He says he wants real discussion/debate yet seems to participate in flame wars. I wonder why?

Freedom is not the ability to be stupid, but to be rational decision-makers.

-- czrpb00

You are wasting time with bucky1. He is a loon with an ISP.

Freedom for the wolves is death for the sheep.

I think that is Isaiah Berlin, not sure.

That being said, even rational decision makers make bad decisions, so I am in favor of social safety nets. Many aren't.

In point of fact, bad decisions teach us more than good ones. They are made often. I do think freedom means more than just allowing one to make a bad choice. It should mean allowing a bad choice to be learned from and not keep you down forever.

Social safety nets.

For the life of me I can't see why any Democrat,or Republican voted for this new FISA law. Just the fact that Alberto Gonzalez has the power to tromp any Justice on the court, should make everyone vote,"NO"!

Second, we have no room to talk. You do not believe that man has the ability to choose his actions; no free-will.

If we are all puppets, why even talk about it?

Well, the free will discussion is huge -- with 100s of years of philosophy behind it, but the short version is that those who say they do not believe in "free will" mean in the Cartesian dualist sense. Free will deniers do not believe that the mind is outside of the brain and that it is incoherent and non-rational if it can cause one to act but is not itself caused.

As I understand things and believe, we are completely caused: My genes and my environment have shaped me to decide to act as I do. When I choose to get up and go to work I do so because the state of my motivations, desires, "character" cause me to choose to do so. If I were to abandon my family, just get up and leave, it would be because all that has happened to me before makes such a decision possible and I was therefore caused to make that decision.

Of course, I can change how I act by learning. A reasonable example is that the behavior and decisions by drug addicts are fully caused by their past history and we can change their decision-making patterns by changing their environment which will cause them to, perhaps, make different future choices. This is why drug rehabilitation works.

what does not make sense is there there exists some sort of immaterial stuff called "free will" that is outside the natural world that causes people to act; such as the drug dealer. It does not make sense that this free will is independent of the person's genetics and environment. That is can cause action but is not itself caused.

If you believe that rehabilitation works, you do so because you believe people can learn and that this learning can cause them to act differently. Free will is not required in any of this and can be dropped as a belief.

(Again, the links I provided are much better at explaining than I.)

It is this clear: you and the other nanny-state assholes are keeping me from health care because you want to restrict care and make it non-affordable.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/01/various/permalink/742a712b81927663bb56dc01443b7729.html

Emphasis added.

Am I incorrect?

I do not understand why you are name-calling? If you are addressing my argument with another, I am missing it.

What 'name calling'? Please quote where I called you a name.

Second, we have no room to talk. You do not believe that man has the ability to choose his actions; no free-will.

If we are all puppets, why even talk about it?

From what I can tell, their reply is simply: Leave me alone! thehallmark says so explicitly:

Let me be stupid sometimes. Let me be smart sometimes. Just let me be.

And bucky1 implicitly endorses this view when he responds to my reply to the above with:

You are not 'happy to let you be' at all.

This attitude is childish. Parents of course do not let their children just do anything they want which has elements of risk. The same goes for bucky1 & thehallmark.

But, perhaps you protest thusly: But they are adults! Yes, once one reaches adulthood they should be allowed to take whatever risk they want as long as the results are confined to them self. So, one should be allowed to free climb 1000' shear rock face but not allowed to free climb skyscrapers. And in fact it is legal & illegal respectively to do so.

What should not be allowed is insisting on being stupid when the rest of us have decided that we do not want to be free to be stupid or to be potentially deceived in some particular instance such as in regard to medical professionals. We have decided to democratically legislate inter-personal interaction in this domain. bucky1/thehallmark are certainly free to work to change existing legislation, but they have no inherent right to insist on society being structured to facilitate their desire to be stupid.

Freedom is not the ability to be stupid, but to be rational decision-makers.

... keeping me from health care because you want to restrict care and make it non-affordable.

There are two separate arguments here right? Would you care if I restricted care, but made it affordable? That is essentially what advocates for universal health care want: Health care for everyone. But of course none of them are looking to unlicense medical professionals; eg. not health care from just anyone. Do you have a problem with this?

I do not understand why you are name-calling? If you are addressing my argument with another, I am missing it.

In an earlier post you said that one axiom of your system is that no one can force (presumably their will) another person. So, you are happy to limit people's personal freedoms: People can not just go around killing each other for example.

I asked how my points are any different: How are they not just different -- and yes more extensive -- limits? But we both limit people's actions.

Second, I made a specific argument that by limiting -- via licensing -- those people who can call themselves "professional" doctors (or whatever) I am NOT limiting your actions. So, instead of infringing on your personal freedoms, I am limiting your range of possible actions. You have already agreed that limiting possible choices is acceptable when you said that it is "never morally permissible to use fraud against another". In other words, you are happy to limit my available choices of action when you remove those people who are attempting to commit fraud.

To summarize: You are happy to limit my ability to force my will on other people and you are happy to limit my available choices when you remove as a choice those people who are attempting to commit fraud on me. How is my argument any different, except in perhaps in scope?

Finally,

And no, I do not care what you say.

How am I deserving of this? I thought you want(ed) reasoned debate? How am I not engaging your arguments (vs personally attacking you)? Why are your comments personal?