for a ticket to his own event.....now THAT is nice.. and rare if ever.
May seem like a small thing Give thousands or millions but get a free $100 ticket.. Seems silly but really is it???? Isn't the "kings box" just more stroking????

i know it's complicated.. and I certainly don't begrudge an honest wage for honest work (what ever the scale) but really isn't enough enough?? When does it go past honest to just gluttony or pride or envy or greed???

In the Book of Proverbs (Mishlai), King Solomon stated that the Lord specifically regards "six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth." namely:[4]

A proud look.
A lying tongue.
Hands that shed innocent blood.
A heart that devises wicked plots.
Feet that are swift to run into mischief.
A deceitful witness that uttereth lies.
Him that soweth discord among brethren.

In AD 590, a little over two centuries after Evagrius wrote his list, Pope Gregory I revised this list to form the more common Seven Deadly Sins, by folding (sorrow/despair/despondency) into acedia, vainglory into pride, and adding envy.[9] In the order used by both Pope Gregory and by Dante Alighieri in his epic poem The Divine Comedy, the seven deadly sins are as follows:

luxuria (lechery/lust)[10][11][12]
gula (gluttony)
avaritia (avarice/greed)
acedia (acedia/discouragement/sloth)
ira (wrath)
invidia (envy)
superbia (pride)

Certainty "rich people" can fall into those lists much easier w/ their money to deflect any judgement...

Maybe I break #7 in the original.. in a sense..except I don't believe rich people shouldn't exist.. one needs role models to succeed.. but to consider it the be all end all is certainly not err.. moral..
nor thinking that the fact you didn't succeed is a moral failure (guess my true Christian background betrays me)

I just believe.. like using the term "job creator".... that we cannot nor should we overlook the complete package in regards to power.. just because they have power..
nor should we have a 2 tier judiciary based on it....even w/ the understanding that, in a sense, it does more good not to throw them in jail because of their economic impact.

THAT starts (and technically has been the status quo) a "slippery slope" to a very bad society..
Much criminal thinking is based on "they get away with it" or "I'm as good as the rich if only".......

but we live in an imperfect and certainly not as advanced society as we like to pretend we are... including myself..but right is right and wrong is wrong and should be judged equally in the courts.
Individually.. well we all have our lines don't we........

And in my world view it seems like the economic end is more and more justifying the means..........

funny current thinking.. WHAT do you think is a fitting punisment for a rating agency who gave AAA status to paper they knew were practically worthless??
What justification is there , or how does it differ from someone who conned you out of $50 by promising to send you "something"..

Mail

18 U.S.C. § 1341 provides:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[2]

Mail and wire fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 'slippery slope" needs to be leveled.. a little..are not "electronic transactions" private "carrier"???? Is that the meme??? Or is ther just enough plausible deny-ability"??

They have been highly criticized for understating the risk involved with new, complex securities that fueled the United States housing bubble, such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO).

Justice??? gee I often get highly criticized.. and yet took nobody's economy down.....

good thing.. they "took action"...
Actions taken to improve rating approach

Credit rating agencies help evaluate and report on the risk involved with various investment alternatives. The rating processes can be re-examined and improved to encourage greater transparency to the risks involved with complex mortgage-backed securities and the entities that provide them. Rating agencies have recently begun to aggressively downgrade large amounts of mortgage-backed debt.[16] In addition, rating agencies have begun taking action to address perceived or actual conflicts of interest, including additional internal monitoring programs, third party reviews of rating processes, and board updates.[

Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



and you wonder why some dislike the rich..........

TECHNICALLY.. it's their own fault by rewriting or ignoring the "rules" the rest of us go by..
And if we all had "freedom".... well I won't even speculate what that would lead to.

http://www.pri.org/stories/business/giant-pool-of-money.html

Host Ira Glass talks with an NPR business and economics correspondent about two gatherings he attended—one at the Ritz Carlton and one at a community college in Brooklyn. The first was an awards dinner for finance professionals who created the mortgage-based financial instruments that nearly brought down the global economic system. The other was a non-profit conference for people facing foreclosure.

I recommend a good listening...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/transcript

And stories like this have been in the news for months. And they often feature an innocent homeowner who was duped by a lying, greedy mortgage banker. Or if you're more of a Wall Street Journal editorial page type, an innocent mortgage banker who was duped by lying, greedy homeowner.............
This imprudent partnership is new. And it's at the heart of the current housing crisis. For most of the history of banking, bankers wouldn't have loaned Clarence their money either. They didn't let people like Clarence near their money, in fact, people with part time employment and unpaid debts in their past.

And then suddenly in the early 2000s, everything changed. Banking turned on its head and went out looking for partnerships with people like Clarence, loaning him half a million dollars without even checking to see if he had a job. What happened?

Mike Garner

Yeah, and my boss had been in the business for 25 years. And he hated those loans. He hated them. And he used to rant and just say, it makes me sick to my stomach the kind of loans that we do. And he fought the owners and the sales force, tooth and neck, about these guidelines. And we got the same answer every time. Nope. Other people are offering it. We're going to offer it too. We're going to get more market share this way. House prices are booming. Everything's going to be good. And the company was just rolling in the cash. I mean, the owners and the production staff were just raking it in.
Glen Pizzolorusso

At the height, I was making between $75,000 and $100,000 a month.

funny...............

Alex Blumberg

Glen had five cars, a $1.5 million vacation house in Connecticut, and a penthouse that he rented in Manhattan. And he made all this money making very large loans to very poor people with bad credit.
Glen Pizzolorusso

We looked at loans, these people didn't have a pot to piss in. I mean, they could barely make the car payment, and now we're giving them a $300,000 to $400,000 house.
Alex Blumberg

But Glen didn't worry about whether these loans were good either. That was someone else's problem. And this way of thinking thrived at every step of this mortgage security chain. A guy like Mike Francis from Morgan Stanley, he told me he bought loans, lots of loans, from Glen's company. And he knew in his gut that they were bad loans, like these NINA loans.
Mike Francis

No income no asset loans, that's a liar's loan. We are telling you to lie to us, effectively. I mean, we're hoping you don't lie, but-- tell us what you make. Tell us what you have in the bank. But we're not going to actually verify it? We're setting you up to lie. Something about that transaction feels very wrong. It felt very wrong way back when. And I wish we had never done it. Unfortunately what happened, we did it because everybody else was doing it.
Alex Blumberg

It's easy to ignore your gut fear when you're making a fortune in commissions. But Mike had other help in rationalizing what he was doing, technological help. Mike sat at a desk with six computer screens connected to millions of dollars worth of fancy analytic software designed by brilliant Ivy League graduates hired by his firm. And this software analyzed all the loans in all the pools that Mike bought and then sold. And the software, the data, didn't seem worried at all.

[arnold]

Economics IS power.. equal (and greater in the sense it is not tied to a gov.) to gov. yet w/ no moral compass.

There is a difference in kind between economic power and political power, and if there is one thing that that causes misguided thinking, it is the equating of these two. The economically powerful can refuse to offer you a service or a commodity or favour, but they can never force you to deal with them without resorting to a criminal offence. Political power on the other hand ONLY deals with you by force, and if you resist, you will be facing the guns of the agencies sent to make you comply. Can you not see the different principles operating here?
If the economic power you were troubled by was shipped to Mars, it would make no difference to you since it has not forced you to deal with it. With the political power problem, an enforced unjust law that was shipped to Mars would be a relief.

funny current thinking.. WHAT do you think is a fitting punisment for a rating agency who gave AA status to paper they knew were practically worthless?? What justification is there , or how does it differ from someone who conned you out of $50 by promising to send you "something"..

There you go again. If a crime has been committed, prosecute for deception, fraud and any conniving you wish. Please please stop inferring that freedom to live endorses freedom to cheat and steal. Do you make up these positions because you have no arguments against what I do advocate? If you have arguments against my position, clearly state which principle is wrong. I have told you why yours is unworkable; because it pits one group against another for no principle that can be upheld logically. My philosophy is firmly grounded in the fact 1) that humans are individuals, 2) that they need to act to produce the goods they need to survive, and 3) it follows that they need to be free to do this.
Regarding your view on this; imagine you come home to find the police having caught a robber at your house with his truck full of your stuff. He is told to unload it by the cop except for a couple of small items. The robber says he isn't taking much, and you won't miss it, besides you shouldn't be so greedy. Why shouldn't he be able to keep something - besides 'you didn't earn it' all by your self. The cop says yes, you should not be so extreme and stand on principle but learn to be pragmatic and compromise. Now I don't know about you, but I would not recognize the right of the robber to any item of mine no matter how insignificant because one cannot compromise on a principle. Once you grant the robber ANY right to your property, you lose all rights to your property. Unfortunately, the declaration laid out by the Founding Fathers that at least recognized much of this, has been eroding ever since.

[jeffkrol]

There is a difference in kind between economic power and political power, and if there is one thing that that causes misguided thinking, it is the equating of these two. The economically powerful can refuse to offer you a service or a commodity or favour, but they can never force you to deal with them without resorting to a criminal offence. Political power on the other hand ONLY deals with you by force, and if you resist, you will be facing the guns of the agencies sent to make you comply. Can you not see the different principles operating here?
If the economic power you were troubled by was shipped to Mars, it would make no difference to you since it has not forced you to deal with it. With the political power problem, an enforced unjust law that was shipped to Mars would be a relief.

There is a minor difference in degrees.. since most economics works within a political system..and force the politicians to first work with them.. technically the balance of power favors the economics since gov. "creates nothing"...but a playing field..Goods are their gun, jobs are their guns ............and they are beholden to no-one but themselves.. fortunately they do need consumers but are free to choose who they are.. unlike a gov. who's citizens choose.. No you are mistaken as to where the real power lies.. though admittedly the 2 are in complete collusion..

running a presidential campaign based on who caters best to the "job creators" is a de-facto statement of who has the power.............not the "state"...

Wrap it in "freedom" all you want.. won't change the facts....

[jeffkrol]

Please please stop inferring that freedom to live endorses freedom to cheat and steal.

simple one: laws restrict freedoms.. by definition..........

[Ratmagiclady]

Eh. Short answer. They didn't learn a damn thing. They'd consider it 'weakness.'

[jeffkrol]

. Now I don't know about you, but I would not recognize the right of the robber to any item of mine no matter how insignificant because one cannot compromise on a principle. Once you grant the robber ANY right to your property, you lose all rights to your property. Unfortunately, the declaration laid out by the Founding Fathers that at least recognized much of this, has been eroding ever since.

Many perceive that this is the way it is..........

Did I find it ironic, he asked, that bankers can harm millions of ordinary citizens, destroy entire communities, force taxpayers to foot huge bills to save their companies -- and almost nobody goes to jail? But when it's discovered that bankers were cheating other bankers? Oh well, now someone has to go to jail. He certainly had a point.

Why No One Has Gone to Jail Yet Over Libor - Bloomberg

The founding fathers had no clue how "creative" people can be.....

The transcripts were included in a 231-page affidavit filed by Tan Chi Min, a former RBS trader who is suing the bank for wrongful dismissal in a Singapore court. A sample: "Nice Libor," Tan wrote in an April 2008 instant message to colleagues. "Our six-month fixing moved the entire fixing, hahaha." Another one from an August 2007 conversation with traders at other banks, including Deutsche Bank: "It's just amazing how Libor fixing can make you that much money or lose if opposite," Tan wrote. "It's a cartel now in London."

Tan has said in his lawsuit that the bank condoned rates manipulation and sought scapegoats in an internal probe. RBS asked the Singapore High Court to seal the papers temporarily, until at least one of the probes of the bank by U.S. or U.K. government agencies is completed. Thank goodness for the openness and transparency of the court system in Singapore, of all places, so the world can get a peek inside Britain's third-biggest lender.

Libor-scandal aficionados may recall it was the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission that has been the driving force on the Libor investigations. Were it not for the persistence of the scrappy, underfunded CFTC, there probably would have been no fines at Barclays Plc, Britain's second-biggest lender, which paid about $470 million to U.S. and British authorities in June for rigging the London interbank offered rate. U.K. authorities, particularly the Financial Services Authority, seemed to be slow-footed.

RBS is one of at least a dozen banks being investigated over allegations that they colluded to manipulate Libor so they could profit from bets on interest-rate derivatives. It's understandable why the British government might not be keen about investigating itself, or competitors that engaged in the same offenses.

As Christopher Cox said in December 2008 during one of his final speeches as chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: "When the government becomes both referee and player, the game changes rather dramatically for every other participant. Rules that might be rigorously applied to private-sector competitors will not necessarily be applied in the same way to the sovereign who makes the rules."

I suggest you stop living in your fantasy world...........Again collusion and the balance of power between the 2.

Odd coincidence:

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse,
intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control
over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James
Madison, fourth President of the United States (1809–1817)

If the Government was to say previous bonuses should be clawed back - is that a something you'd advocate? It would be difficult legally...

We have a legal system that may not force full accountability. That says clearly these guys have gotten away with it. That ought to change. That means legislation. We should recognise that we've seen so many events were the banks and others have engaged in rent seeking, creating inequality, ripping off other people, and none of them have gone to jail. None of them have been prosecuted individually. Banks are people. The irony is that most of these cases, if you look at what happened, the bank pays a fine. Who pays the fine? It's the shareholders. But the shareholders have usually been ripped off as well by the managers. So the managers sit there exploiting not only borrowers but also the shareholders. In the case of the UK, I gather the fines go to the FSA [Financial Services Authority], reducing the need for the tax that they impose on the banks. So the banks pay the fine and other banks benefit. It's redistribution among the banks. They're all guilty of these things. You pay this time, I'll pay this time. It costs them zero. So we have a system of very weak accountability and no individual accountability. And clearly that's the way they wanted it, but that's not a system of justice. That's another theme of my book. Not only have we paid the price in terms of economic performance, but in terms of our democracy and in our system of justice. How to fix that? In New York we have a very broad law called the Martin Act, which basically says if you commit things that are equivalent to fraud, you're liable. We're not going to spell out every possible thing you could, because there are an infinite number. Even if you did not have a law against manipulation of the market, you should have had legislation that was broad enough to say "this is market manipulation, if you do this you're guilty." If you don't have legislation like that, there's something wrong. This [the Martin Act] was a state law, in only one state. No one was prosecuted over robo-signing [a scandal of automatic foreclosures by US banks]. You don't have a robo-signing system without someone above designing it.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/12297-focus-joseph-stiglitz-jail-the-bankers#aa

I'll see your freedom and raise you justice...

See............

I mean get with it! You bust a kid with an ounce of pot and all the politicians are screaming that you have to send a message, criminals need a deterrent: give them a jail term. So bankers rig the system and they get a big fine. WOW! Make 3 billion and get a $750,000 fine. Sign me up for that program! You start having the criminals (please refrain from the modifier "white collar"--they'r e thugs, punks and low lifes like meth cookers) making them do hard time and do a confiscatory fine like they do with drug dealers. Send them away for 40 years AND take away ALL their assets using the racketeering laws. Let them rot in jail and have their kids and spouses face the specter of having to start from scratch and make a real living. Now, that's a deterrent that will stop all except the hopelessly sociopathic like Madoff and his ilk.

Gamgster Capitalism has a firm grip on the throat of Euro-American markets. If the people want a change they should make their demands NOW. If Obama wishes to win he must demand now the resignations of the Summers-Geithne r hoods in his cabinet; replace them with Stiglitz and Volcker, NOW. Don't wait for pie-in-sky promises. Demand it now. Diamonds performance in London was nauseating. He used the word "love" so many times in reference to Barclay it should give pause to his wife. He sounded psychotic and deraigned. Gangster-Capita lism can only be brought down by the application of criminal law and that is by holding officials responsible and throwing them in jail. Not to do so leads the bankers to believe they are "masters of the universe" and do as they did in the "Occupy" actions of the New York City Police Department when Goldman-Sach "rewarded" them with millions of dollars for their surpression of lawful demonstrators excercising their Constitutional rights. They acted as if the police were their hired thugs. Gangsterism can only be stopped by jailing. Justice must be served.

The serfs are getting restless...............
months ago............ not the "straw" yet..

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-23-2012 at 11:17 PM.

[Ratmagiclady]

I dunno, Jeff. I'm suggesting monosyllables right now, like 'You lost.' 'No get votes hurt gays no more.' 'That Money gone away, sport' and '*indelicate gestures.*

If anyone can gloat right now, I think I deserve a moment.


Never could quite shake all the flashbacks, but for all those who professed to be 'lovingly' 'knocking me into next week.'



Welcome to 'next week.' I've been waiting.

[arnold]

Originally posted by arnold

Please please stop inferring that freedom to live endorses freedom to cheat and steal.

simple one: laws restrict freedoms.. by definition..........

What kind of answer is that, which doesn't address the request? On the contrary, many laws protect freedom.
The definition of freedom in the political context, is freedom from the coercion of others. It is purely negative in that it asks only to be left alone. This is a classic example where you throw up diversionary flack by avoiding my meaning. If you redefine freedom to include cheating and stealing, (which I have gone to endless lengths to point out is not the case) then of course a law against crime would be a law against 'freedom'. If you don't want to deal with my arguments that is fine, but what is the point of making interpretations that are opposite of what I have said?

[Nesster]

There is a difference in kind between economic power and political power, and if there is one thing that that causes misguided thinking, it is the equating of these two. The economically powerful can refuse to offer you a service or a commodity or favour, but they can never force you to deal with them without resorting to a criminal offence. Political power on the other hand ONLY deals with you by force, and if you resist, you will be facing the guns of the agencies sent to make you comply. Can you not see the different principles operating here?

Under the Constitution, I can sue, I can vote, I can move to the next county/state, I can petition the government, and I have free speech. Obama and Romney could not force me to vote for them, or to vote at all.
Working for a large corporation, I do have the freedom to quit. I do have the freedom to rise or fall based on my abilities and relationships. But should I want to keep my job I best get along with my boss and his boss... and even then both of them and me and my co workers could be laid off in a downsizing.

Leaving aside the personality types, many of the wealthy organizations got that way by purposely limiting your choices.So no they can't force you at gun point, and they have to be careful of monopoly laws, but they certainly can attempt to condition you. I can by an Obama or a Romney, or go for one of the tiny niche brands, or not buy anything at all.

[jeffkrol]

Originally posted by arnold




What kind of answer is that, which doesn't address the request? On the contrary, many laws protect freedom.

how about this a very real world example.. i'm on a desert highway.. It is deserted.. I am free and well aware of my own limitations and believe I can easily maintain myself at say 125mph.
So there I go.. I get pulled over and get a ticket since my "freedom" was limited by a speed limit of 85mph...

At best you can say it was for my own safety (is that not deciding foe me what is safe "for me")

There is absolute freedom (where the only restrictions are the ones I impose on myself (which could lead to lots of bad things for others freedoms and myself i.e "I think I can grab that high tension wire").. There is the subset freedom based on others freedoms..which is good except if you REALLY look at it that subset has another subset of freedom restricted by laws to protect others freedoms and things that would also do me harm by myself.

Each category of freedom has a restriction based on law.. and as all laws may or may not restrict what "I" consider I am free to do..

your "common use" idea of freedom is what gets in the way since everyone interprets it differently.. like some people believing citizens carrying guns restricts their freedom and enjoyment of their surroundings..
SOMEONE else or some institution has decided for you what "freedom" entails.. That is not very free,,
And who's "freedom idea" is the correct one?? Right someone else decided...

I could guarantee that as soon as you get 2 people together one or both will have their freedom restricted..

[lammie200]

how about this a very real world example.. i'm on a desert highway...

As soon as I read this I am thinking "Hotel California" has come on the radio for the millionth time that I have heard it and I can't turn it off, or turn the volume down, due to a malfunctioning radio switch. Talk about restricting freedoms!

[Ash]

Restricting freedom is spoken of in an ill light as if having formalised common law has taken away the ability of people living under it to enjoy their lives. In an ideal world there are no laws because there is no need for them - no 'crime' as we would define it, and no social misadventure causing harm or loss to others. I'm sure it would be a nice heavenly existence but as probable to occur in this world as a camel to fit through the eye of a needle.

So the laws are there really to protect its citizens and create order. But since fallible man is also in charge of such laws, there is going to be an element of misappropriation and injustice.

[arnold]

how about this a very real world example.. i'm on a desert highway.. It is deserted.. I am free and well aware of my own limitations and believe I can easily maintain myself at say 125mph.
So there I go.. I get pulled over and get a ticket since my "freedom" was limited by a speed limit of 85mph...

.

My fault. I am so used to the people around me knowing what freedom is (based on), that I assume most others understand it's foundation. More and more I realize how difficult it is to exchange ideas when the the differences go down to the very foundations. One finds one cannot get the concept over without first starting at it's roots, which makes casual exchange impossible.
Confused conceptual meanings are a real stumbling block to understanding others.

Every concept I use must be traceable to some fact in reality, so let me see if I can do that with the concept of freedom.
The source of freedom comes from the factual requirements of man's nature. His nature requires that he must act in order to survive, which in turn requires he be free to do so. The result of his efforts will be his property. If he builds a house or plants wheat it belongs to him, because if all his efforts were confiscated he would die. Certainly he can be a slave with no property rights, but free men have a right to their property. (I hope non of this is too radical to accept).

This brings us to the matter of who has control of a man's property. If I visit him and there is a sign on his driveway with a speed restriction, who has a say in the matter? The man who owns the property, or anyone who decides to speed down the driveway? Clearly it is the right to his property that gives a man the right to say how it is used. Is my "right to speed" violated? Of course not, because I never had a right to tell the man what to do with his property in the first place.

When I speak of freedom, it is not anarchy, but freedom from coercion, to be free to control your property and to act without impinging on the equal rights of all those around you. If a man doesn't want me in his house, I respect his freedom to keep me out - it is not my house. A right to violate rights is a contradiction.
Freedom, in the political context is the recognition of property rights, which means we keep our hands off the lives of others. Freedom is not something positive you ask others to supply you, but only a requirement that they abstain from coercion. 'Freedom from' is a negative.
To put this together, freedoms are tied to property rights. I don't own the roads, so I don't have the freedom to make the rules for them. If I join a club, I respect the rules because I respect the rights of the owners. I don't steal because I respect a man's right to his property. If I don't respect another man's right to his life, what logical basis can I claim for mine?
I had to write all the above just to explain the meaning of one word, and at this rate I have little hope that what I say will ever be understood (I don't mean 'agreed with', I mean 'understood').
Not sure the effort is worthwhile anyway.

[jeffkrol]

Property rihts are a product of, and enforceable by the state.. There is no "human right" nor "god given" right to own property.. but you are right it does boil down to basic concepts...
the only real individual freedom is over your naked body... the rest is socially defined..thus by definition not freedom but rule of law...

You restrict your dicussion to #5..............

free·dom
   [free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.