How Do You Define Freedom?

[FA_Q2]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." -Ben Franklin

Just to clarify Ben Franklin did NOT say this, though it is a good quote. There is no cited source for this quote though it is a really common misquote.

Foxfrye
I'm torn on this one. I am a huge Second Amendment advocate, but I am fully aware that military might has surpassed the ability of the common man to defend himself against tyranny of his own government. Or has it? To be truthful, I would not like for my neighbor who regularly gets drunk and disorderly that increase his paranoia to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard nor would I like bank robbers to have easy access to a 105mm recoiless rifle. I don't know who would win if the US government should be taken over in an unscrupulous coup and it became necessary for the people to take it back. I think at least most of the military would side with the people though.

I really hate to say this but I disagree on the last line. They would side with the people in a heartbeat if they could but you must understand that those in the military operate under a very high degree of control. The government does control much of what a service member sees and hears during a campaign. Granted, at home station you are as free as any other citizen but when deployed or on base lockdown all venues of communication are controlled. Our current level of tech really bothers me in terms of capability. A single aircraft can drop hundreds –that’s right, hundreds- of dumb 500lb bombs within a single foot of accuracy, spot targets on the ground as small as a blade of grass anywhere in the world all on its own with little to no support. There is some amazing tech out there at the moment that all but negates a militaristic uprising.

Honestly, freedom to me is the right to do what I want, when I want and how I want to the extent that it does not interfere with the freedoms of others. For obvious reasons, some freedoms must be given up to operate a successful government (like the freedom to not pay any taxes or serve in a draft) to ensure that those freedoms continue to exist. We have gone too far though. It is unfortunate that my own party, republicans, who trumpet the constitution began the current fast pace of eroding freedoms with the patriot act. The stimulus and healthcare bills are adding to the speed and magnitude of the end to freedom. I strongly believe in the need to earn what you have. You have the right to work for your food but you do not have the inherent right to food.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Post what you want, Ive already proven you are a liar.

You certainly have not (quite the opposite), because you are using outdated, outmoded figures. Thus they don't count, and they make your argument false. Post your figures from 2006. They won't prove your false assertion.

Texas has always been a "welfare" state, taking in more fed dollars than it sends to tax dollars to D.C. It is a very friendly "corporate welfare" state. It has always been so.

ALWAYS

ALWAYS

ALWAYS

ALWAYS

always
One entry found.
Main Entry: al·ways
Pronunciation: \ˈȯl-wēz, -wəz, -(&#716wāz also ˈȯ-\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English alwayes, from alwey
Date: 14th century
1 : at all times : invariably
2 : forever, perpetually
3 : at any rate : in any event <as a last resort one can always work>

always - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

[Foxfyre]

Post what you want, Ive already proven you are a liar.

You certainly have not (quite the opposite), because you are using outdated, outmoded figures. Thus they don't count, and they make your argument false. Post your figures from 2006. They won't prove your false assertion.

ALWAYS

ALWAYS

always
One entry found.
Main Entry: al·ways
Pronunciation: \&#712;&#559;l-w&#275;z, -w&#601;z, -(&#716w&#257;z also &#712;&#559;-\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English alwayes, from alwey
Date: 14th century
1 : at all times : invariably
2 : forever, perpetually
3 : at any rate : in any event <as a last resort one can always work>

always - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Damn it. The board seems to have a barrier between me and Mr. F as I have been consistently getting this message for the last several days.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Mr. Fitnah again.

Hope it is the sentiment that counts.

 

[namvet]

Post what you want, Ive already proven you are a liar.

You certainly have not (quite the opposite), because you are using outdated, outmoded figures. Thus they don't count, and they make your argument false. Post your figures from 2006. They won't prove your false assertion.

thought you said move on. so grab your meat and beat it

 

[Foxfyre]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." -Ben Franklin

Just to clarify Ben Franklin did NOT say this, though it is a good quote. There is no cited source for this quote though it is a really common misquote.

I am sure you are correct re that quote. It struck me at the time that it was a sentiment that Franklin would agree with, but it is worded in a way that doesn't sound like his style. I like the principle though, and I didn't check.[/quote]

Foxfrye
I'm torn on this one. I am a huge Second Amendment advocate, but I am fully aware that military might has surpassed the ability of the common man to defend himself against tyranny of his own government. Or has it? To be truthful, I would not like for my neighbor who regularly gets drunk and disorderly that increase his paranoia to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard nor would I like bank robbers to have easy access to a 105mm recoiless rifle. I don't know who would win if the US government should be taken over in an unscrupulous coup and it became necessary for the people to take it back. I think at least most of the military would side with the people though.

I really hate to say this but I disagree on the last line. They would side with the people in a heartbeat if they could but you must understand that those in the military operate under a very high degree of control. The government does control much of what a service member sees and hears during a campaign. Granted, at home station you are as free as any other citizen but when deployed or on base lockdown all venues of communication are controlled. Our current level of tech really bothers me in terms of capability. A single aircraft can drop hundreds &#8211;that&#8217;s right, hundreds- of dumb 500lb bombs within a single foot of accuracy, spot targets on the ground as small as a blade of grass anywhere in the world all on its own with little to no support. There is some amazing tech out there at the moment that all but negates a militaristic uprising.

I am considering your observation here and will think on it some more. And while I may come to agree with you, at this point my gut and experience tells me that yes, there are some military personnel who would just blindly follow orders without question, but my gut and experience also tells me that most of our military personnel are bright, honest, thinking, and ethical people with access to cell phones, the internet, and a lot of the media including some of that the anti-American types most despise. They are not operating in a vacuum now and should all their communications be suddenly cut off without explanation and the orders they were getting were to attack fellow Americans, I think they would personally question those orders.

I just can't see the men and women in our military following orders to drop those bombs and obliterate their own countrymen, including family, friends, neighbors, unless they were given unquestionable evidence that it was essential for the survival of the country.

Honestly, freedom to me is the right to do what I want, when I want and how I want to the extent that it does not interfere with the freedoms of others. For obvious reasons, some freedoms must be given up to operate a successful government (like the freedom to not pay any taxes or serve in a draft) to ensure that those freedoms continue to exist. We have gone too far though. It is unfortunate that my own party, republicans, who trumpet the constitution began the current fast pace of eroding freedoms with the patriot act. The stimulus and healthcare bills are adding to the speed and magnitude of the end to freedom. I strongly believe in the need to earn what you have. You have the right to work for your food but you do not have the inherent right to food.

And bravo for offering a clear, concise, coherant deifnition of what freedom means to you. We might dicker over a couple of fine points--like whether any, some, or all of the Patriot Act is an offense to freedom--and could expand on a couple of other thoughts, but I agree with freedom being the unquestioned right and ability to pursue the desires of one's heart so long as that does not require contribution from anybody else or infringe on anybody else's rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm torn on this one. I am a huge Second Amendment advocate, but I am fully aware that military might has surpassed the ability of the common man to defend himself against tyranny of his own government. Or has it? To be truthful, I would not like for my neighbor who regularly gets drunk and disorderly that increase his paranoia to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard nor would I like bank robbers to have easy access to a 105mm recoiless rifle. I don't know who would win if the US government should be taken over in an unscrupulous coup and it became necessary for the people to take it back. I think at least most of the military would side with the people though.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/92046-which-side-do-you-come-down-on.html

A thread on that, interesting results

Yes, I was a subscriber to and participant in that thread. It did yield some interesting observations and analysis while alas also attracting an annoying compliment of trolls.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I just can't see the men and women in our military following orders to drop those bombs and obliterate their own countrymen, including family, friends, neighbors, unless they were given unquestionable evidence that it was essential for the survival of the country.

.

They can do much about others doing it if they are involved elsewhere.

 

[FA_Q2]

@ Foxfrye
You have a point. American soldiers are not stupid and there is a specific stigmatism about using our power against American citizens, that is what police are for. I for one would never go along with that. However, I would not underestimate the control the government can levy on them. Personally, I do not think it will ever come to that. This government may vary well collapse under its own weight but it will be an impotent government at that point. I don&#8217;t actually believe it will ever come to a revolution while we have such an advanced and strong military. Remember that we are the strongest nation not only because of our character but also our wealth. Should the government become so decadent that it needs overthrowing we will no longer be a rich and so not a powerful nation.

I did not mean to intone the patriot act as all bad. Honestly it was not the bill itself that scared me. The scary part was the absolute apathy that people approached the release of any freedom. The biggest problem I had was the attempt to rid the need for the courts to use surveillance on American civilians. Read the fourth amendment! The most common phrase I heard was &#8220;I have nothing to hide so let them look.&#8221; That attitude is downright idiotic and dangerous. As Martin Niemoller said in &#8220;First They Came&#8230;:

&#8220;First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out&#8212;because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out&#8212;because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out&#8212;because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me&#8212;and there was no one left to speak out for me.&#8221;

Will we never learn from history?

The loss of freedom does not happen overnight or even over a decade. We all know the boiling frog analogy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I just can't see the men and women in our military following orders to drop those bombs and obliterate their own countrymen, including family, friends, neighbors, unless they were given unquestionable evidence that it was essential for the survival of the country.

.

They can do much about others doing it if they are involved elsewhere.

But its a big country and they all aren't involved elsewhere. And an F-15 or Blackbird can cover a whole lot of territory really fast at 2+ mach. Nobody is going to serously invade us with aircraft because they would be obliterated in no time. Any attempted takeover will come from within through coups and/or intimidation via terrorism or threat of terrorism or from anti-American elected or appointed leaders who sell us out. What will keep America safe will be to continue to elect men and women of faith who love America and the principles that made it the great nation that it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

@ Foxfrye
You have a point. American soldiers are not stupid and there is a specific stigmatism about using our power against American citizens, that is what police are for. I for one would never go along with that. However, I would not underestimate the control the government can levy on them. Personally, I do not think it will ever come to that. This government may vary well collapse under its own weight but it will be an impotent government at that point. I don’t actually believe it will ever come to a revolution while we have such an advanced and strong military. Remember that we are the strongest nation not only because of our character but also our wealth. Should the government become so decadent that it needs overthrowing we will no longer be a rich and so not a powerful nation.

I did not mean to intone the patriot act as all bad. Honestly it was not the bill itself that scared me. The scary part was the absolute apathy that people approached the release of any freedom. The biggest problem I had was the attempt to rid the need for the courts to use surveillance on American civilians. Read the fourth amendment! The most common phrase I heard was “I have nothing to hide so let them look.” That attitude is downright idiotic and dangerous. As Martin Niemoller said in “First They Came…:

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Will we never learn from history?

The loss of freedom does not happen overnight or even over a decade. We all know the boiling frog analogy.

The thing about the Patriot Act is that it was sanctioned by men and women who deeply love this country, who mean it when they salute the flag, who tear up when they sing the National Anthem. And they believed in the values, traditions, and principles that made the USA a great nation with individual freedom at its roots--something that had never been attempted before. I honestly believe it was and is necessary to prevent those who would take all that away from us from doing so.

Yes it went too far here and there and needed, and has had, some fine tuning to correct a few provisions with too much potential for unintended consequences. But I honestly believe that it does not take away freedom from us, but rather protects the freedoms that we have.

I hope you are right that we will not need another revolution to remove a corrupt and oppressive government and replace it with one who values God-given unalienable rights and liberty. But I am convinced there are people in the world who would take our nation from us. I believe we have some of those involved in our government right now.

But you are right. We should learn from history and be ever vigilent and fully aware of the risks and dangers. We just may be looking in different places for them.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I just can't see the men and women in our military following orders to drop those bombs and obliterate their own countrymen, including family, friends, neighbors, unless they were given unquestionable evidence that it was essential for the survival of the country.

.

They can do much about others doing it if they are involved elsewhere.

But its a big country and they all aren't involved elsewhere. And an F-15 or Blackbird can cover a whole lot of territory really fast at 2+ mach. Nobody is going to serously invade us with aircraft because they would be obliterated in no time. Any attempted takeover will come from within through coups and/or intimidation via terrorism or threat of terrorism or from anti-American elected or appointed leaders who sell us out. What will keep America safe will be to continue to elect men and women of faith who love America and the principles that made it the great nation that it is.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y[/ame]
SEIU ACORN ET AL

 

[Foxfyre]

They can do much about others doing it if they are involved elsewhere.

But its a big country and they all aren't involved elsewhere. And an F-15 or Blackbird can cover a whole lot of territory really fast at 2+ mach. Nobody is going to serously invade us with aircraft because they would be obliterated in no time. Any attempted takeover will come from within through coups and/or intimidation via terrorism or threat of terrorism or from anti-American elected or appointed leaders who sell us out. What will keep America safe will be to continue to elect men and women of faith who love America and the principles that made it the great nation that it is.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y[/ame]
SEIU ACORN ET AL

Yes, and at the risk of being accused of evoking Godwin's Law, this is one of the scariest things Obama has said before or after his election. There was a reason that the Founders did not want a standing army to have authority to turn on its own countrymen.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I grew up hearing how there would be a one world government , an improbable myth, now a distinct possibility whose path is rather obvious,
Now the impossible becomes more possible with each and everyday.
With a global economic collapse and the countries sovereignty a hateful thing of the past the future could be bleak indeed.

 

[2Parties]

Those same founders that made the Whiskey tax? And summoned more troops to enforce it than for any revoloutionary battle? And specified it be paid in Specie? When the westrern lands used whiskey for trade and had little official money?

While I think your view of history may be a bit skewed here, do you consider an income tax on one's industry to be a more moral tax than a usage tax? Is a tax on everybody to build an obscure road somehow more moral than a toll paid by those who use the road? Our first government required some funds to carry out its Constitutionally mandated function and chose the least regressive means of doing that as was available to them at the time.

So how would you have advised them to raise funds other than the whiskey tax?

No tax is moral. It is a violent act.

In order for it to be "more moral" it would have to voluntary, and if it was voluntary than it wouldn't be a tax.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those same founders that made the Whiskey tax? And summoned more troops to enforce it than for any revoloutionary battle? And specified it be paid in Specie? When the westrern lands used whiskey for trade and had little official money?

While I think your view of history may be a bit skewed here, do you consider an income tax on one's industry to be a more moral tax than a usage tax? Is a tax on everybody to build an obscure road somehow more moral than a toll paid by those who use the road? Our first government required some funds to carry out its Constitutionally mandated function and chose the least regressive means of doing that as was available to them at the time.

So how would you have advised them to raise funds other than the whiskey tax?

No tax is moral. It is a violent act.

In order for it to be "more moral" it would have to voluntary, and if it was voluntary than it wouldn't be a tax.

A tax is immoral if a) it is for any purpose other than funding the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the government; i.e. to secure our liberties and our rights and/or b) it is for any purpose other than promoting the general welfare; i.e. for necessary purposes that benefit all rather than a targeted few and/or c) it is to pay for infrastructure or expanded services or to compensate for depleted resources such as a toll bridge, or toll road or fuel tax. (Anything in category "C" would be essentially voluntary.) A true flat tax on income earned is probably the most fair and least painful way to accommodate "a" and "b" though a modest sales tax would ensure that all citizens, whether employed or not, would pay at least some of their fair share.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

While I think your view of history may be a bit skewed here, do you consider an income tax on one's industry to be a more moral tax than a usage tax? Is a tax on everybody to build an obscure road somehow more moral than a toll paid by those who use the road? Our first government required some funds to carry out its Constitutionally mandated function and chose the least regressive means of doing that as was available to them at the time.

So how would you have advised them to raise funds other than the whiskey tax?

No tax is moral. It is a violent act.

In order for it to be "more moral" it would have to voluntary, and if it was voluntary than it wouldn't be a tax.

A tax is immoral if a) it is for any purpose other than funding the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the government; i.e. to secure our liberties and our rights and/or b) it is for any purpose other than promoting the general welfare; i.e. for necessary purposes that benefit all rather than a targeted few and/or c) it is to pay for infrastructure or expanded services or to compensate for depleted resources such as a toll bridge, or toll road or fuel tax. (Anything in category "C" would be essentially voluntary.) A true flat tax on income earned is probably the most fair and least painful way to accommodate "a" and "b" though a modest sales tax would ensure that all citizens, whether employed or not, would pay at least some of their fair share.

I used to envision what it would be like if the congress had to behave like the thugs they are to get the money they want beating people up on payday .
The world would be a different place.

 

[Foxfyre]

I used to envision what it would be like if the congress had to behave like the thugs they are to get the money they want beating people up on payday .
The world would be a different place.

It was discussed recently, maybe even earlier in this thread--my memory isn't what it used to be--that, for now, some of us would settle for a couple of new Constitutional amendments:

1) All members of Congress would be required to accept and live by whatever rules or policy they impose on the rest of us. In other words, if they mandate some kind of health insurance for everybody else, they would be required to utilize the worst of the worst they impose on others and pay for it like eveyrbody else and could no longer have their cadillac premium tax payer furnished insurance.

2) Congress would have to cite the specific clause of the Constitution that authorizes them to pass whatever bills they pass.

Just those two things would not fix all the problems, but it would be a good start.

I learned long ago in management school though that you cannot fix a bad policy or system by changing the people, and you can't fix bad people by changing the policy or system.