Indeed to db!!

I didn't take on the TSA because on a logical level it's hard to deny that you don't have to fly. From my early years in engineering and during the life of my business, I had to fly--but my life has changed so that now, I don't have to so I don't deal with TSA. The abuses and nonsense of TSA application do anger me, but that to me is no different than that we see from the police and our government as a whole.

I understand that his priority in the speech was not necessarily to cover all wrongs, but to stay on track of the attacks on Free Speech and the true import of that and what it means to the ability of a man to live and better his very life or go directly to physical force. What did impress me was his emphasis on the deeper issue of it not just being Islam, but more the ability of others to disagree and to argue whether it was Islam, Christianity, or the altruistic craziness of US politics and Statism.

here's db's comment from FB:
"Locke emphasized that property rights were your primary right. Property rights imply the right to free speech, but the right to free speech does not imply property rights.

I think the ending about profiling was disappointing. A government does not have the right to stop people unless they have specific evidence and a warrant from a judge. TSA is unconstitutional, violates our natural rights, and irrational. Now if the airlines want to search people, or profile them that does not violate the constitution or our natural rights. It's their property and they can set the conditions for using their services and property."

great points. I am surprised you did not mention his TSA comments, which I found shocking. The only way I could square them was remembering that he grew up in Israel. but saying you don't have to get on an airplane to travel didn't answer the questions about liberty and privacy, IMO. As well, the discussion over rights. that they just are. this does not sit well with me. I think they are derived. But J_IR says he's putting together a post which takes that on. Looking forward to it.

I just finished watching the speech and Q&A. Boy, he and I are really in agreement about G. Bush. I honestly hate him as much as Yorin on a deep, abiding, and personal level and for much of the same reasoning. Yes, as Yorin says, Obama is probably worse--but that doesn't excuse Bush.

If one, as I do, accepts that my reasoning and the conclusions and ideas about reality thus reached are mine (which they are), are therefor my property and I as a free individual have the unalienable right to use that property as I desire, except in the case of physical force or fraud, then that gives primacy to the property right. I also have the right to the life I have and the right to improve the conditions of that life and the only tool or thing I'm born with that I can bring to that effort is my reason and the results of that reason, attempting to control, limit, or squelch the expression of those results is simply an attempt to control, limit, or eliminate reason--but also deny to me the use of my reason and intellect--to deny to me the right of life.

But it's the understanding that the tools of reasoning and rational logical thinking are mine (property right) that is critical (as are all the other expressions of and definitions of rights derived from that one premise of it's my life). Any attack on my expressions and reasoning is an attack on my life and is anti-human.

yes. looking forward to your questions.LS. we ask great ones

yes. you will disagree with much. lookig forward to your arguments zen

A favorite adage:
"It's often better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Without watching the video (which I'll do later) I would vote for Property Rights. With that right, I could escape to my property to not have to listen if I so desired.

If I own my speech isn't it my property? Okay fine! I'll read it...later.