Thread: Are We Incrementally Losing Our Freedom?

Interesting responses, exactly what I was hoping. Commiecat, I don't expect to lose anything and I don't mean that sarcastically, but, as I wrote, some of the methods used and some of what is written into the bill could have an affect on other areas of freedom...I will perhaps comment on that later, but, would like to leave the bulk of comment to others.

MistressNomad...that is pretty interesting with what you said about New Zealand...like I said, I think a lot of the opposition to the current bill by others isn't necessarily oppotion to change...just the right change...thank you both

Funny, when Bush passed policy to really curtail our liberties the party in power thought that was a good thing but now they think the health care bill will do that and are upset.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Funny, when Bush passed policy to really curtail our liberties the party in power thought that was a good thing but now they think the health care bill will do that and are upset.

PATRIOT act was good because of TERRORISTS! Health care law is bad because of POOR PEOPLE!

Although admittedly just about everybody not named Ron Paul voted for the PATRIOT act, and Obama extended it.

The only freedom you have is what the state allows you to have.

Good points, in reference to the Bush era laws that in part, could be viewed as infringing on individual rights...it is an example of how something that is presumably good, or created for a stated good can be adulterated/exploited by others for an entirely foreign cause/purpose. Much the same argument with H.C. a good cause/purpose, but, as written is there pre-conceived ill intent?

On the other point, the only right you have are those given by the state...not correct according to the constitution which states all rights are God given...the state's (federal) only purpose is to not infringe, but, protect those rights. As written, individual and state's rights supercede federal, as without the individual/states, federal wouldn't exist.

Thanks all...interesting and maybe with this type of discussion, we find we're not all that far apart

We are well aware that this is a DIVISIVE ISSUE.

SRP does not want to make it off limits, but that is up to everyone participating in the threads.

We will be watching all of the health care threads extra closely and will shut them down if need be.


Now then:
Please treat each other with respect and engage in this conversation with civility.


Thank you in advance.

-Rob

Today Fidel Castro, probably not the best spokesperson for individual freedoms, gave his stamp of approval to health-care reform in the US:

washingtonpost.com

Make of this what you will. Doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies.

All good points, but, in starting this thread, the intention wasn't to focus on health care...I would hope to re-direct to the issue of individual rights as related to a seemingly large and growing federal government and used the issues above to see what you thought...but, as you please

Originally Posted by hardblues

All good points, but, in starting this thread, the intention wasn't to focus on health care...I would hope to re-direct to the issue of individual rights as related to a seemingly large and growing federal government and used the issues above to see what you thought...but, as you please

I'll try -

Part of the problem is in the understanding of "rights" and what rights are protected by our founding documents.

The Declaration only mentions "certain" rights that are "inalienable" in that they were "endowed" to us by our "Creator."

And among these rights are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration then says that the purpose of governments is to "secure" those rights. I doubt it was ever intended that we should come up with an endless list of rights to be secured, because at some point those rights may be conflicting.

I think the one thing to consider about a right is the impact it might have on another. If the free exercise of "your" right has any impact on the rights of another, does it truly fit the definition of a right as meant in the Declaration?

For instance, using health care as an example - if health care is a "right", then can one freely exercise that right all of the time without infringing on the "rights" of a health-care provider? In other words - you have a service I can benefit from. I have a right to that service therefore I can/ will take it from you with or without your consent. Either overtly by force, or covertly through legislation. In this example, one person exercises their "right" at the expense of another. Which seems to me to invalidate it as a right by definition. To further define this, I think there is a difference between a right to "seek out" a service, and a "right" to a service.

Hope that was all clear.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Funny, when Bush passed policy to really curtail our liberties the party in power thought that was a good thing but now they think the health care bill will do that and are upset.

You bring up a good point, almost, it was not only the R's but the D's that voted for the patriot act. Both R's and D's have done things to curtail our freedoms and as long as the only measure we use is the last administration we will continue to get what we have always gotten.
You are exactly right that Bush did the same kinds of things that most R's allowed to slide because it was pushed by a man with an R behind his name. One problem I see is that there are supporters of big government, small liberties, in both parties. The american progressive party was a movement that officially started around the turn of the last century, with the book, the promise of american life by herbert crowley(teddy and wilson were his heroes). It actually started before the revolutionary war IMO, under the name of loyalist. Those that believed in the british model have been trying to undo every advancement made by our founders new take on government, a constitutional republic, where all just power comes from the consent of the governed and not the consent of a king or parliment, which is given to the government through a document that lists every thing that they CAN do and everything that isnt listed is left to the states or to the people. Alexander Hamilton is one example, Lincoln is another, then there was Teddy, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan(to a small degree), Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and finally Obama. As you can see they alternate pretty well and the argument is always, how can you be against what I am doing when I am just continuing what was started by the previous administration, who was of your party. Personally, I cant believe they get away with that argument, I tried to use that same argument growing up and it never worked, the response was always the same, "if everyone else jumped off a cliff would you?". IMO we need to quit allowing politicians to weigh their actions by comparing to other administrations, and make them weigh their actions against the constitution, since that is where they get their just power. The way the constitution is written, it matters not how big of a majority agree, unless that super majority ammends it, to allow it. Ammending is too hard though, so politicians have settled for evolving the meaning of the words and clauses in the constitution to allow their pet causes to pass. I would add though that the evolution started pretty quickly, by 1823, there had been so many perversions that John Taylor of Caroline wrote a book called, New views of the constitution. The title is kind of misleading though, since it was a look back at the votes and bills of the constitutional convention and shortly thereafter, to give a better look at what the founders intended and not what later generations thought they meant. He wrote it when the notes of the convention were released to the public for the first time. When Jefferson was asked if he would ever write a book explaining his view of the constitution he said there was no need since he couldnt think of any differences between his and John Taylors views.
If I were to make a list of the biggest mistakes former administrations have made it would look a little like this:

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?


Sorry for the rant, I will get off my now.