Are We Incrementally Losing Our Freedom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

The problem in the abortion debate is that everybody makes their own definition when does a fertilized egg become a person with rights.
As far as I understand the US citizenship is determined at birth, not before, and clearly the US government has little legitimate interaction with non citizens.

Since this discussion is already well in the philosophical area we can consider any made up cases that bear nothing to reality. So what determines that a parent has any responsibility at all towards his/her children? I mean responsibility beyond their own choices? It is either due to the society or it is from supernatural, God-given origin (something like say the responsibility to breathe)?

---

Well, since supernatural and god-derived arguments are not valid in the legal or social arena, when it comes to deciding what amounts to a person right to one's body, they can't be used. They can when it comes to an individual making the choice for herself, but when applying it to any broader scope than that, they simply don't hold water, because they aren't subject to factual or objective argumentation.

When discussing abortion's larger application to society, I personally won't discuss it on that level, because it only applies to that person, and it blurs the split of church and state.

But I find such people unwilling to discuss it on an objective, factual level because they simply can't prove the bottom line - that a first trimester fetus meets the qualifications for a life, not simply alive. If you take away their subjective, personal arguments, they can't give a good reason why no one should get an abortion if they want one.

Even if they could, it wouldn't overcome all of the ethical questions, like the worth to society of the woman vs. that of a fetus neither she nor the overloaded adoption system can support. Nor the more esoteric question of whether there is any un-selfish option, considering no one asked these children about anything involving the inception of their lives, nor did anyone ask if this is a world it's responsible to bring them in to parentally, economically, environmentally, or medically.

Such subjective arguments only answer one question: What does that individual interpret their spirituality to dictate to them?

That has nothing to do with society at large, nothing to do with objective reality, nothing to do with universal ethics, and nothing to do, more tellingly, with the fetus in question.

It only has anything to do with that individual's subjective experience of what life is, as relates to absolutely nothing else outside of their spirituality. And that spirituality is visible to no one except them.

I don't think any rational debate is possible on those grounds.

Quote:

---

=MistressNomad;568393]Ok, I'm going point-by-point. I want you to look at it and try to spot the trend - HONEST DIALOGUE. We've been asking you for examples for several pages of posts now, and it took us days to get you to tell us what you were unhappy with. We can't have an honest dialogue if that is what it takes to even get a very general idea what you're talking about.

---

My first post on page two of this thread in part said:

Adams and his Sedition Law
Jackson and his refusing to accept a supreme court ruling, saying what he was doing was unconstitutional(exterminating indians).
The congress of the 1840's and 50's, up till that time corporations were very limited in their scope. When the federal congress started trying to be more lenient towards corps, many, if not all the states wrote new legislation reaffirming there mistrust of corporations, making the federal legislation null and void.
The 1860's saw a tyrannical majority, try to impose their will on the minority. And said that states didnt have the right to succeed even though every state listed emphatically in their ratification of the federal constitution that they retained that right.
1863 saw the start of the tyrannical war of subjugation
The rest of the sixties and 70's was spent keeping southern voters out of the voting booth by military invasion, unless of course they agreed with the administration. IMO any bill or ammendment passed during the time that the south left congress, and the end of the 70's is null and void, since government gets its just power at the consent of the goverened. If the governed are not allowed to vote, when did they give their consent?
Lincolns admin, started the income tax, a tool that has been used since to grow the government without our input. Up until then there were no internal taxes. However it did go away for a bit, until wilson brought it back.
From the 70's till early 20th century, the national government, continually removed restrictions on corporations, giving them unprecedented power, atleast unprecedented on these shores since titles and corporations were two things curtailed on these shores with the revolutionary war.
The twenties saw the biggest advancement in standard of living ever witnessed, unfortunately the praise was put onto corporations instead of the individuals that were inventing the advancements. So corps were given even more power.
Everything was going so good, nobody could see the downside so Hoover started doing what progressives do, raised spending, dropped interest rates to prop up a falling economy, and started a recession which quickly became a depression because according to them we had to spend money to get out of debt. Doesnt that sound familiar? Then FDR came in and continued the social programs his predecessor started, and said how can you be against my programs when they got there start under the previous "conservative" president, sounds familiar also doesnt it?

We have had the SEC since then, it was instituted to stave of corruption. Thank god it works so good, we havent had a corrupt corporation since.
Welfare was instituted as a way to end poverty, and since then the number of poor people has continually been in decline, right?
Social Security was started as a voluntary thing that would not go higher than 1% of your pay, and the money will be there when you decide to retire. I am glad it has worked so well, and that I dont have to participate if I dont want too, and it has remained at the promised 1%, and it went into a fund that couldnt be used for other purposes, right?

Seems I listed quite a few ways I thought our freedoms have been lost. I am lost on why I am not trying to have a honest dialogue, though.

Quote:

---

2. Are you willing to allow meth labs and terrorists to also be 100% secure in person and property too? If not, then how can you be?

---

Yes, how can we tell if they have a meth lab or are a terrorist until they do something to raise probable cause for a search. Your not for door to door causeless searches are you?

Quote:

---

3. Are you willing to take the same risks on food and medication that junkies do buying drugs on the street? If not, then how can you completely oppose the FDA, who is charged with making sure what you're consuming doesn't kill you?

---

Yes, because if you check the statistics the FDA is not doing a very good job. I trust my judgement more than the governments, since mine isnt bought and paid for by the same people they are in place to police. Google number of deaths by prescription drugs. Really all one has to do is watch TV and you will see tons of commercials with class action lawsuits against the last round of FDA approved "safe" drugs.

Quote:

---

4. Same as above, more or less. Do you want to just not know if some wacky doctor is cutting you open? Or would you rather be sure you probably won't die on the table?

---

If the government wasnt licensing the doctors, would we as blindly go under the knife, or would we do a more diligent check on our surgeon? Where did he/she study, what were their grades, etc: as it is now we see MD and that is supposed to be sufficient, no further checking. With all the malpractice suits, I would say that having the government judge to the competency of doctors isnt foolproof.

Quote:

---

5. The 5th applies to what you say - nothing more. Are you defending that you have the right to kill people on the road? Or that you would want to drive on roads where drunks could kill you?

---

Or what you blow, any evidence that can be used against you. For the next part, come on now, its a huge jump from what I have written. No one has the right to violate any others' freedom, and death certainly isnt freedom. To the last sentence, cant we still be hurt by drunk drivers even with all these right violations? Further more, we can be hurt by sober drivers, sleepy drivers, distracted drivers and on and on. Every statistic I have seen on driving deaths has distracted driving and/or not paying attention listed higher than dui deaths, however it is only the drinkers who are getting pulled over and punished before they do anything, every one else gets to wait until they actually commit physical damage. If we want to be honest and it is about safety and not revenue, then we need to start punishing these other types of bad driving the same as drinking and driving.

Quote:

---

7. Someone with severe asthma could have an attack then and there if they are in a confined space with someone who is smoking. Do you defend your right to send them to the hospital? Are you suggesting we wait until someone is ACTUALLY hurt before we do anything?

---

More might coulds, huh, cant the asthmatic not go into a place where people are smoking? Why are they entitled to go anywhere they want? It should be up to the business owner, they can either make smokers choose not to smoke to go into their establishment, or the non-smokers can choose to not go or they can go and put up with the smoke, but it is up to the buisness owner, imo. Yes I do suggest that we wait until someone or something is actually hurt, is there a crime without that?

Quote:

---

9. How are taxes excessive, exactly? Especially since as mentioned, you are getting back more money than you send out?

---

I get back more than I give? I have had 1700$(45%) in taxes taken in one week before, I surely dont use 1700 a week in governmental programs. We have fed income tax, state income tax, property tax, gas tax, sales tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, sin tax, social security tax, unemployment tax, and on and on, how do we not have excessive taxation?

Quote:

---

11. Agreed again. If they try to succeed again, I say let 'em go. More funding for the states that actually pay the money.

---

You might want to watch what you wish for, there are 37 states with legislation pending saying that their constituents cant be forced to buy health insurance. Those 37 states, have the most resources, the most refineries, the most agriculture, and since most of what the north has held historically has moved over seas such as manufacturing, textiles, etc; etc; they are not in the same elevated position as they were in 1860. I for one hope it doesnt come to that, though.

Quote:

---

13. In the original Consititution, women couldn't vote at all and black people only counted for 3/5ths. So, point out to me a time when voting has been any freer than it is now? Perhaps it is not a right that was taken, but one we never had.

---

I think you have mis understood what I was saying, I was refering to the hundreds of thousands of voters that were kept from voting by military force, during reconstruction. And all the legislation that was passed by those un democratically elected officials passed being null and void. Tis is the main reason that racial bigotry got such a foot hold in america, one day blacks were property, the next the "majority" and as such the bosses of their previous owners. IMO, if things were left to change organically the war would have never been necessary, nor would the racial tension that followed.

Quote:

---

15. Prove to me, without using religion, that a fetus prior to 12 weeks (when nearly all non-medical abortions occur), is A life. And what I mean by A life is that it must meet the criteria for an independent being, because, after all, a cancer cell is technically "alive." Prove this to me. Until you do, your argument is invalid and rest on faulty premises.

---

I am not religious so this shouldnt be a problem. The problem with your analogy is that it is against the law to take a human life, not to end the life of a cyst, or a cancerous tumor, or a parisite, or a virus. The thing that makes us human is our DNA, and that DNA is part of the fetus very, very early on, so once there is any sign of life it is a human life, imo. Your point is a scary take, imo, ie; it has to be independent. That would mean kids arent a human life until they can survive without their parents, nor are people who rely on the government for substistance, as I said scary, but I am sure that was not what was meant.

Quote:

---

16. That's what a democracy is. What you're advocating is something nearer to anarchy, or heavy libertarianism. The democracy has decided it doesn't want to stay tribal like that - it wants to compete.

---

We were never intended to be a democracy, we are/were a constitutional republic. In a democracy, the government can do whatever the majority want. In a constitutional republic the government is restained to the powers given them, that is unless a supermajority gets together and ammends the constitution to give them the power they want. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, like asking two wolves and sheep whats for dinner, in a republic the sheep has protection from the 2 wolves.

Quote:

---

17. Can't pursue happiness how?

---

I didnt say cant, I said dont have to, we think it is given to us, by big brother.

Quote:

---

18. Their taxes are in proportion to the liklihood of illness befalling them due to using that substance. Now, admittedly, I think the social hatred and prejudice we allow of smokers has gone way, way too far. But I think the taxes are fair. Smoking directly kills 1/3 of the people who do it. How many drinkers die directly from drinking?

---

So all this money that is the price they deserve to pay, is set aside to help them when they need it, or does it just go into the general fund? The only reason we feel we have a right to tell them they cant smoke is because we have medicare and medicade. If the government wasnt in the buisiness of supplying healthcare, every one could be free to live their life however they see fit, and they would have to take responsibility for themselves and the consequences therein.

Quote:

---

As to your little abortion tirade at the end, again, the onus is on you to provide some sort of factual reason why the entire premise of your argument - a fetus, or even a zygote, as independent life, is in any way valid. Until that time, it's not even worth discussing.

---

Your fiat is scary, as independent life. But I touched on that above.

How are these three for chipping away at peoples freedoms.
1. Doctors in England want the government to ban smoking in all cars, not just ones with children, but ALL CARS.
2. New York government wants to ban resturaunts from using salt in thier preperation of food.
3. California wants to ban wood fireplaces and charcoal BBQ,s.

STOP THE WORLD,I WANT TO GET OFF!:)

Quote:

---

=BobKincaid;568407]I'm only going to address myself to a couple of these, since MistressNomad has already done a more thorough job than I have the inclination to do.

1. "My right to be judged by my peers-mandatory minimum laws." Wrong. You STILL have the Constitutional right to be judged by your peers. A person charged with a federal crime has not lost the right to trial by jury (unless he's a Muslim). The jury is the Finder of Fact. That means they decide whether or not you're guilty. Mandatory minimum laws have NOTHING to do with a finding of guilt. They have to do with the imposition of sentence, and I do indeed, disagree with them, but they do not support your proposition.

---

You got me there, with one caveat, the muslims, you bring up, are charged with war crimes not federal crimes.

Quote:

---

2. Your right to travel unimpeded does not depend on a driver's license, unless you wish to assert the right to an automobile, which would be a rather socialist thing to assert. A driver's license is, under the law of the STATES (not the federal government) a privilege and NOT a right.

---

A drivers license is a priviledge, but traveling is a right. If you dont get a drivers license you can still drive, you just cant break the law, which is the priviledge we get when we sign up for a DL(we get so many infractions). You are right that the states control drivers licensing, the problem is the supreme court has ruled a few times, that traveling is a right, unless it is for commercial purposes, then it becomes a priviledge, becasue it falls under the purveiw of the commerce clause.

Quote:

---

3. Your FDA complaints. Frankly, these are non-sensical. The FDA in no wise infringes upon your right to put all manner of things into your body. Think not? Drop by a holy roller church some night and watch 'em swiggin' strychnine, rollin' on the floor and playin' Pass The Pit Viper. You appear to be complaining, actually, that the government of We The People has made a democratic choice to oversee the introduction of toxins into the stream of commerce. You'll also need to have a look at the Constutution's Commerce Clause for this one.

---

Speaking of non-sensical, Holy roller church, what? Why cant I choose heroin over oxycontin, weed over valium? Why is it I can only use what the FDA approves? Are they 100% safe or even 90% when they have passed the FDA's muster? Do they have side effects? I doubt someone quiting heroin would die, might feel like they are, but I have seen ads for a couple "safe" drugs that warn not to stop taking, or death can occur. Talk about a dependency starting drug. They all have list as long as your arm of side effects, why is it the FDA gets to choose that those side effects are better than natural drug side effects? Once I read that the FDA had banned a natural substance because a pharmacuetical company spent billions of dollars in research only to find it was already an available natural substance, I lost my confidence. In their ruling they state it is not fair to a company to spend that much money and get stuck because the substance already exists. So they banned the natural, so the synthetic could make them money(sounds alot like the illicit drug argument to me). Does it sound like a policing force, or an appeasing force? Would you be willing to allow lawsuits against the FDA instead of the company, after all the company is only offering a product proven to be safe by the FDA? When we the taxpayer had to pay for the FDA's mistakes, would we still have as much faith in them? I dont understand how pharmacuetical companies get be-rated and the FDA lionized. Every death blamed on the evil drug companies, should also atleast count against the FDA, unless it can be shown that the drug company was covertly misleading/lying.

Quote:

---

4. Your complaint about self-incrimination viz. DUI laws. Again, you're confusing a "right" with a "privilege." As a matter of law, when you applied for the right from your state (not the federal government) you gave IMPLIED CONSENT to have your breath/blood/urine tested in the event there was probable cause under the 4th Amendment to believe you had operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. If there was a right involved, you waived it. No one else did that for you.

---

Where is the probable cause to stop me in a dui checkpoint? Could they see I was drunk, or are they just playing the numbers game? As far as waiving rights, what does inalienable mean? According to the def. I can find, they cant be taken, or given, ie you cant by alienated from your rights period. The whole implied consent farce is why I have not signed my name to a drivers license in about 10 yrs, I will try my best to keep all my rights, thank you, even if it does harm me a little. Since I dont have a DL, I lose about 400 a week in truck pay(subsistence), but I routinely drive 30000 plus miles a year, from sea to shining sea.

Quote:

---

5. Your due process argument displays an utter lack of comprehension of (a) due process and (b) the Constutution's ban on ex post facto laws or Bills of Attainder. You're describing a Bill of Attainder, and they don't happen.

---

Dont tell me they dont happen, I have had this happen to me personally. My truck was impounded for a month and I had to pay private tow yard storage fees(almost 2000$ in fees and storage), without ever going to court on a driving on a suspended license charge. Even though the time limit of the suspension was over. Basically it is getting punished without getting convicted. When I asked, they explained that if the congress votes on it, it is considered due-process. I lost the right to my property without due-process. Granted this was a states doing, but it still qualifies as losing freedom per the OP, imo.

Jason, your premises are so flawed as to make further attempts at reason almost impossible.

Having said that, however, there are a couple of things worth mentioning: You said: " the muslims, you bring up, are charged with war crimes not federal crimes."

My question to you: as the apparently strict constitutionalist you hold yourself out to be, how can a person be charged with war crimes when Congress declared no war?

Second, later in your offering, you refer to "inalienable rights." Please cite "inalienable rights" in the Constitution. Just telling me which Article it appears in will be sufficient . . .

. . .


. . .

. . .

. . .

Time's up. It isn't there, is it? Nope, sure isn't. Those words come from the Declaration of Independence, which is in no wise included in the body of laws that organize and charter this Union.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the nature of law and justice in the United States when one side doesn't even have a working foundation of knowledge from which to draw, instead offering passionate explanations for what he believes to be there.

I offer again this piece of satire, which is so close to the truth of much of America's lack of understanding of its own system of government as to be frightening:

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Inalienable rights don't require enumeration in the constitution. They were laid out in the declaration of independence because the king had violated them but they are not granted by any government they are inaleienable therefore they are always retained by the people no matter what government they live under.

Your inability to understand that disturbs me greatly. I can only assume you don't understand why this nation was founded in the first place and are therefore inable to understand how we are currently traveling the same path that led to the firsdt revolution.

I'm done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Inalienable rights don't require enumeration in the constitution. They were laid out in the declaration of independence because the king had violated them but they are not granted by any government they are inaleienable therefore they are always retained by the people no matter what government they live under.

Your inability to understand that disturbs me greatly. I can only assume you don't understand why this nation was founded in the first place and are therefore inable to understand how we are currently traveling the same path that led to the firsdt revolution.

I'm done.

---

I am intimately familiar with the history of this Union, including the fact that, while a beautiful (albeit flawed) piece of writing, the Declaration was a propaganda instrument. Even the men who signed it understood they were not setting up a government with it. They couldn't even get 100% participation in it without gutting the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" language by declaring that some human beings (negro slaves and women) had no rights at all. When they said "all men are created equal," they most emphatically meant all white MEN. Wishing does not constitute history, and wishing is what you're doing in your attempt to describe a history that didn't happen.

While I am not responsible for the assumptions you claim you make, your having made them does not constutute a proof of the assumption itself.

I think some of you need to step back a second and look at this more holistically, or at least on a more basic level.

At the most basic level, it should be clear that governments introduce more new laws than they get rid of.

This should not be a difficult or complex issue - it should be pretty black and white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobKincaid

I am intimately familiar with the history of this Union, including the fact that, while a beautiful (albeit flawed) piece of writing, the Declaration was a propaganda instrument. Even the men who signed it understood they were not setting up a government with it. They couldn't even get 100% participation in it without gutting the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" language by declaring that some human beings (negro slaves and women) had no rights at all. When they said "all men are created equal," they most emphatically meant all white MEN. Wishing does not constitute history, and wishing is what you're doing in your attempt to describe a history that didn't happen.

While I am not responsible for the assumptions you claim you make, your having made them does not constutute a proof of the assumption itself.

---

Is that what they teach in school today? The declaration of independence is propaganda? Do you really think our founders would risk their life for a piece of propaganda?

The declaration of independence IS the founding document of our country, it was a declaration of american ideals and rights,that they felt were the ends of good government which king and parliment had violated and had taken their government down the wrong road. Then they wrote the articles of confederation, to fix our government so all those violations would not re surface under our new government. That article was found to be lacking, to some, so they got a convention together, wrote the constitution and had to put in these vague terms, that are getting abused today(thanks hamilton, and madison), to appease the loyalists. With the mindset today, they wouldnt of appeased any one just went ahead and forced them to join, but the founders believed in independence and equality of all the states.

You are half right, the DOI, does not institute government, just describes the american ideals the government should be based on. It doesnt make much sense to delcare your rights, then institute a government that goes about doing the same kinds of things the government you were just complaining about did. IMO, that is where we are now, we have the same government on this shore that our founders fought to send back to europe. Since as a few of our founders noted, a majority can be just as oppressive as a king.


The argument used by some against the bill of rights was, everybody knows what their rights are and if you list them in the constitution, people will start to believe that our rights come from that document. Seems they were right, well there or from the supreme court. How far we've fallen.


And if you read the original version, as written by TJ, you will find plenty of mention of slavery. Unfortunately the version adopted, as ammended, removed all that, so they could get the far south to help in the north's cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

Is that what they teach in school today? The declaration of independence is propaganda? Do you really think our founders would risk their life for a piece of propaganda?

---

Do you really think the Founding Fathers were gods?

They were brilliant men. But what made them so brilliant was that they understood how human they were. That's why they built the government to be "run by devils" - because they feared that "devil" within themselves.

The thing that made them brilliant was their willingness to admit how imperfect they were. They were just men, with all the normal flaws and shortcomings that humans tend to have. They were just sufficiently smart that they could envision a world where people had the intellectual honesty to admit it - a world which, 234 years later, still hasn't come. They suspected it wouldn't.

So what if the Declaration was propoganda? You see propaganda on TV, telling you not to drink and drive. Propaganda is everywhere, good and bad both. It's a perfectly good strategy in conflict, both to rouse your enemy and rally your troops.

I'm tired of people insinuating that if anything less than borderline worshiping is said about the Founding Fathers, the person must be lying or a jerk.

I'm starting to worry that the religious right is turning the Founding Fathers into a religion. Man, of all the things we don't need in this country...