I Have a Question

@Becky The colonists didnt need to change the way the british thought because they werent taking over the british. They were freeing themselves from the British. And I think you assume too much to say that every suppressed person wants to be freed.

I am not for anarchy. You are assuming that because of the things I am saying but what Im trying to explain to you is that freedom is anarchy. That doesnt mean I am for freedom.

Ofcourse you arent, and neither am I

No. Yes they fought and many people died and they lost, but after that they didn't stop, slavery still went on it simply took a new form, black people were rented land which they paid with crops. It didnt pay enough so they stayed in debt to their white masters. It was a legal slavery. Black people didnt vote because in the south black people were illiterate from being denied education and even if they were literate somehow they were given a "literacy test" that was impossible to pass so that still they could not vote, and lets not for get the KKK there threatening to kill you if you even had the courage to vote in the first place or segregation, which coincidentally the white version over everything was better. Its because their belief was that whites were superior and blacks were inferior.

[c=#003BB2] I'd buy the latest technology, finally buy all my online shopping items, spoil my dog, and buy some workout equipment that I'll probably just use as a clothes rack haha. [/c]

@mic11225
"You can't say you are for freedom when you try to force people to do things your way. Your way seems practical and beneficial but it is not freedom. You can't suppress someone and call it freedom, even if it is beneficial."

When you are freeing the suppressed you are not forcing people to do things your way. You are stopping [i]others[/i] from forcing [i]their[/i] way on people.

For example, to take a page from history without invoking Godwin's Law (since doing to make it [i]far too easy[/i] to prove my point), I wouldn't give a damn for the [i]beliefs[/i] of the Khmer Rouge. They were suppressing the freedom of millions (not to mention [i]killing[/i] several million people, too).

Under World Empress Becky I, the [i]culture[/i] of the Khmer Rouge would either comply with my edicts or face the dire consequences. (I would remind you that the premise of your question gives me both the funding and time to do so.)

Freedom is not free. It must be granted or won and then defended or lost.

@mic11225

"forcing others to do what you think is right for a noble cause or not is restricting freedom, mind you im ok with restricting freedoms sometimes but it's counterintuitive to your supposed goal. Secondly, its not that simple. You disregard cultures."

I wouldn't sit around the campfire signing Kumbaya with those that suppresses individual freedoms, that enslaves others or that blows up little children by strapping explosives to them. I wouldn't be interested in changing their mindsets.

I don't believe in freedom for [i]cultures[/i]. I believe in freedom for [b]individuals[/b]. Cultures that thrive on suppressing others would either have to change their ways or be themselves suppressed.

I'd be World Empress and they'd have to comply. Let freedom reign! Resistance would be, in a word, futile.

@mic11225

I didn't say the American Revolution freed the slaves. It would have been nice had it done so. We might have avoided the Civil War. But the eventual outcome, yes it took a while, was freedom.

With regards to Napoleon, don't you think the English, Prussians and Russians played a role in the outcome you cited?

I disagree that freedom is anarchy. You are pinning an absolute definition on it to suit your argument. To suit mine, I am saying you can't have true freedom for all in a society if you allow cultural freedom (a la Saudi Arabia) to trump (no pun intended) an individual's freedom (the women there). Or if you allow people to do whatever they feel like (murder, rape, theft, etc.) at the expense of others.

[c=#800055][/c]I'd invest in some really good camera gear and then spend a year chasing the sun and the moon around the planet.
I'm told a moonrise in certain places is extraordinary!!

@mic11225: We are doing that for us, we have made mums life so hard (we are twins with Asperger's syndrome and she raised us on her own) and making her life easier would mean a lot to us.

[c=#008099]I think I would travel the world, go in some deserted isolated places making some new adventures away from this world and the stress load it gives you. [/c]

Easy one, I'd have a baby or two and I'd write novels.😊

@mic11225 I haven't left the country that I stay in ever, so anywhere new would be a great experience. I would love to go to Florida, Miami, Los Angeles, Italy, Canada just to name a few. The cost of living is to high so I don't know if I ever will be able to afford it though, but I can dream.

@mic11225

The Colonists weren't interested in trying to change the way the British thought. They wanted freedom. Same too with every other suppressed people.

You are for anarchy. You want people to be free to do whatever the hell they want to, [i]even if that means suppressing the freedom of others[/i].

I'm not interesting in protecting the [i]rights[/i] of insidious dictators, terrorists, rapists, murderers, child molestors, et al.

You [b]CAN[/b] brute force people into doing what you want. That's what the Union did to the South, freeing the slaves. It's what French patriots did at Bastille. It's what any oppressed people does when they've finally had enough of having their basic freedoms as human beings trampled upon.

@becky Forcing laws on people doesnt easily change their mindset. People will disobey laws if the law conflicts with their beliefs and if they cant disobey laws they will find ways around it because they wont easily compromise their beliefs for the law. When you cross that line that is when wars and revolutions happen and in those situations innocent people die. You can't say you are for freedom when you try to force people to do things your way. Your way seems practical and beneficial but it is not freedom. You can't suppress someone and call it freedom, even if it is beneficial. What you are describing is more of a balance between freedom and security.

@becky forcing people to follow your rules is restricting freedom even if that freedom you are restricting is the freedom to restrict freedoms from other people. It might be possible to force people to not try and oppress each other but there would be resistance in many different ways. Loopholes in whatever laws are created, black markets, or even violent revolutions. You cant brute force people into doing what you want. You have the change the way they think. You can change the way people think with brute force, but then thats when you become the thing you're fighting.

@nimeru can't say I get the desire to run a county or be a superhero considering the responsibilities associated with both but hey you could make prostitution legal in your country xD

@Becky I wouldn't say france is the best example though. Yes they rebelled. Killed the king, and with that freedom Robespierre went on a power trip and was executed. Not too long after Napoleon was a king, though he called himself an emperor. All they did with their freedom was again try to oppress each other then they ended up with a king, who also took complete control and oppressed people.

@becky well for one, forcing others to do what you think is right for a noble cause or not is restricting freedom, mind you im ok with restricting freedoms sometimes but it's counterintuitive to your supposed goal. Secondly, its not that simple. You disregard cultures. Nothing changes until you change mindsets if you try to force your will on others they will resist you.

paint , write and record music

@mic11225

Let's see. I think I'd start with Saudi Arabia. Free half the population there. That's the half that can't legally drive and can't walk down the street unless it's with a male relative. Got a problem with me taking care of that? Think about that for a bit. 😀 Might be back later.

@brunoandsammy but more than anything you could do for yourself? I find that fishy but I suppose it's a good thing for your mom that you are so invested in her happiness. I can somewhat relate as my mom is single raising children and supporting me as well.

@Becky well pardon my skeptisism of both your capability and desire to make the world a "better place"especially as a dictator of the world.

@mic11225

Well, for one thing. There would be more [b]freedom[/b] in the world if I was ruling it!

World Empress.

It would be a chaotic job, but I guarantee the world would be a better place.

Buy mum her own florist business so as she can do the job she adores for herself.

@Mic: sorry you find it fishy, we’ll shut up now, bye.

@invader and what would you do with what you kept for yourself?

I would travel outside of the U.S. and give most of it to my mom.

@Sutter is there a specific part of the world that interests you?

@mic11225

Oh like the current leaders have done so good a job?

@Brunandsammy and what would you do for yourself?

@Becky that's ironic and likely untrue

@becky what makes you better than them?

Travel the world