View Full Version : The USA has never been "the land of the free"
e1618978
03-01-2005, 10:33 PM
Home of the brave, sure, but land of the free?
I got started thinking about this when I read about the senator from Utah that wants to censor satelite radio/tv and cable tv. Compared to Canada and Australia, this is one super uptight country.
When has this been the land of the free? Who came up with that? We had slavery, indentured servents, military draft, censorship, mccarthyism, etc. From what I remember (10 years ago) the strip bars are horrible here (probably due to legislation). Our media outlets are kind of boring and uniformly bad.
In 1995, we passed a law that makes it illegal to renounce your citizenship if your net worth is over $500K - its the enslave the rich law. And they tax you, no matter where you move to.
You are not free to get a gay marriage, use drugs, drive fast, and in some places you are not allowed to paint your house a different color.
It is the land of the oppressive "squeeky wheel" pseudo-majority, not the land of the free.
Wrong Robot
03-01-2005, 10:41 PM
We've outsourced freedom to iraq...
ThinkingDifferent
03-01-2005, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
You are not free to get a gay marriage, use drugs, drive fast, and in some places you are not allowed to paint your house a different color.
Now that we know you are a gay drug addict that likes to drive fast who lives in a pink house, what's your point?
Originally posted by e1618978
In 1995, we passed a law that makes it illegal to renounce your citizenship if your net worth is over $500K - its the enslave the rich law. And they tax you, no matter where you move to.I never heard of this before.. incredible. Just incredible.
http://www.frissell.com/taxpat/Renounce.htm
Since that's how it is, I'd renounce citizenship before reaching $500K net worth on general principle, no matter what. The poor excuses for human beings who would write such a law do not deserve a cent of anyone else's money.
It's a sad day when the land of the free has to put up fences to prevent the people from escaping it.
Is there supposed to be retroactive law in a civilized country, btw? (it seems this one was passed 1996 but retroactively applied to 1995)
Placebo
03-02-2005, 09:58 AM
It's a free country as long as you don't break the law.
e1618978
03-02-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Placebo
It's a free country as long as you don't break the law.
That is true of every country.
BuonRotto
03-02-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
We had slavery, indentured servents, military draft, censorship, mccarthyism, etc.
That criteria eliminates the rest of the known world too. Congrats, you've found out that human history sucks ass. :p
e1618978
03-02-2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by BuonRotto
That criteria eliminates the rest of the known world too. Congrats, you've found out that human history sucks ass. :p
But this is the only country claiming to be "the land of the free". What right do we have to make that claim, which seems pretty darn false.
Originally posted by e1618978
That is true of every country. Actually, it isn't true of every country. There are many ones where you can be detained, tortured or killed by the government without ever breaking a law and without them proving that you did.
Gene Clean
03-02-2005, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
But this is the only country claiming to be "the land of the free". What right do we have to make that claim, which seems pretty darn false.
Not only claiming to be free, but trying to export its 'freedom' to others as well - re: Iraq.
e1618978
03-02-2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Gon
Actually, it isn't true of every country. There are many ones where you can be detained, tortured or killed by the government without ever breaking a law and without them proving that you did.
So if they pass a law saying that they can detain anyone without reason or notice, then it would be ok?
My objections are to the laws themselves, not our justice system. Our justice system is fine (well, except that it gives longer punishments for the same crimes the darker your skin is), but our laws are what make this a very un-free country.
Anders
03-02-2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
Our justice system is fine (well, except that it gives longer punishments for the same crimes the darker your skin is),
The first small step on a route that have been travelled by guys like Fellowship and Common Man
sunilraman
03-10-2005, 09:16 PM
I had a great 2.5 years in San Francisco Bay Area. Northen California is a good example of American freedom... some would argue in excess. :\
Sydney Australia is quite a liberal place... don't quote me and you take your own risks, but 'recreational' drug use at the individual level is not as harshly viewed because the Australian authorities have moved upstream on the enforcement, ie. targetting dealers and makers of drugs... Kind of... what you do in Amsterdam is cool but drug shipments are heavily monitored by interpol when stuff leaves the netherlands...
In Indonesia quite some marijuana was found in the luggage of an Australian who went to Bali for holiday. She is facing a death penalty (hanging i think, not lethal injection) if convicted, she continues to deny any knowledge and claims that it was planted...
Just some points on freedom to think about, when thinking about US, other developed countries, and those in the axis-of-not-so-evil-but-we've-got-our-eye-on-you :\
sunilraman
03-10-2005, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Anders
The first small step on a route that have been travelled by guys like Fellowship and Common Man
*bristles at the thought* are you saying they're more enlightened than the rest of us?? ;) :p
SDW2001
03-11-2005, 12:49 PM
What's amazing is that my 4th graders at school know more about the freedoms we have in US than half the people here do.
sunilraman
03-11-2005, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by SDW2001
What's amazing is that my 4th graders at school know more about the freedoms we have in US than half the people here do.
you may have to elaborate further, and i'm sure most of us can read at a 4th grade level, so hit us with it...! examples always help...
audiopollution
03-11-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by SDW2001
What's amazing is that my 4th graders at school know more about the freedoms we have in US than half the people here do.
Originally posted by sunilraman
you may have to elaborate further, and i'm sure most of us can read at a 4th grade level, so hit us with it...! examples always help...
If you could include pictures, it may help.
Your 4th grade students might know more about the freedoms that they are supposed to have, but I'm certain that they don't know much about how those freedoms are being slowly reduced or regulated. Maybe you have in-depth debates with them about the PATRIOT Act, or other recently passed or proposed Laws?! Do you?
There's a difference between the rosy outlook that knowing what you should have gives you and the crummy reality.
Hell, I wish I could go back to that childhood innocence again where everything was bright and shiny.
When "freedom" is reduced to the act of chosing itself, this sort of conversation becomes incoherent. (not incoherent as in 'stupid', incoherent as in 'internally inconsistent'.)
Freedom, as we now conceive of it, presumes—and must ever more consciously pursue—an irreducible nihilism: for there must literally be nothing transcendent of the will that might command it towards ends it would not choose for itself, no value higher than those the will imposes upon its world, no nature but what the will elects for itself.
MarcUK
03-11-2005, 03:13 PM
freedom is a fantasy of the half-educated.
onlooker
03-11-2005, 09:44 PM
IMO still the greatest country in the world though. I like it. :D
sunilraman
03-11-2005, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
We've outsourced freedom to iraq...
don't forget the freedom bells are ringing loud and clear in one of those something-i-stan places.... oh yeah, afghanistan....!
sunilraman
03-11-2005, 10:09 PM
i thought maybe i'd point out what once of your founding fathers said.... if i got it right.....
the price of freedom is eternal vigilance
rageous
03-12-2005, 12:43 AM
American citizens are more tolerated than actually free. There are so many systems in place presently and many more proposed that just fly in the face of civil liberties that I honestly get worried.
California wants to track your mileage (and thus physical location) via GPS, supposedly to tax you per driven mile. The hidden push towards national ID cards. DNA banks. Cameras in intersections. Credit card data. Social Security numbers.
People are more and more buying into the mentality of "well if I've done nothing wrong, then I have nothing to hide." They're giving up their rights all the while believing they are receiving some sort of "security" from a government that never ceases to tell you how unsafe you are in an attempt to get you to let them make you even more safe. It's retarded. But people consume it like it's Mickey D's.
sunilraman
03-12-2005, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
.....You are not free to get a gay marriage....
vermont? :err: other states?
rageous
03-12-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by sunilraman
vermont? :err: other states?
And if that gay couple were to move from Vermont to, say, Michigan? Would their legal rights move with them?
Nope.
Half-rights aren't rights at all.
sunilraman
03-12-2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by rageous
And if that gay couple were to move from Vermont to, say, Michigan? Would their legal rights move with them?
Nope.
Half-rights aren't rights at all.
good point, even if they stayed in vermont they'd only get as much state-level rights as vermont recognizes, but not full federal-level rights...
e1618978
03-12-2005, 11:40 AM
If this were a free country, you would be able to do whatever you like as long as it didn't hurt anyone else, or impinge on their freedom.
There are far too many people in this country that want to stick their nose in other people's business. If you want to smoke drugs, or marry someone of the same sex, it does not hurt anyone else, so why should it be illegal? Sure, I agree with drunk driving laws, and if you drive while stoned, fine - that should be illegal, but why should it be illegal in your house?
The government should not be involved in marriage at all - marriage is a religious ceremony. Civil unions (for both homosexuals and hetrosexuals) from the government should be tied to the "marriage type benefits", and beyond that you can value-add with a religious ceremony if you like (and the various religions should be able to descriminate however they like).
Oral sex is illegal in my state - I think that the religious types need the laws in place, because they are afraid that they don't have the willpower to resist "sin".
There are lawmakers that want to make tongue-splitting illegal. You should be allowed to modify your body in any way you like (short of putting a bomb in your leg or something). If you want to replace your arm with a tenticle, then more power to you. And if you want to sodomise your neighbor with that tenticle, it should also be allowed (provided that you neighbor is willing, and it is done in private).
sunilraman
03-12-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
If this were a free country, you would be able to do whatever you like as long as it didn't hurt anyone else, or impinge on their freedom.
There are far too many people in this country that want to stick their nose in other people's business. If you want to smoke drugs, or marry someone of the same sex, it does not hurt anyone else, so why should it be illegal? Sure, I agree with drunk driving laws, and if you drive while stoned, fine - that should be illegal, but why should it be illegal in your house?
The government should not be involved in marriage at all - marriage is a religious ceremony. Civil unions (for both homosexuals and hetrosexuals) from the government should be tied to the "marriage type benefits", and beyond that you can value-add with a religious ceremony if you like (and the various religions should be able to descriminate however they like).
Oral sex is illegal in my state - I think that the religious types need the laws in place, because they are afraid that they don't have the willpower to resist "sin".
There are lawmakers that want to make tongue-splitting illegal. You should be allowed to modify your body in any way you like (short of putting a bomb in your leg or something). If you want to replace your arm with a tenticle, then more power to you. And if you want to sodomise your neighbor with that tenticle, it should also be allowed (provided that you neighbor is willing, and it is done in private).
um... you've been watching too much of that tentacle-monster japanese anime-porn stuff right? :smokey:
nah... i know what your saying bro, where i am living right now, where i grew up but just back for a few months after years in other more liberal countries, homosexuality and sodomy is illegal between consenting adults, even in the privacy of your own home... the deputy prime minister here got jailed for several years based on this charge that allegedly he had backdoor sex with his driver :rolleyes:
but yeah, well bill clinton and monica lewinsky, so yeah, i guess i'm starting to get your point about the US not bein so free after all...
soulcrusher
03-12-2005, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by BuonRotto
That criteria eliminates the rest of the known world too. Congrats, you've found out that human history sucks ass. :p
not my country.
I slept and dreamt that life was beauty,
I awoke to find that life is duty.
e1618978
03-12-2005, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by dmz
I slept and dreamt that life was beauty,
I awoke to find that life is duty.
Duty? You have a duty to be opressed by the government on behalf of the nosy majority? I don't think that this has anything to do with duty.
And soulcrusher - please be more specific, you live in the same country as I do (same town, actually), so "no, your wrong" is not enough of an argument.
Originally posted by e1618978
You have a duty to be opressed by the government on behalf of the nosy majority? I don't think that this has anything to do with duty.
Reducing 'freedom of choice' to the act of choosing itself with no preexisitng conditions is a bad place to start.
You have duties to your fellow citizens -- this should be your focus.
e1618978
03-12-2005, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by dmz
Reducing 'freedom of choice' to the act of choosing itself with no preexisitng conditions is a bad place to start.
You have duties to your fellow citizens -- this should be your focus.
I don't understand your first sentance, but I agree that you have a duty not to harm your fellow citizens, if that is what you mean.
sammi jo
03-12-2005, 02:39 PM
It's amazing how many people think that in America, the land of the free, we have a constitutional right to vote. We don't, and thats not going to change any time soon.
Originally posted by e1618978
I don't understand your first sentance, but I agree that you have a duty not to harm your fellow citizens, if that is what you mean.
I think you want the freedom to 'choose', as such. The assumption being that there is no greater principle than being to free to choose anything you wish.
e1618978
03-12-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by dmz
I think you want the freedom to 'choose', as such. The assumption being that there is no greater principle than being to free to choose anything you wish.
Exactly - as long as you do not choose to hurt anyone else.
Who is to say what is good or bad, right or wrong, when it does not hurt anyone else? Morality is arbitrary, and once you start deligating moral code to law enforcement, it may turn around and bite you.
Duty is a public matter, when you start to let it intrude on the private life of the citizenry ("you have the duty to act this way or that way") it becomes very dangerous.
Also, it is your duty (and mine) to stand up for the rights of persecuted minorities, including gay people.
Originally posted by e1618978
Exactly - as long as you do not choose to hurt anyone else.
Who is to say what is good or bad, right or wrong, when it does not hurt anyone else? Morality is arbitrary, and once you start deligating moral code to law enforcement, it may turn around and bite you.
Duty is a public matter, when you start to let it intrude on the private life of the citizenry ("you have the duty to act this way or that way") it becomes very dangerous.
Also, it is your duty (and mine) to stand up for the rights of persecuted minorities, including gay people.
Law is only morality codified. There really isn't any way around that. When a law is made it not only defines right and wrong, but teaches morality as well, "it is wrong to descriminate on skin color", "it is wrong for an 18-year-old to marry a 13-year-old", those sorts of things. Morality is only arbitrary in a mob, the rest of time it is codified, and then enforced to one degree or another. Public or private, you have a duty to yourself and others.
You are attempting to separate public from private but, I think you are including in the 'right to choose', the right for the individual to hurt themselves. Still, even when you apply the 'consenting adults' rule it still allows intrusion for those who might enjoy being 'hurt' or abused, this would include drug abuse, or even driving drunk (after all, the driving drunk doesn't hurt anyone, it's the actual wreck that does the damage.)
Also, there is a great deal of "rights" talk implied here, that I don't think you are being consistent on. Some would suggest you have a duty to God -- and that duty initiates these other, secondary duties to yourself and others. Otherwise you assume that you have these 'rights', but on whose authority? Your own? God? When you are 'given' a right, what does that mean? Is the 'right' to do something coming with any responsibilities? When you fire up a joint on the weekend, or do the pay-per-view porn, do you have the right to hurt yourself? Do you have the right to finance the commoditization of women? Do you have the right to finance a drug cartel? Pirate software? Pirate music?
If you aren't answerable to somebody or something beyond yourself --- that you belong to yourself -- do you REALLY have to coordinate these 'rights' with others? I think if you're willing to be consistent, your answer would be 'no'.
Aurora
03-12-2005, 06:06 PM
True freedom has been removed by politicians and beauracrats a long time ago, we have a govt who is in our face on the local ,state and federal levels. We have constant taxation and if the politicians want more all they do is vote themself a raise and send us the bill. The forfathers never intended a Govt 1st and the people 2nd but thats we have ended up with. A Govt telling the people how to live. Freedom has been gone a long time and Govt will use any excuse it can to gobble up more control of our lives. Look at the patriot act for 1 example meanwhile these same two face politicians who are in big business pockets wont even address the mexico border. They work for corporations not the people. The signers of the constitution would be rolling in there graves if they saw how we have removed freedom with thousands and thousands of law. Law on top of old law on top of old law has led to the mess we call our justice system. No we dont have freedom if we did you wouldnt have to pay taxes,you wouldnt have to sign up for the military when 18 and about a million other things. Fact is Govt thinks its here to tell people how to live. Big Business runs our govt 100% through lobbiest and donations to campaigns. Freedom is being sold off to corporations through law created by these !@#$%^&*low life politicians. 100 years ago we were really free today we have something very different.
Originally posted by Aurora
Law on top of old law on top of old law has led to the mess we call our justice system. No we dont have freedom if we did you wouldnt have to pay taxes,you wouldnt have to sign up for the military when 18 and about a million other things. Fact is Govt thinks its here to tell people how to live. Big Business runs our govt 100% through lobbiest and donations to campaigns. Freedom is being sold off to corporations through law created by these !@#$%^&*low life politicians. 100 years ago we were really free today we have something very different.
I think alot of this is generally true, but 'we the people' don't understand that the "I am my own" mentality, coupled with moral rot ensures a severe, unjust, overcontrolling state.
This lobbying could be overidden tommrow, but it won't. due to this very selfishness.
giant
03-12-2005, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by dmz
Otherwise you assume that you have these 'rights', but on whose authority? ... Pirate software? Pirate music?
WRT to copyright, the right to semi-exclusive copyright for a limited time is given to the copyright holder by the public. In our system, the default is that the public automatically has the right to do what they want with creative works, but they give up *part* of that right for a limited time. In other words, what right do copyright holders have to stop the public from copying their work and where to they get it from? Very little, and they get it from the "pirates." Where does the public's right come from? Ask Locke, etc...
e1618978
03-12-2005, 07:23 PM
You are attempting to separate public from private but, I think you are including in the 'right to choose', the right for the individual to hurt themselves. Still, even when you apply the 'consenting adults' rule it still allows intrusion for those who might enjoy being 'hurt' or abused, this would include drug abuse, or even driving drunk (after all, the driving drunk doesn't hurt anyone, it's the actual wreck that does the damage.)
Also, there is a great deal of "rights" talk implied here, that I don't think you are being consistent on. Some would suggest you have a duty to God -- and that duty initiates these other, secondary duties to yourself and others. Otherwise you assume that you have these 'rights', but on whose authority? Your own? God? When you are 'given' a right, what does that mean? Is the 'right' to do something coming with any responsibilities? When you fire up a joint on the weekend, or do the pay-per-view porn, do you have the right to hurt yourself? Do you have the right to finance the commoditization of women? Do you have the right to finance a drug cartel? Pirate software? Pirate music?
If you aren't answerable to somebody or something beyond yourself --- that you belong to yourself -- do you REALLY have to coordinate these 'rights' with others? I think if you're willing to be consistent, your answer would be 'no'. [/B]
Drunk driving is hurting others by putting them at risk, even if you don't crash - but yes, I believe that you should have the right to be a drug addict or a masochist if that is what you want. Why should the rest of society have a paternal power over the individual to prevent them from self-distructive behaviour?
As an athiest, I have no duty to God, only to society.
And yes, you should have the right to fire up a joint, watch porn, and hurt yourself.
The drug cartels are a side effect of the war on drugs, if drugs were legal, companies like Merck and Phillip Morris would handle them as a commodity (with the same moral issues as alchohol or cigarettes).
Based on my stated opinions, I don't see how you could think that I would endorse female slavery.
Music piracy I see as justified, in response to aggression and cartel pricing by the RIAA. I do not endorse software piracy.
talksense101
03-12-2005, 09:41 PM
True freedom is a myth. It never existed and it never will.
Corporates rule the US. All national laws and foreign policies are based on profit for the corporate world. If you are willing to play within the system, the US is still the land of the free. The old USSR was also the land of the free as long as you obeyed the law and got permits to visit neighbouring cities.
What exactly are we talking about when we say freedom?
e1618978
03-12-2005, 10:26 PM
To me, a country that touts itself as "the land of the free", needs to be "more free" than the other nations around the world.
In order to be considered a free country, any action that the government takes to limit the freedom of its population must serve one of the following three causes:
1. Protect the people from each other
2. Protect the people from the government (including protecting the accuracy of voting and elections)
3. Protect the people from the outside world.
Any action that the government takes to "protect the people from themselves" makes the country less free. The USA is less free than many other countries around the globe (Canada for one), and is becoming less and less free as time goes on.
Aurora
03-12-2005, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
To me, a country that touts itself as "the land of the free", needs to be "more free" than the other nations around the world.
In order to be considered a free country, any action that the government takes to limit the freedom of its population must serve one of the following three causes:
1. Protect the people from each other
2. Protect the people from the government (including protecting the accuracy of voting and elections)
3. Protect the people from the outside world.
Any action that the government takes to "protect the people from themselves" makes the country less free. The USA is less free than many other countries around the globe (Canada for one), and is becoming less and less free as time goes on. Its true you have freedom if you live your life as govt says you must which in itself isnt freedom at all. This crap George Bush is spinning is just that, while he gets in front of the crowds spewing so called freedom behind the seens he is sending folks to other countries so they can be tortured to extract the terrorist connection. He spews freedom and liberty yet this same man who signed the Patriot act ignores the Mexican border so what really going on here? Ill tell you and thats a oppresive govt who dictates what freedom is and isnt. Is that freedom or B.S.? Little by little freedom is being removed in almost every country in the world wether its what you can and cant say,what you can and cant wear, what you can and cant own, what you can or cant consume. Big Brother is heading at us everywhere but its so slow of a process we cant see it coming until we have the next catastrophe or 1984 arrives. You have freedom only if you live within the ever growing rules and laws. Govt is a growing organism that feeds off society. The police state is getting bigger everyday and those that usually work for govt are looking for more say into our lives. Freedom is almost dead. When cash is removed from society and freedom of speech is removed it will be over. Its coming inch by inch and it may not happen in my lifetime but i assure you its coming. They are looking for excuses to do just this even as we speak. The terrorists were just what govt was looking for to create more law and to get further into our lives. Freedom is a lie.
Originally posted by Placebo
It's a free country as long as you don't break the law.
But thats what makes America great. There are so many laws that are begging to be broken! If you haven't broken a law by 9:00 AM every morning, get off you're lazy arse and do something.
Seriously, backing out of my driveway is against the law... To hell with it! :devil:
Edit: Hey, look at that. There's a page two. ;)
Originally posted by e1618978
Drunk driving is hurting others by putting them at risk, even if you don't crash
I have issue with that. I can not believe, even by a long shot, that driving next to a drunk driver hurts anyone. This situation does increase the likelihood of an accident, but in no way is someone hurt by being at risk.
Squelching these blatant exaggerations is a pet-peeve of mine, so sorry if it sounds a little harsh. I do agree with you about the eRIAA though. They are doing it to themselves.
Aurora
03-12-2005, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Ebby
But thats what makes America great. There are so many laws that are begging to be broken! If you haven't broken a law by 9:00 AM every morning, get off you're lazy arse and do something.
Seriously, backing out of my driveway is against the law... To hell with it! :devil:
Edit: Hey, look at that. There's a page two. ;) Going down on the wife,spitting on the sidewalk,burning a dubie,driving with no seat belt,I submit that if every law was upheld the whole country would be in jail but it doesnt stop the @#$%^&* law makers does it? 1st step to correcting all of this is get big business out of govt and then get rid of the lawyers and let real folks govern the country as our forfathers had intended. The lawyers have created a system that perpetuates the police state,removes freedom and insures that no one can understand any of it while they get big money for having their secretaries push that paper.Getting rid of the lawyers would be a great first step to bring back freedom to many nations.
giant
03-13-2005, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
Drunk driving is hurting others by putting them at risk, even if you don't crash - but yes, I believe that you should have the right to be a drug addict or a masochist if that is what you want. Why should the rest of society have a paternal power over the individual to prevent them from self-distructive behaviour?
As an athiest, I have no duty to God, only to society.
And yes, you should have the right to fire up a joint, watch porn, and hurt yourself.
The drug cartels are a side effect of the war on drugs, if drugs were legal, companies like Merck and Phillip Morris would handle them as a commodity (with the same moral issues as alchohol or cigarettes).
Based on my stated opinions, I don't see how you could think that I would endorse female slavery.
Music piracy I see as justified, in response to aggression and cartel pricing by the RIAA. I do not endorse software piracy.
The problem here is that you are just listing a bunch of your opinions, whereas dmz is talking about rights, which is a notion of philosophy. The US, laws and the concept of freedom, the subjects of this thread, all have their roots in deep philosophical systems. Without looking at these, the whole thing is taken out of context. :\
In terms of opinion, mine don't really differ from yours
In terms of 'piracy,' however, focusing on the RIAA kind of cheapens the broader issue of copyright being totally abused by many copyright holders and legislators
Originally posted by e1618978
....As an athiest, I have no duty to God, only to society ....... And yes, you should have the right to .......... hurt yourself.
On the one hand you sanction the right to damage yourself, but on the other you still hold on to the 'responsibilities' you owe to society.
What ethic allows you to hurt yourself but still builds a sustanable society?
jccbin
03-13-2005, 01:45 AM
There is a "I want my cake and to eat it, too" attitude in some of these posts.
Some claim that they have the right to use drugs so long as they do not hurt others. Are those same people willing to give up health insurance, renounce medicare and accept pay-as-you-go health care? Hurting others can be indirect as well as direct and this is one of the reasons some drugs are illegal in the U.S.
I personally have no problem with you smoking your pot in private, but I do have a problem with you expecting me to pay higher insurance costs or higher taxes if your self-destructive activities increase the costs of your health care now or in the future.
In short, if you want freedom, you have to bear reponsibility for the liberties you take.
You want legal drugs? Fine. Your insurance just went up an order of magnitude and you've been kicked out the government-run medical safety net. Oh, and if you ever have children, they are subject to very strict pre-screening before being accepted for insurance or the safety net, too.
Originally posted by jccbin
Some claim that they have the right to use drugs so long as they do not hurt others. Are those same people willing to give up health insurance, renounce medicare and accept pay-as-you-go health care? Hurting others can be indirect as well as direct and this is one of the reasons some drugs are illegal in the U.S.
Here here! Same with gas prices. Now if only I could ban all those people driving their kid (not plural) to soccer practice in hummers, or who pick up groceries with Suburbans, you know, not the people who need SUV's, but all the others who raise the gas prices for my Hybrid.
Hopefully you picked up on that bit of sarcasm/irony. :)
PS: I'm doing a 5 page report on Fahrenheit 9/11, and it is 2:00AM. I'm tired. ;) <- Half asleep
e1618978
03-13-2005, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by jccbin
There is a "I want my cake and to eat it, too" attitude in some of these posts.
Some claim that they have the right to use drugs so long as they do not hurt others. Are those same people willing to give up health insurance, renounce medicare and accept pay-as-you-go health care? Hurting others can be indirect as well as direct and this is one of the reasons some drugs are illegal in the U.S.
I personally have no problem with you smoking your pot in private, but I do have a problem with you expecting me to pay higher insurance costs or higher taxes if your self-destructive activities increase the costs of your health care now or in the future.
In short, if you want freedom, you have to bear reponsibility for the liberties you take.
You want legal drugs? Fine. Your insurance just went up an order of magnitude and you've been kicked out the government-run medical safety net. Oh, and if you ever have children, they are subject to very strict pre-screening before being accepted for insurance or the safety net, too.
How do you feel about alchohol and cigarettes? These are the two drugs that have the most severe effect on your health.
Do you also want to outlaw motorcycles and mcdonalds?
e1618978
03-13-2005, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by dmz
On the one hand you sanction the right to damage yourself, but on the other you still hold on to the 'responsibilities' you owe to society.
What ethic allows you to hurt yourself but still builds a sustanable society?
I can't believe that you think that the S&M folks are seriously damaging our productivity.
Society would be more productive if drugs were legal, because usage would go down, and the jails would be much less full.
We know from Alchohol prohibition that making something illegal increases crime, increases usage, and increases the corruption of law enforcement. Society would be better off with legal drugs.
e1618978
03-13-2005, 08:16 AM
The problem here is that you are just listing a bunch of your opinions, whereas dmz is talking about rights, which is a notion of philosophy. The US, laws and the concept of freedom, the subjects of this thread, all have their roots in deep philosophical systems. Without looking at these, the whole thing is taken out of context.
DMZ's post are too vague to be talking about anything.
Why do you think that the US deserves the title of "land of the free"? Maybe it was the most free 229 years ago, when it was founded, but it has since lost the race.
Aurora
03-13-2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by jccbin
There is a "I want my cake and to eat it, too" attitude in some of these posts.
Some claim that they have the right to use drugs so long as they do not hurt others. Are those same people willing to give up health insurance, renounce medicare and accept pay-as-you-go health care? Hurting others can be indirect as well as direct and this is one of the reasons some drugs are illegal in the U.S.
I personally have no problem with you smoking your pot in private, but I do have a problem with you expecting me to pay higher insurance costs or higher taxes if your self-destructive activities increase the costs of your health care now or in the future.
In short, if you want freedom, you have to bear reponsibility for the liberties you take.
You want legal drugs? Fine. Your insurance just went up an order of magnitude and you've been kicked out the government-run medical safety net. Oh, and if you ever have children, they are subject to very strict pre-screening before being accepted for insurance or the safety net, too. There are many risky behaviors society hasnt "Lawed Out" yet. What about those fat people over eating? they are making my insurance much higher then the pot smoker? or what about those that practice risky sexual behavior again why should i pay for someone who is going to get aids?Big big costs there and a heck of lot more costs to society then someone burning a joint. or the skydiver? or the skateborder? Your argument is false. They pick and choose what is and isnt political correctness. They just had a fat law suit against Mcdonalds and you know they will try again. Freedom is being wittled away by the beuracrats and law maker who (try ) to decide our lives.
Not trying to move this subject but the war on drugs was lost just as the war on alcohol was lost. The police state by inacting more law creates more law breakers which in turn builds more jails,lawyers,judges,and then taxes go up to pay for it all. A endless cycle that grows and gives more authority to the police state. Govt is better at reacting rather then looking forward. A legalized drug system would take away from the control freaks who are growing the police state and they dont want that.It would shut down the dealers and make it much harder for kids to get at but there is a problem. It doesnt grow the police state. Keeping it illegal is just what the fat cats want.1 Example of Freedom. Plenty more.
jccbin
03-13-2005, 11:41 AM
Wow, mighty wide brush you are painting with there!
First, there is no need for a universal standard regarding product issues. We techno-types might think so, but human behavior is not mechanical or computer-like, no matter what our teachers may have said. Recall or look up cognitive dissonance, if you'd like an example.
giant
03-13-2005, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
Society would be more productive if drugs were legal, because usage would go down, and the jails would be much less full.
Usage would go up, price and associated crime would go down. Usage goes down during prohibition.
Originally posted by e1618978
I can't believe that you think that the S&M folks are seriously damaging our productivity.
Society would be more productive if drugs were legal, because usage would go down, and the jails would be much less full.
We know from Alchohol prohibition that making something illegal increases crime, increases usage, and increases the corruption of law enforcement. Society would be better off with legal drugs.
I don't mean S&M, I mean more of what would constitute "hurting youself" from a generally Christian prespective. I think you have taken the position that "you are your own" and still are trying to force that into a socially responsible framework, but, by definition, this is not where you are taking your 'first principles' from. Once you allow for everyone else to 'be their own' or be the sole point of arbitration, you have created confusion. What you are doing is attempting to 'be free' as you put it, while still implicitly knodding your head to certain social constructions of 'right and wrong'. In the end you are holding two opposing views in tension in order to function. This is an inherently "schizophrenic" position.
As a Christian fundie, I see the problems of 'cops in the bedroom', stupid wars on drugs, incarceration-as-punishmenrt, and other inhumane and invasive goverment practices as the State taking the place of God.
Every State as hard as it tries, still faces enormous factors outside of it's control. As hard as it engineers the locking up of 'criminals' it's ultimate ineffectivness and moral authority suffers. I believe, as there is an "invisible hand" in the economics of a free market system, there is also an invible hand in applying true measures of justice to a culutre -- as God's plan for society that He would bless, taking care of all the 'other' factors that no State can hope to finesse.
As the State and it's citizens lose the power to live in a moral (read sustanable) manner, this creates disorder, take [homo]sexual promiscuity and the costs of the AIDS epidemic, or the way the state punishes thieves by locking them in cages, for instance. The first example clearly costs society, so does the State's response to larceny -- but both are immoral. Neither can be addressed effectivly with the 'morality' that is common currency today.
A return to Puratinism? No. But the concept of 'fine them, kill them or let them go' would empty prisons (one way or another), stop turning thieves and other lower level lawbreakers into hardened criminals, and would generally remove this nanny state mentality by putting the orientation of law back between man and God where it belongs, rather than the paranoid State trying to prevent every possible offense.
e1618978
03-13-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by giant
Usage would go up, price and associated crime would go down. Usage goes down during prohibition.
While technically true, this is misleading, because the "softer" drugs decrease during prohibition, while the "harder" drugs increase.
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html
"The major effect of the Eighteenth Amendment was to dramatically reduce beer drinking (and therefore total alcohol consumption). At the same time, prohibition increased consumption of hard liquor (especially among the middle class). The fashionableness of the martini and other mixed drinks among the middle class is in part a historical legacy of prohibition, when criminalization made hard liquor the most available form of beverage alcohol."
e1618978
03-13-2005, 03:47 PM
Once you allow for everyone else to 'be their own' or be the sole point of arbitration, you have created confusion. What you are doing is attempting to 'be free' as you put it, while still implicitly knodding your head to certain social constructions of 'right and wrong'. In the end you are holding two opposing views in tension in order to function. This is an inherently "schizophrenic" position.
I disagree for the most part. If you do something that does not hurt anyone else, it is right, if you hurt someone else, it is wrong.
Why is gay marriage wrong? It is an arbitrary rule - if you want to argue that "this is the way it is, so it is right", then was it OK for the germans to gas the jews? Their "1940 status quo" morality is now considered evil, my moral framework provides an unchanging set of consistant rules which will be the same in 1000 years.
The only grey area that I can think of is bigamy - because polygamous socities ususally are opressive to teenage women (you marry off your daughter to your neighbor, and he does the same, for example).
sunilraman
03-13-2005, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
.... my moral framework provides an unchanging set of consistant rules which will be the same in 1000 years.....
more power to you if that is the case... and i'm sure many would be interested in a framework that provides peace and security in a rapidly changing world..... but i think it is very likely that all our moral frameworks will be challenged heavily by the end of this century...
slughead
03-13-2005, 11:04 PM
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-12-14-04.ram
Originally posted by e1618978
Why is gay marriage wrong? It is an arbitrary rule - if you want to argue that "this is the way it is, so it is right", then was it OK for the germans to gas the jews? Their "1940 status quo" morality is now considered evil, my moral framework provides an unchanging set of consistant rules which will be the same in 1000 years.
The only grey area that I can think of is bigamy - because polygamous socities ususally are opressive to teenage women (you marry off your daughter to your neighbor, and he does the same, for example).
1940s morality? You cite Nazism but leave out Lenin's mass murders? There is just no comparison between the magnitudes of those events, yet you reference one but ignore the other.(?)
I think you have misapplied your analogy.
Hassan i Sabbah
03-14-2005, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by dmz
1940s morality? You cite Nazism but leave out Lenin's mass murders? There is just no comparison between the magnitudes of those events, yet you reference one but ignore the other.(?)
I think you have misapplied your analogy.
Lenin didn't make any mass murders. He was the good guy.
You're thinking of Stalin. And he was around in the 1940s.
tonton
03-14-2005, 05:22 AM
A good education would do dmz a lot of good. Why do I suspect he was home schooled?
Aurora
03-14-2005, 07:47 AM
What it boils down to is Govt is through Law is trying to control morality. 1st its not govts job 2nd it doesnt work. I used the weed case because its a great example of politics,the police state and failed politicians trying to tell us what we can and cant do. Sundance has been running a old marijuana movie that shows just how far astray govt can go. Nixon had a special investigation and study of weed but when the report came back to him with a different conclussion he threw it away and ignored it. Bush sr was quoted as saying people should be locked up for life? Carter was for decriminalization of weed and ran on that but once in he changed his tune because of politics and the fact that one of his cabinet members got caught with hard stuff and lots of lies. politics,politics instead of common sense. Billions and billions of tax payer money has been squandered on this alone. Now take these same politics on many other issues and you can see we have a govt who will pass law even when not knowing whats in it or if its right or wrong. The Patriot act is a fine example of legislation passed with no one knowing what was in it but they did it for pure politics. Politics are destroying freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through senseless law.
e1618978
03-14-2005, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by dmz
1940s morality? You cite Nazism but leave out Lenin's mass murders? There is just no comparison between the magnitudes of those events, yet you reference one but ignore the other.(?)
I think you have misapplied your analogy.
You are starting to lose it DMZ - I also left out many other genocides. My point was that morality changes, I was not trying to make an all-inclusive list of historical evil.
And don't you mean Stalin? Lenin didn't ever have enough power to comitt genocide, unless my Canadian history classes or my memory have failed me.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Lenin didn't make any mass murders. He was the good guy.
You're thinking of Stalin. And he was around in the 1940s.
Actually I woke up in the middle of the night and remembered that, and realized how much CRAP I would be catching....
Originally posted by tonton
A good education would do dmz a lot of good. Why do I suspect he was home schooled?
yeah, yeah, yeah.....you'd think 800 pages of Solzhenitsyn would teach me something :grumble:
Originally posted by e1618978
You are starting to lose it DMZ - I also left out many other genocides. My point was that morality changes, I was not trying to make an all-inclusive list of historical evil.
Only starting? Sometimes I wonder myself.
Basically you a trying to solve the problem of "arbitrary" morality by being completely arbitrary. You aren't provididng a way of granting your wisdom to everyone else. This is no different than the "justice" meeted out in the show trials of the USSR, or any other example. From their prespective, they were doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. There is a scaling issue that your not acknowledging.
There comes a point where, "do no harm" means protecting people from themselves and other people.
It's not that easy.
e1618978
03-14-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by dmz
Only starting? Sometimes I wonder myself.
Basically you a trying to solve the problem of "arbitrary" morality by being completely arbitrary. You aren't provididng a way of granting your wisdom to everyone else. This is no different than the "justice" meeted out in the show trials of the USSR, or any other example. From their prespective, they were doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. There is a scaling issue that your not acknowledging.
There comes a point where, "do no harm" means protecting people from themselves and other people.
It's not that easy.
It is not arbitrary, from the first principals of freedom everything else falls into place. "do no harm" does not mean protecting people from themselves, can you give me an example where that would be true? I am saying that other people do not *need* my wisdom - trying to force your opinions of proper behaviour on others is oppression.
Of course you have to protect people from each other, if you re-read my previous posts I think that you will see that.
Originally posted by e1618978
It is not arbitrary, from the first principals of freedom everything else falls into place. "do no harm" does not mean protecting people from themselves, can you give me an example where that would be true? I am saying that other people do not *need* my wisdom - trying to force your opinions of proper behaviour on others is oppression.
Of course you have to protect people from each other, if you re-read my previous posts I think that you will see that.
I think the best example is smoking or maybe "a new understanding of human needs" you tend to get people attempting to save society from itself. The way commism was implemented, or maybe even the environmentalist movement would be a better exmple.
Gotta go sit with my Grandmother. She is dying. All this arguing seems pretty pointless today.
Relic
03-14-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by dmz
I think the best example is smoking or maybe "a new understanding of human needs" you tend to get people attempting to save society from itself. The way commism was implemented, or maybe even the environmentalist movement would be a better exmple.
Gotta go sit with my Grandmother. She is dying. All this arguing seems pretty pointless today.
Sorry to here about your Grandma :(
SDW2001
03-16-2005, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by audiopollution
If you could include pictures, it may help.
Your 4th grade students might know more about the freedoms that they are supposed to have, but I'm certain that they don't know much about how those freedoms are being slowly reduced or regulated. Maybe you have in-depth debates with them about the PATRIOT Act, or other recently passed or proposed Laws?! Do you?
There's a difference between the rosy outlook that knowing what you should have gives you and the crummy reality.
Hell, I wish I could go back to that childhood innocence again where everything was bright and shiny.
Why don't you post, specifically, what your problems are with the Patriot Act exactly? Really...I'd like quotes and citations, and examples of abuse in each case.
groverat
03-16-2005, 07:00 PM
Actually I woke up in the middle of the night and remembered that, and realized how much CRAP I would be catching....
This has happened to me quite a few times. I will tell you, the Internet can be humbling if you are a person who values intelligence.
You just have to soldier up, admit you were wrong and then try to realize where you went off-track.
My best to you and your grandmother, dmz, I went through this last year and I empathize.
Originally posted by e1618978
Lenin didn't ever have enough power to comitt genocide, unless my Canadian history classes or my memory have failed me. :wow:
In Lenin's own words, "Desperate hunger will give us a mood among the broad peasant masses that will guarantee us [their] sympathy … or at least their neutrality". Lenin thought there wasn't enough hunger, and helped create more of it. Up to four million Russians died between 1918-1922 in that very famine. If that isn't enough, the political apparatus he ran killed tens of thousands of people without trial and put even more in concentration camps. Lenin personally ordered the deaths of many of them. After all he was ready to sacrifice "his own" - the peasantry - so why would he have spared political adversaries and landowners...
Furthermore, the worldwide wave of communist revolts started with Lenin. Without Lenin, there would have been no Stalin. No Mao. No Pol Pot. Maybe a hundred million people could have avoided a violent death.
Gene Clean
03-16-2005, 07:54 PM
Another quote from Lenin:
'The Capitalists will sell us the rope, with which we will hang them.'
He was the role model for Stalin. And we all know what Stalin did, based on his role model and his previous 'works'.
e1618978
03-16-2005, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by dmz
[B]I think the best example is smoking or maybe "a new understanding of human needs" you tend to get people attempting to save society from itself. The way commism was implemented, or maybe even the environmentalist movement would be a better exmple.
Both smoking and the environmental movement are bad examples - because smoking hurts other people besides the smoker, and so does environmental damage.
I don't mind regulations limiting smoking in public, or regulations that stop or limit pollution (although I hate the environmental movement, I love the environment and don't want to see it hurt). I don't think that my "philosophy of freedom" dictates that these types of laws are bad, provided that the laws are well thought out and well written.
As I see it, the main offenders and dangers are:
- oppression of gay people built into the legal system
- sentencing differences between the races, when comparing jail time for the same crime.
- drug prohibition
- regulation of various types of non-incestuous, concentual, adult sex.
- the current administration holding people in prision without trial (in Cuba, and elsewhere), and torturing them.
- perpetual extension of copyright
- looming legal threats against drug copyright protection (importing drugs from other countries, etc. BTW - if we want to talk about this, lets please start another thread).
- inclings of a military draft
- the death penalty
- incursions against the seperation of church and state
- limits on revocation of citizenship, combined with taxation of citizens that live in other countries, even though they are not using the countries infrastructure.
- Moral oversight laws for private subscription media (sattelite radio, cable tv, later maybe DVDs?)
- Government waste, which makes them tax us more
sickoperationz
03-24-2005, 02:35 AM
i agree with topic starter 100 percent!
tonton
03-24-2005, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by SDW2001
Why don't you post, specifically, what your problems are with the Patriot Act exactly? Really...I'd like quotes and citations, and examples of abuse in each case.
Well in 2003, it was used to prosecute a strip club owner for bribery.
But really, the potential for abuse is there. We don't need specific cases of abuse to decide we want the loopholes closed. but just to play along in your ridicuous game:
The ACLU is being systematically censored to hide arguments in their criticism of the Patriot Act:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16275&c=262
Why censor such things if the government doesn't have anything to hide?
And here are some specific cases of abuse:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/14/national/main573155.shtml
Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.
A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.
...
In one case prosecuted this year, investigators used a provision of the Patriot Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.
That's abuse.
http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2004/11/16/abuse-of-patriot-act-again/
Oops. Can't get a visa because you're Muslim? Don't know the details? Well, they don't have to tell you because of the Patriot Act.
http://www.detnews.com/2002/livingston/0208/01/d05l-551008.htm
Any use of the Patriot Act in a case not related to terrorism is abuse.
http://forejustice.org/wc/sami_omar_al-hussayen.html
Here the Patriot Act was used in a clear case of infringement of the first amendment. The government lost the case, but only after the defendent had lost his opportunity for an education and the money he spent on it, and his family had been deported. In the end, he, too, was deported.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.