7
   

Isn't the greatest threat to American freedom, our government?

 
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:32 am
Bill Clinton wrote:
''They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government and that public servants do not protect our freedoms but abuse them.''


http://www.smh.com.au/world/clinton-warns-of-unhinged-extremists-on-home-soil-20100420-srof.html

I suppose it won't do much good, but still I would like to ask that if you think this question implies approval of the Oklahoma City bombing, you post your belief only once and then move on.

There is, of course, plenty of room to debate how great a threat our government is to our freedom, but it seems clear that it is the greatest threat.

We don't have enemy armies lined up along our borders poised to invade.

Terrorists are a real threat to our peace and way of life, but to our freedom?

No matter what you may think about large corporations, it's hard to see how they threaten our freedom or, in the alternative, how any such threat from them can be greater than that presented by our government.

Clinton's speech was simply another example of the Left trying to demonize the Right by associating it with violence and, ironically, bemoaning its demonization of the current government. If he was really concerned about the impact of inflammatory political rhetoric we would have heard him give a similar speech when Bush was president and left-wing protestors were dissenting vociferously or smashing windows in Seattle.

Nevertheless, even if we assume sincerity in the purpose of his speech, his premise is off the mark.

Nothing poses a greater threat, at this time in American history, to our freedom than our government, and this was the case when Bush was president and Clinton before him.

It the magnitude of this threat that drove the Founders to design the system of checks and balances that continue to protect our freedom.

That an American government, anytime soon, will make a full out run on depriving us of our freedom is, I believe, unlikely but certainly not out of the realm of possibilities. There are numerous examples throughout our history of our government crossing the line in this regard: beginning right out of the box with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, and continuing through Lincolns suspension of habeas corpus, Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition Acts, to perhaps the most flagrant example, FDR's internment of Japanese-American citizens.

Not surprisingly, at least two (that by Adams and Wilson) were clearly designed to stifle criticism of the government.

We should concern ourselves with the danger of violent extremists from both sides of the spectrum and from other lands, but they do not represent anything close to the threat to our freedom posed by our own government.

This is by no means a call for revolution or armed resistance, but a warning that the larger and more expansive our government, the larger the magnitude of the single greatest threat to our freedom.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 2,819 • Replies: 59

 
ebrown p
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:43 am
Quote:
There is, of course, plenty of room to debate how great a threat our government is to our freedom, but it seems clear that it is the greatest threat.


I disagree with this from your core assumption. You seem to be confusing anarchy with freedom.

In places that have no government (i.e. Somalia) what occurs is is hardly freedom. Slavery (the opposite of freedom) can, and does, exist without government.

We all agree that government needs checks-- we need a system of democracy where voters choose who governs. We need a free press and guarantees on free speech in general. All of these are necessary, in conjunction with an effective government, to ensure freedom.

But, saying that government is the biggest threat to freedom is like saying that having lungs is the biggest risk of dying from lung cancer.

You can't have freedom without government.


Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:47 am
@ebrown p,
Finn just doesn't seem to understand that the government protects us from not only external but internal threats as well.

See, without the government - and the force that's behind it, backing our laws and regulations of citizen behavior - some poor bum could crack his rich skull in two with a half-brick and there would be nothing anyone could, or even would, do about it.

One would think that these morons would realize that the government is the only thing protecting their property ownership - the only thing they really care about.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Bill Clinton wrote:
''They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government and that public servants do not protect our freedoms but abuse them.''


http://www.smh.com.au/world/clinton-warns-of-unhinged-extremists-on-home-soil-20100420-srof.html

I suppose it won't do much good, but still I would like to ask that if you think this question implies approval of the Oklahoma City bombing, you post your belief only once and then move on.

There is, of course, plenty of room to debate how great a threat our government is to our freedom, but it seems clear that it is the greatest threat.

We don't have enemy armies lined up along our borders poised to invade.

Terrorists are a real threat to our peace and way of life, but to our freedom?

No matter what you may think about large corporations, it's hard to see how they threaten our freedom or, in the alternative, how any such threat from them can be greater than that presented by our government.

Clinton's speech was simply another example of the Left trying to demonize the Right by associating it with violence and, ironically, bemoaning its demonization of the current government. If he was really concerned about the impact of inflammatory political rhetoric we would have heard him give a similar speech when Bush was president and left-wing protestors were dissenting vociferously or smashing windows in Seattle.

Nevertheless, even if we assume sincerity in the purpose of his speech, his premise is off the mark.

Nothing poses a greater threat, at this time in American history, to our freedom than our government, and this was the case when Bush was president and Clinton before him.

It the magnitude of this threat that drove the Founders to design the system of checks and balances that continue to protect our freedom.

That an American government, anytime soon, will make a full out run on depriving us of our freedom is, I believe, unlikely but certainly not out of the realm of possibilities. There are numerous examples throughout our history of our government crossing the line in this regard: beginning right out of the box with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, and continuing through Lincolns suspension of habeas corpus, Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition Acts, to perhaps the most flagrant example, FDR's internment of Japanese-American citizens.

Not surprisingly, at least two (that by Adams and Wilson) were clearly designed to stifle criticism of the government.

We should concern ourselves with the danger of violent extremists from both sides of the spectrum and from other lands, but they do not represent anything close to the threat to our freedom posed by our own government.

This is by no means a call for revolution or armed resistance, but a warning that the larger and more expansive our government, the larger the magnitude of the single greatest threat to our freedom.

U are obviously, right; no room for doubt.

It shoud also be borne in mind that
personal freedom and the domestic jurisdiction of government are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.





David
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
So, David... you think that people in Somalia (where there is no government) have more personal freedom then we do here?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:48 pm
short answer to the question posed: No.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:55 pm
The Greatest threat to American freedom is our crushing debts, the oppression of government comes second. Dealing with government is easier though, a simple revolution will do the job, quickly. Dealing with the debt problem will be much more difficult.
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

The Greatest threat to American freedom is our crushing debts, the oppression of government comes second. Dealing with government is easier though, a simple revolution will do the job, quickly. Dealing with the debt problem will be much more difficult.


Rolling Eyes

A 'simple revolution,' right, pull the other one

Do you not understand that a government revolution would involve an invalidation of previously held debt? And that our standing as the leader of the world would evaporate, along with about 4/5ths of the wealth of our nation?

It's like you guys put absolutely zero thought into your recommendations...

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Do you not understand that a government revolution would involve an invalidation of previously held debt? And that our standing as the leader of the world would evaporate, along with about 4/5ths of the wealth of our nation?
Maybe "citizen revolt" would fit my meaning better. I am speaking of us raising up and yelling "ENOUGH!" at the polls and in public demonstration. I think it is time for those on the left like me to join the Tea Partiers on the right in concluding that overly big and overly coercive Government has become a problem more than a means to solutions.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Do you not understand that a government revolution would involve an invalidation of previously held debt? And that our standing as the leader of the world would evaporate, along with about 4/5ths of the wealth of our nation?
Maybe "citizen revolt" would fit my meaning better. I am speaking of us raising up and yelling "ENOUGH!" at the polls and in public demonstration. I think it is time for those on the left like me to join the Tea Partiers on the right in concluding that overly big and overly coercive Government has become a problem more than a means to solutions.


I think that you and the Tea Partiers definitely have a fundamental ignorance about government in common, for sure. I haven't seen any alternate proposals coming from either you or them that seek to solve the problems in question - just complaints.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  6  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
"If only we didn't have government we would be better off."

That has to be one of the most ignorant sentiments I have ever seen. The founders recognized that wasn't possible which is why we have a constitution.

Government is required for us to function at all. Without it there would be no property rights, no trade, no protection from outside forces.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I think it is time for those on the left like me to join the Tea Partiers on the right in concluding that overly big and overly coercive Government has become a problem more than a means to solutions.


Cool Hawkeye gets it!

Just another sign that public awareness across the land is growing.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:25 pm
@H2O MAN,
If only the government hadn't stepped in when the banks were failing, we would all be free or at least have a lot more free time with 20-30% unemployment.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:34 pm
@parados,
Quote:
If only the government hadn't stepped in when the banks were failing, we would all be free or at least have a lot more free time with 20-30% unemployment.
There is a hell of a good argument that by bailing out the banks this time (and not fixing the problems) that we have predetermined that we will in short order have an even more ruinous failure of the financial system.

It is highly unlikely that government has acted in our best long term interests, given that nothing was fixed, we loaded up on debt, and we have further weakened morale hazard.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

There is a hell of a good argument that by bailing out the banks this time (and not fixing the problems) that we have predetermined that we will in short order have an even more ruinous failure of the financial system.

It is highly unlikely that government has acted in our best long term interests, given that nothing was fixed, we loaded up on debt, and we have further weakened morale hazard.


Agreed.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 02:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
There is a hell of a good argument that by bailing out the banks this time (and not fixing the problems) that we have predetermined that we will in short order have an even more ruinous failure of the financial system.


I don't get it hawk. The GOP is blocking all efforts to fix the problem.

Quote:
"If a single Republican is not willing to join with us,
there will be no Wall Street reform. The Republicans will have
killed Wall Street reform. I'm confident that's not what's
going to happen," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 02:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
There is a hell of a good argument that by bailing out the banks this time (and not fixing the problems) that we have predetermined that we will in short order have an even more ruinous failure of the financial system.


There is currently legislation that will work to fix the problem. The only issue is that certain people supported by tea partiers are trying to scuttle that legislation. Maybe you should be more careful about who you hang out with.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 02:10 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
There is a hell of a good argument that by bailing out the banks this time (and not fixing the problems) that we have predetermined that we will in short order have an even more ruinous failure of the financial system.


There is currently legislation that will work to fix the problem.


You and panzade don't fully understand what the proposed legislation is all about... both of you need to research the proposed bill quite a bit deeper.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 02:11 pm
@H2O MAN,
This from the fool that claimed legislation was filibustered in 2005 but can't even find the bill number? Really squirt, your arguments are pretty false.

But which part of the bill do you think doesn't fix the problem? I would be happy to discuss it with you.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 02:17 pm
@parados,
Quote:
There is currently legislation that will work to fix the problem
Bullshit...it would do nothing to keep those working on Wall street from cooking the books so that they could get huge paydays, it would not put derivatives on a platform where they would be transparent, and it continues to allow the Vegas game of making side bets because non-parties will still be able to take out credit default swaps.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Isn't the greatest threat to American freedom, our government?
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 09/17/2014 at 11:34:06