No because whatever point you just tried to make didn't seem to fit with mine whatsoever.

I don't necessarily consider any freedom mine. They are all mine because I'm in this nation, but viewing them as others' takes away my selfish motives for expanding freedom. I believe in equality of freedom, and that's how I interpret it.

For example: I believe a Christian should have the right to pray on a loudspeaker at a football game. I also believe Muslims should have the same right. If someone were to claim one but not the other they would probably have selfish/sectarian motives.

By the way, I do ask with true sincerity the question of how “freedom” engages with “morality”. They are obviously not identical, nor is either the prerequisite for the other.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be locked up or pick-pocketed? Would you object to encroachments upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness only based on our laws? Welfare is an encroachment, despite its noble aim.

Now you might object that the folks you're not respecting didn't do what Jesus commanded. So? He didn't give such a qualification.

Not to mention all the things free-market theorists say government does to the economy and the libertarian complaints against large government.

Herein lies the problem. You make a sweeping statement about the
overriding importance of freedom, but then reserve for yourself the
right to define what you “consider … freedom” to mean.

That is unfair argumentation. Causes that you support are not immoral
because you don't “necessarily consider this my freedom that's being
encroached upon”, but causes that you don't like stand accused of
immorality. Don't you see how unfair it is to leverage fine
definitional points about “freedom” into broad accusations of
“immorality”?

By the way, I do ask with true sincerity the question of how “freedom”
engages with “morality”. They are obviously not identical, nor is
either the prerequisite for the other.

No because whatever point you just tried to make didn't seem to fit with mine whatsoever.

I don't necessarily consider any freedom mine. They are all mine because I'm in this nation, but viewing them as others' takes away my selfish motives for expanding freedom. I believe in equality of freedom, and that's how I interpret it.

For example: I believe a Christian should have the right to pray on a loudspeaker at a football game. I also believe Muslims should have the same right. If someone were to claim one but not the other they would probably have selfish/sectarian motives.

By the way, I do ask with true sincerity the question of how “freedom” engages with “morality”. They are obviously not identical, nor is either the prerequisite for the other.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be locked up or pick-pocketed? Would you object to encroachments upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness only based on our laws? Welfare is an encroachment, despite its noble aim.

Now you might object that the folks you're not respecting didn't do what Jesus commanded. So? He didn't give such a qualification.

Not to mention all the things free-market theorists say government does to the economy and the libertarian complaints against large government.

Herein lies the problem. You make a sweeping statement about the
overriding importance of freedom, but then reserve for yourself the
right to define what you “consider … freedom” to mean.

That is unfair argumentation. Causes that you support are not immoral
because you don't “necessarily consider this my freedom that's being
encroached upon”, but causes that you don't like stand accused of
immorality. Don't you see how unfair it is to leverage fine
definitional points about “freedom” into broad accusations of
“immorality”?

By the way, I do ask with true sincerity the question of how “freedom”
engages with “morality”. They are obviously not identical, nor is
either the prerequisite for the other.

And apparently they're ready to forfeit their chairs.

Lieberman joining the filibuster is considered quite an extreme move by someone who at least used to consider himself a Democrat. Generally, except in extreme cases, one who opposes something supported by one's party can cast a contrarian vote, but is expected to not take measures beyond that such as filibustering. I'm sure many Democrats are pondering what actions (say stripping Lieberman of committee spots/charimanships) they should take in order to maintain some form of party discipline.

BTW, Uncle Sam does already require us to do certain things such as jury duty, educating and vaccinating kids, and so on.

(These ideas are not mine – I read them at findlaw.com, courtesy of an economist/lawyer there.)

Probably so…

What if that constriction of personal freedom improves the quality of life for other people?

First off, I don't necessarily consider this my freedom that's being encroached upon. And no, I wouldn't want to translate Bill Gates' freedom into John Doe's quality of life; it's too much control for Big Brother to have. I would probably be one of the folks benefiting from the bill and, incidentally, Bill Gates uses his freedom for good.

What does morality have to do with freedom?

Are you serious?

Says who?

And philosophically- republican is his party even now, but he needs to caucus with the democrats to keep his committee chairmanships and democrats need him for the 60th vote (which he is not providing on this issue).

No, he would be less at home with the Republicans; he's a liberal libertarian if I recall correctly. Meaning he agrees with the Republicans (mostly) on economic issues and the Democrats on social issues.

This happens to be one of the arguments for the Fair Tax. It would release employers from the obligation to withdraw payroll taxes and free them to increase wages (in addition to increasing the paycheck of all of their workers). We would pay for, well, everything when we shop.

Are you willing to get behind that? Serious question, not a backhanded rebuttal.

Define “moral”.

Is everything that impinges on personal freedom immoral? What if that constriction of personal freedom improves the quality of life for other people? What does morality have to do with freedom?

Our nation has abandoned the gospel and needs to repent.

I think Joe Lieberman is an honest guy who is sour at the party that left him for a socialist agenda. Evidently the people of Connecticut agreed with him. Chris Dodd had better watch out too or he might be without a chair when the music stops next election. At least he will have a cheap mortgage.

In Japan, where I believe they have single-payer universal coverage, the government refused to pay $1500 for MRI's, so the biotech people there came up with a way to do the same test for $99 and still make a profit. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

The way people carry on here, it seems they think we are a bunch of idiots that can't do things as well or better than other countries.