Anywhere except private property, military installations, most government buildings or land. And if you don't have I.D, a whole host of other places Freedom is of the utmost important. For if you only have a "little freedom", essentially you're an unbound slave with "privileges". But a slave non the less. "Any society that would sacrifice a little freedom to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both.” -Benjamin Franklin -Måđ
So being "free" means being able to trespass onto private property, military installations, most government buildings, land or host of other places (without an ID) and by not allowing you or any other stranger to waltz into my home is apparently infringing on your freedom?
Then apparently the part of your post that stated those exceptions really had nothing to do with anything at all? K.
Well, I read manamanas post and then your response, which included those exceptions and then the line, "For if you only have a "little freedom", essentially you're an unbound slave with "privileges". But a slave non the less." Which, according to your posts format and the way it was worded led me to believe you were implying that because we couldn't do those things we "only have a little freedom" and are "unbound slaves". Apparently I was mistaken.
Very much so. I was pointing out to Manamanas that there are plenty of places he is not allowed to go as a "free" entity in his country. My comments after that did not entail that, to be free, means you can trespass on such properties, or any other you choose?, The meaning i was trying to convey towards Manamana was that, to restrict freedom because "Giving them a inch = they'll take a mile" seems woefully inadequate reasoning to restrict a human beings freedom. The quote was to inforce that point, not to relate to my first retort. Hope that clears it up -Måđ