Just thinking

Some guy today said that he is all for freedom, but understands if his personal liberty is compromised for the benefit of the personal liberty of others. I was to say at the least astounded and tried to explain to this kid that liberty is liberty, and that to put conditions on anyone's liberty is to put conditions on your own. I was of course not speaking of murder, which of course was trotted out to piss on the carpet, or rape in the street, which was trotted out as well. In those cases as I am taking liberty from someone I should therefore lose my own.

But in the case of art, well this dude was all Socratitical and claimed that there was a time and place for art and that censorship on art was in fact not only good but moral. Which of course made me ask him well what if those that came before us decided that all art to this point was immoral and destroyed it all. In his line of thinking that would be a correct thing to do, with no protest from him.

I fear for our world. This idiot was a Brit and had people agreeing with him that art can go too far.

No it can't. Book burning and censorship is wrong. Period. Don't like it don't read it. But to say that art must follow guidelines is idiotic, braindead and retarded.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, has no idea what liberty is.