The Diminishment of Freedom

@josh0335,

Not all POWs from Gitmo are terrorists. I just had to do a paper about some of the prisoners there who actually went to trial and were found of no wrong-doing whatsoever, namely because the term 'terrorist' is so ill-defined that anyone can be a terrorist (hence, Patriot Act), and the worse part already brought up is that of torturing these people violates several of the Geneva Conventions Articles. And Im not just talking about not getting a fair trial, but actually torturing them (e.g. waterboarding, sense deprivation, etc).

1 Reply

@josh0335,

I can understand your concern but can you understand mine? I dont wish for anyone to be victimised for their appearance and I have faith in my fellow countrymen, that if these powers are abused we will rush to defend the innocent. We treasure freedom , we will die for it. Fear not ,there are many who appreciate your fears, you dont stand alone. When you stand in queue waiting for the custom mans gaze and you see us watching , we know your problem , we sympathize.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

Let me distinct levels of freedom. You are pointing only basic level according to my classification. In that case, I'd say the freedom seems to become more and more widespread.
Second level, related to social rights is diminishing in at least one aspect - your influence on spending your own money. As far, as total taxes are growing, you may spent less on your own, init?
The third level (being involved by different systems) is much more complicated, but there are some direct answers to your question. For example, the law is being complicated all the time. Don't know, what you're doing and which laws may limit your freedom, but I'm pretty sure, there are some.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man;103478 wrote:

People on the right of politics are constantly talking about our freedom being diminished. This seems to be nothing more than paranoia, phobia, and distortion of facts. I still eat what I want to eat, drink what I want to drink, watch what I want to watch, say what I want to say, and have sex with who I want to have sex with without government persecution. Can someone please give me an example of a freedom that has been taken away from me, because I'm clearly not aware of one?

I suppose we shouldn't be concerned with our rights as free citizens until the government actually begins to abuse us in ways that those rights would have prevented? No need to worry about freedom of speech until the government wants to prevent YOU from saying something you want to say? No need to worry about freedom from unreasonable searches until YOU are searched for no reason? No reason to worry about due process until YOU are designated an enemy combatant without trial and shipped to Serbia to be tortured? Please...a few million Germans tried that last century. It didn't work out so well for them as I recall.

A breif list of rights that have been violated:

1. By law all males at 18 have to register for the draft, which, if ever activated again, would violate the right against being placed in involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime of which one has been duly convicted - the same with the new mandatory national service program for all people 18-25

2. Anyone that the government designates as a national security threat can, under the patro act and other legislation, be kidnapped and sent abroad to be tortured, held indefinately without trial, without the right to meet their accusers, etc.

3. Anyone's property can be seized by the government and sold to a private interest for any reason

4. Some people are treated differently under the law than other people: e.g. affirmative action, hate crimes laws

5. Net neutrality and the fairness doctrine are soon going to restrict political speech on the radio and internet in the name of 'diversity'

6. Several million people have been placed on a secret list without trial, which people now cannot fly and soon won't be able to own firearms

7. The government, with the help of the telecom companies to whom was recently granted retroactive immunity (itself illegal), spies on all Americans' conversation, emails, etc. without warrants

8. The government can conduct no knock searches of homes without warrants, without even informing the victim that his home was searched - the same with library, financial and other records

...the list goes on

1 Reply

@hue-man,

The problem I see with this thread is that freedom wouldn't have been diminished had the people not voted these people into power. The government of the U.S. is an elected body. Sure, the government has quashed rights, but the people are to blame for putting them in power in the first place. Freedom has been diminished because the people have not accepted the responsibility required to be free.

Sure Bright Noon, the government can do all those things now, but it is the fault of the citizens for allowing it too happen. I am tired of hearing people complain about the government doing this and that. The were given the power to do so (whether passively or actively is irrelevant) by citizens. Rights require responsibility by the people to make sure they are upheld. Because people did not take it upon themselves to do so, everyone is getting what they deserve. The majority has made the choice to sacrifice their rights for the perception of security and now we must deal with those consequences.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

I suppose we shouldn't be concerned with our rights as free citizens until the government actually begins to abuse us in ways that those rights would have prevented? No need to worry about freedom of speech until the government wants to prevent YOU from saying something you want to say? No need to worry about freedom from unreasonable searches until YOU are searched for no reason? No reason to worry about due process until YOU are designated an enemy combatant without trial and shipped to Serbia to be tortured? Please...a few million Germans tried that last century. It didn't work out so well for them as I recall.

I didn't say or imply that we shouldn't be concerned with our rights as free citizens. I'm saying that there's a thin line between rational concern and phobic paranoia.

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

1. By law all males at 18 have to register for the draft, which, if ever activated again, would violate the right against being placed in involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime of which one has been duly convicted - the same with the new mandatory national service program for all people 18-25

I agree with you on the military draft, but that's nothing new. What voluntary service are you talking about, because I haven't been called to serve yet?

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

2. Anyone that the government designates as a national security threat can, under the patro act and other legislation, be kidnapped and sent abroad to be tortured, held indefinately without trial, without the right to meet their accusers, etc.

Torture has been outlawed by the Obama administration. The Patriot Act should be of concern, and maybe some things in it should be changed. However, it's nothing new, and I believe that it has more pros than cons in the war against terrorism.

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

3. Anyone's property can be seized by the government and sold to a private interest for any reason

Really? Please explain (with evidence)?

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

4. Some people are treated differently under the law than other people: e.g. affirmative action, hate crimes laws

You can't be serious with this one. So you're against hate crime laws and any law that serves to create more equality and decrease employee discrimination based on race or gender? Is freedom your only political value?

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

5. Net neutrality and the fairness doctrine are soon going to restrict political speech on the radio and internet in the name of 'diversity'

Last time I checked, the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine was blocked by the Broadcaster Freedom Act that was amended to the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. Also, President Obama stated through AP that he has no intention of reinstating the fairness doctrine.

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

6. Several million people have been placed on a secret list without trial, which people now cannot fly and soon won't be able to own firearms

Please provide evidence?

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

7. The government, with the help of the telecom companies to whom was recently granted retroactive immunity (itself illegal), spies on all Americans' conversation, emails, etc. without warrants

There goes that damn Patriot Act again? I hope that they don't listen to my dirty phone calls with women. Oh yeah, in 2007 the Senate passed a bill that rejects immunity for US telecommunications companies that provided illegal assistance to the National Security Agency. Those damn liberals and their bills.

BrightNoon;103983 wrote:

8. The government can conduct no knock searches of homes without warrants, without even informing the victim that his home was searched - the same with library, financial and other records

That damn Patriot Act again! I wonder if they think I'm a threat to National Security because I'm speaking to you. Maybe we shouldn't be talking about this.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man;104116 wrote:

I didn't say or imply that we shouldn't be concerned with our rights as free citizens. I'm saying that there's a thin line between rational concern and phobic paranoia.

I agree, and I consider my concern to be rational.

Quote:

I agree with you on the military draft, but that's nothing new. What voluntary service are you talking about, because I haven't been called to serve yet?

The administration has launched a large and wide-ranging national service program, which at present is purely voluntary.

Welcome to Serve.gov

However, remarks from Mr. Obama regarding a 'civilian national security force' that he wishes to create, and from Mr. Emmanuel re his civil service plan (he also wrote a book expressing his views on the subject, called 'The Plan'), indicate that soon the program may become mandatory, and more militaristic than initially advertized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ&feature=related

Quote:

Torture has been outlawed by the Obama administration. The Patriot Act should be of concern, and maybe some things in it should be changed. However, it's nothing new, and I believe that it has more pros than cons in the war against terrorism.

Torture has not been outlawed, only waterboarding at GITMO, and GITMO is closing in any case. Extraordinary Rendition is still very much legal, the sole purpose of which is to remove the suspect from American jurisdiction so that he may be tortured. And yes, of course the PATRIOT ACT is still in effect, with its numerous violations of our rights to be free from unreasonable searches, to due process, etc.

Quote:

Really? Please explain (with evidence)?

I'm referring to the increasingly agressive use of the 'emminent domain' clause of the consititution. Local, state and federal governments have in recent years seized private property on many occasion - not to build a road or for some other public purpose - but to open the land for commercial development by other private individual or corporations. There is plenty of evidence available to anyone who looks. Do a quick search.

Quote:

You can't be serious with this one. So you're against hate crime laws and any law that serves to create more equality and decrease employee discrimination based on race or gender? Is freedom your only political value?

I am opposed to inequality before the law, and to the state treating one group differently than another. That is injustice.

Quote:

Last time I checked, the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine was blocked by the Broadcaster Freedom Act that was amended to the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. Also, President Obama stated through AP that he has no intention of reinstating the fairness doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine is indeed dead, but it is returning under another name; they never give up. That name escapes me at the moment, but when I remember it (just a proposal for now, granted), I'll post it. In any case, 'net neutrality' is certainly coming, and the 'cyber bulling act' has already passed. Those latter two pieces of legislation will enable the federal government to control opposition voices on the internet, in the same way that the old Fainess Doctrine was intended to control opposition on the radio. I'll post more on this subject later, as it's complex and I don't know it as well as the others I brought up.

Quote:

Please provide evidence?

There is a large (at least 1 million names as of March, 09) and growing secret terrorist watch list maintained by the U.S. government. People on this list, who have never been tried or convincted of any crime, nor even informed of their inclusion on the list, cannot fly on commerical aircraft in the U.S.

Terrorist watch list hits 1 million - USATODAY.com

There is a movement, led by Rahm Emmanuel, to also prohibit people on this list from owning handguns.

From the speech below (May, 2007): "if you're on that no fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is cancelled, because you're not part of the American family, you don't deserve that right, there is no right for you if you're on that terrorist list."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4

Quote:

Oh yeah, in 2007 the Senate passed a bill that rejects immunity for US telecommunications companies that provided illegal assistance to the National Security Agency. Those damn liberals and their bills.

And then in February of 2008 the Senate reversed course and once again granted the telecoms retroactive immunity. To my knowledge, that immunity remains today.

JURIST - Paper Chase: US Senate passes surveillance bill with telecom immunity grant

1 Reply

@hue-man,

If you want to see a major potential violation of due process, check out the recently referred, with 12 cosponsors, HR 2159: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.

Quote:

"To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist."

And yes, the cyber bullying bill seems to be a clear first amendment violation. It makes cyber bullying illegal, and defines it vaguely as:

Quote:

"using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior"

What a crock.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

Recently reaffirmed was the right of immigration authorities to seize personal computers from any citizen entering the US without the legal due process of obtaining a search warrant for the purpose of examining the contents of its hard drive.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

jgweed;104633 wrote:

Recently reaffirmed was the right of immigration authorities to seize personal computers from any citizen entering the US without the legal due process of obtaining a search warrant for the purpose of examining the contents of its hard drive.

They've been doing that to my father, and others on the "terrorist watch list" for years. Plus interrogations, searches, and generally hassling anyone on that list.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;104668 wrote:

They've been doing that to my father, and others on the "terrorist watch list" for years. Plus interrogations, searches, and generally hassling anyone on that list.

I'm sorry to hear that. Has he been able to find out why he's been put on the list? Or is he one of these unlucky people who has the same name as somebody else?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;104670 wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that. Has he been able to find out why he's been put on the list? Or is he one of these unlucky people who has the same name as somebody else?

Some people from DHS and some other organization, probably the FBI came into his office and demanded that he give up confidential information on some of the Muslims he was working with who may or may not be considered 'extremist' in their views; I'm not entirely sure on the exact people they were interested in. But, he refused to give up his information under threat of being put on the watch lists.

His lawyer investigated this, after the threat and the office visit, and determined that of the several watch lists that now exist, he is on all of them.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

That would be unbelievable if I didn't know what kind of government we're dealing with these days. Good for him though, standing up for his principles. Given the level of surveillance of just about all electronic communications, I sometimes wonder if I might be on some kind of list simply because I've visted quite a few websites that are probably thought of as dissident, ala InfoWars, DailyPaul, etc.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;104596 wrote:

I agree, and I consider my concern to be rational.

The administration has launched a large and wide-ranging national service program, which at present is purely voluntary.

Welcome to Serve.gov

However, remarks from Mr. Obama regarding a 'civilian national security force' that he wishes to create, and from Mr. Emmanuel re his civil service plan (he also wrote a book expressing his views on the subject, called 'The Plan'), indicate that soon the program may become mandatory, and more militaristic than initially advertized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ&feature=related

Torture has not been outlawed, only waterboarding at GITMO, and GITMO is closing in any case. Extraordinary Rendition is still very much legal, the sole purpose of which is to remove the suspect from American jurisdiction so that he may be tortured. And yes, of course the PATRIOT ACT is still in effect, with its numerous violations of our rights to be free from unreasonable searches, to due process, etc.

I'm referring to the increasingly agressive use of the 'emminent domain' clause of the consititution. Local, state and federal governments have in recent years seized private property on many occasion - not to build a road or for some other public purpose - but to open the land for commercial development by other private individual or corporations. There is plenty of evidence available to anyone who looks. Do a quick search.

I am opposed to inequality before the law, and to the state treating one group differently than another. That is injustice.

The Fairness Doctrine is indeed dead, but it is returning under another name; they never give up. That name escapes me at the moment, but when I remember it (just a proposal for now, granted), I'll post it. In any case, 'net neutrality' is certainly coming, and the 'cyber bulling act' has already passed. Those latter two pieces of legislation will enable the federal government to control opposition voices on the internet, in the same way that the old Fainess Doctrine was intended to control opposition on the radio. I'll post more on this subject later, as it's complex and I don't know it as well as the others I brought up.

There is a large (at least 1 million names as of March, 09) and growing secret terrorist watch list maintained by the U.S. government. People on this list, who have never been tried or convincted of any crime, nor even informed of their inclusion on the list, cannot fly on commerical aircraft in the U.S.

Terrorist watch list hits 1 million - USATODAY.com

There is a movement, led by Rahm Emmanuel, to also prohibit people on this list from owning handguns.

From the speech below (May, 2007): "if you're on that no fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is cancelled, because you're not part of the American family, you don't deserve that right, there is no right for you if you're on that terrorist list."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4

And then in February of 2008 the Senate reversed course and once again granted the telecoms retroactive immunity. To my knowledge, that immunity remains today.

JURIST - Paper Chase: US Senate passes surveillance bill with telecom immunity grant

Rahm Emmanuel is a jackass for saying that "citizenship is not an entitlement program", but this comes off more as a conspiracy theory than anything else. I believe that the conflict between our security and our freedom is a difficult one.

The fairness doctrine is dead, period. It's hard to believe that our freedom of speech is under attack when a-holes like Glenn Beck are still on air.

BrightNoon;104596 wrote:

I am opposed to inequality before the law, and to the state treating one group differently than another. That is injustice.

Isn't justice the minimization, reversal, and punishment of coercion? I guess you mean it's unfair. Well isn't it unfair to discriminate against people because of their ethnicity or gender? Are you not opposed to inequality before the workforce?

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man;104711 wrote:

Rahm Emmanuel is a jackass for saying that "citizenship is not an entitlement program", but this comes off more as a conspiracy theory than anything else. I believe that the conflict between our security and our freedom is a difficult one.

How is it a 'conspiracy theory' to believe that people in the highest positions of power in the current adminstration have intentions that they've said they have on video?!? That these people, especially Emmanuel, who is a chief architect of adminstration policy and a major power broker, do not want to do what they have said repeatedly they want to do sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me.

Quote:

The fairness doctrine is dead, period. It's hard to believe that our freedom of speech is under attack when a-holes like Glenn Beck are still on air.

You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think Glenn Beck is doing more good than harm, though I do disagree with his neoconservative foreign policy views. As I said, there are moves to put into effect something that is the fairness doctrine in all but name. Again, i'll post more on that later. Until, I understand your skepticism.

Quote:

Isn't justice the minimization, reversal, and punishment of coercion? I guess you mean it's unfair. Well isn't it unfair to discriminate against people because of their ethnicity or gender? Are you not opposed to inequality before the workforce?

Citizens have the right to not like a group of people because of race or gender or anything else, however much you and I dislike that sort of prejudice. It is not the state's place to force people to like one another, or to treat one another equally. It is however the paramount responsibility of the state to itself treat everyone equally: i.e. to ensure equality before the law. I don't see why the murder of a black man by a KKK member is any more of a crime than the murder of a white man by his neighbor because he's sleeping with his wife, or anything else. Likewise with affirmative action and the various protections that minority groups enjoy in the workplace; employment is s voluntary contract entered into freely by both parties. If the employer does not want to hire a woman because he's a chauvanist jackass, why should the state force him to? It is his business, his property which is in question. a person does not have the right to work where they please. If employee and employee cannot come to terms, for whatever reason (salary, hours, or soe prejudice on the part of one or another of them), then the contract is not entered upon. It is a private affair, not a public one, and as such the state has no role to play, other than to enforce in civil court contracts once they have been made freely by private persons.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;104717 wrote:

How is it a 'conspiracy theory' to believe that people in the highest positions of power in the current adminstration have intentions that they've said they have on video?!? That these people, especially Emmanuel, who is a chief architect of adminstration policy and a major power broker, do not want to do what they have said repeatedly they want to do sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me.

I think it's a conspiracy theory in the sense that the message is being delivered with a malicious tone and it depicts the president as some tyrant. Obama's call for civil service is a reflection of his value of community and cooperation. He's calling on youths in the public school system to serve their community. This is a reinforcement of collectivist values. I value community cooperation, but I disapprove of any mandatory civil service.

BrightNoon;104717 wrote:

Citizens have the right to not like a group of people because of race or gender or anything else, however much you and I dislike that sort of prejudice. It is not the state's place to force people to like one another, or to treat one another equally. It is however the paramount responsibility of the state to itself treat everyone equally: i.e. to ensure equality before the law. I don't see why the murder of a black man by a KKK member is any more of a crime than the murder of a white man by his neighbor because he's sleeping with his wife, or anything else. Likewise with affirmative action and the various protections that minority groups enjoy in the workplace; employment is s voluntary contract entered into freely by both parties. If the employer does not want to hire a woman because he's a chauvanist jackass, why should the state force him to? It is his business, his property which is in question. a person does not have the right to work where they please. If employee and employee cannot come to terms, for whatever reason (salary, hours, or soe prejudice on the part of one or another of them), then the contract is not entered upon. It is a private affair, not a public one, and as such the state has no role to play, other than to enforce in civil court contracts once they have been made freely by private persons.

You're absolutely right. Citizens have the right not to like someone because their race, ethnicity or gender. The question is whether or not they should have the right to discriminate based on these things in the workforce. I'm a progressive, and so my opinion is that they should not have the right to treat people that way in the workforce.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man;105422 wrote:

I think it's a conspiracy theory in the sense that the message is being delivered with a malicious tone and it depicts the president as some tyrant.

The message is being delivered by The President, Barack Obama, and his first major appointment, Chief-of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. If there is a malicious tone as you say, whose can it be but theirs? If you're referring to the little text bubbles that pop up, or the black screens with the text, fine, but realize; I didn't post the video to show those! I tried to find a video with the least commentary; this is the best I could find, so that's my fault. But what I am calling attention to is nothing but exactly what Emmenuel and Obama said themselves on video. That is the issue, not some youtube posters commentary which may or may not be intelligent, unbiased, or correct. Watch it again, minimize the window, and just listen to the words coming from the mouths of our President and his Chief-of-Staff.

Quote:

Obama's call for civil service is a reflection of his value of community and cooperation. He's calling on youths in the public school system to serve their community. This is a reinforcement of collectivist values. I value community cooperation, but I disapprove of any mandatory civil service.

Do you truly believe that Mr. Obama's call to service is limited to voluntary, happy-go-lucky kind of youth groups and community service programs (helping the elderly, cleaning up trash, building parks, etc.)? If so, what do you have to say about Mr. Obama's statement that "we've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded (as the military)." And what of Mr. Emmanuel's statement: "everybody somewhere between the ages of 18-25 will serve 3 months of basic training, and understanding, in a kind of civil defence."

Do you agree with me that Mr. Obama's service plan - about which he has spoken extensively, and for which he has launched the aforementioned website - does in fact - in light of these statements above - likely constitute the first part of a larger plan, which will include mandatory service in some sort of military 'civilian national security force?'

And, if you agree with me on that, then what, I ask, would be the purpose of this national security force? I see only two reason for developing a very large, very well funded, very strong, civilian national security force. Either 1) it is to be used as a pool of waiting recruits for the regular military, to be sent abroad, or 2) it is to conduct some kind of military operation in the U.S. Neither seems good for the country, and I would imagine you would agree with that judgement. No?

Quote:

You're absolutely right. Citizens have the right not to like someone because their race, ethnicity or gender. The question is whether or not they should have the right to discriminate based on these things in the workforce.

The real question at issue is whether or not individuals should have the right to dispence with their property as they see fit. Should the laborer have the right to sell his labor freely to whomever he likes for whatever price he likes, or whatever terms he likes? I think he should. Should the business owner have the right to purchase labor freely from whoever he likes, for whatever price he likes, on whatever terms he likes? I think he should. If the state has the right to interfere in such voluntary transactions between individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. then it has the right to interfere in such transactions. Do we believe in the free market, i.e. in property rights and free contracts, or do we not? I do. As with any other important right, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot say that people have the right to speak freely, except when what they want to say is unpopular. Nor can we say that people have the right to be free from unreasonable searches, except when the state really thinks they're a threat. Rights are either absolute or meaningless. If we givce the state the power to decide when our rights are valid and when they can be ignored, then we haver already lost ourt rights. So, again, if the state is allowed to intefere with private contracts between individuals for reason X, then there are no more private contracts - the precident has been set. A wise fellow once said, as I may have quoted earlier - if so, forgive me - "If you don't have the right to own property, you are property."

Quote:

I'm a progressive, and so my opinion is that they should not have the right to treat people that way in the workforce.

Do you believe that people have a right to work? If so, then we simply come from wildly different perspectives, and that's fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If not, then I would ask this; if a person does not have the right to work, but he does have the right to be treated a certain way at work, then do I at the bar, who have no right to be at the bar, have a right to be treated a certain way at the bar? Should the state intervene if my barstool neighbor makes a racial slur? I say not, because I have no right to be at the bar or to a certain quality of experience at the bar. If I don't want the services provided at the bar, I am free to leave. Likewise, if I don't like the way I'm being treated at work, I'm free to leave. And if the bartender doesn't like my skin color and kicks me out, he has every right, because the bar is his property; as the business owner has every right to fire me for whatever reason he likes, because the business is his property.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man;103478 wrote:

People on the right of politics are constantly talking about our freedom being diminished. This seems to be nothing more than paranoia, phobia, and distortion of facts. I still eat what I want to eat, drink what I want to drink, watch what I want to watch, say what I want to say, and have sex with who I want to have sex with without government persecution. Can someone please give me an example of a freedom that has been taken away from me, because I'm clearly not aware of one?

When I see GW Bush introducing waterboarding to supposed terrorists. When I behold the horrors in Abukari prison ..what security do I have for our future of man?
What we have fought for thousands of years of moral, law and ethics was in a single stroke whiped as if it never existed, without a greater power to intervein for this abomianl defyance of democrasy and all what it stands for.

We are entereing a more paranoid world, where more money are spend of uselsess wars and security, where it would be better spend helping the needy.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man;103478 wrote:

Can someone please give me an example of a freedom that has been taken away from me, because I'm clearly not aware of one?

Hmm... freedom that has been taken away.
The guys with the guns (the state) forbid me to hire someone unless his labor is worth the minimum wage, they forbid me to open a bar where it is allowed to smoke, they force me to hire based on skin color, they force me to spend over half of my income on things I do not want, they don't allow me to own a firearm... and on it goes.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

In my opinion, we (as Americans) have only been given the "freedoms" that we do have and the "luxuries" (that some of us have) in order to keep us happy and complacent . . . to keep us so wrapped up in ourselves, so they can be free to do what they want without the risk of rebellion. Seriously, most Americans (myself included) are too busy with the superficiality, and business of their life to notice and rise against injustices going on around them . . .most of which we would never find out about even if we looked, because they keep their secrets well. And even if we notice an injustice, we don't want to risk our comfortable little lives to do something about it. They've given us just enough to keep us in line. We've become a generally complacent nation. When's the last time you saw a real, passionate, sincere, and angry protest or rebellion in the US? (especially compared to protests in other countries. Just check out some riots in places like Greece, or Germany, or the U.K. to see the difference!!! They'r actions even gained international recognition, which ultimately raises awareness of the situation and therefore makes progress) Sure, people still protest, but it's generally a group of unorganized, unmotivated group of picketers yelling seperate things and not really achieving anything . . . and even them . . many places require you to have a permit to protest!!!!! . . . Contradictory much? . . you must ask permission to protest!!!!!!! It's B.S.
No one's willing to suffer for a cause . . . .so they take advantage of our complacency.

The infringements of freedom that we hear about are just that . . . .they're just what we hear about. This country's govt never shows their full deck unless something drastic happens and they're forced to play their hand (like in Hiroshima, for example). They have military and civilian technology that we don't hear about until they're ready for us to know. Many of their most advanced fighter jets (just for example) were in operation for decades before their existence was made public. If that's how they operate, what makes you think that the "public surveilance" isn't just the tip of the iceberg of what they really do, and how much they actually invade our everyday lives. If you ask me, all the recent adding of gps to every little device is just another way to keep track of us, and a large majority of "ID protection" and other seemingly helpful technology is just us opening the back door of our personal lives to them. Even our facebook status is being recorded by the govt. and I doubt it's for my protection . And the library books I check out and website I visit are being watched for "suspicious activity" . . .which means anything they're not okay with. I might even get flagged just for writing this reply.

They know exactly what they're doing, and they will snuff out any real, threatening challenges to their authority or absolute "rightness." Do you think it was a coincidence that a hotel full of anti-war, anti-Bush reporters were blown up by an "off-course", accidental strike (as they claimed it to be) by US forces in Iraq, years ago? They claimed that they missed their actual target, but the type of artillery they have does not miss a still target, like a building. How can we rebel against that which we're oblivious of?

Or, since Im in the ranting mood . . .let's throw some other stuff out there . . . how about the so-called right to bear arms? . . . They say you're free to have them, but not to carry them (unless you're in an open carry state) . . . and even if you carry them, they'd better be unloaded, and amunition in a seperate place . . making it useless for when you really need it. And if you happen to use it in self defence, even in your own home you may be brought up on charges like a criminal. You're not allowed to defend yourself or your honor anymore. You'll go to jail for fighting, even if you were antagonized or standing up for yourself (believe me, I know) . . of course you should try to talk an issue through first but this often solves nothing with the average person except more animosity . . . do they expect me to let people walk all over me? . . to just turn the other cheek? F that!

Or how about my "freedom of speech" . . . unless it's something that really puts the govt in a bad light. I don't mean just general trash talking, because they can't stop general griping, without tarnishing their facade, but real complaints and grievances that are a big deal (like those poor reporters would have likely told us) . . . Plus, there's really no freedom of speech or press. It's all quite controlled and censored, to either hide a truth, or keep you p.c. Did you know that you can actually be ticketed in VA Beach for using curse words publically? There's actually signs prohibiting it!!

Plus there's all the infringement, we as the people press upon each-other. The government isnt the only one not letting people exercise their "freedom" . . . we do it to each other. For example, HOAs restrict every detail about the place you live, and I got sent home from school several times for wearing a pentagram, and I protested that they should make everyone take off their crosses, if i couldn't wear the pentagram. Actually, I posted signs all over the school about the injustice of this and other actions there, and almost got suspended for it, until I mentioned that 1) there's no rule saying I cant hand out literature or post fliers in the school, and 2) that it was infringement of my freedom of religion and I was gonna contact the UCLA if I was punished for it, and for speaking out against it. Man, that was fun!

Or how about gay people not having the right to marry the person they love!!!!!! Shouldn't that be an inalienable right?

Or how about the right to do with and put whatever I want into my body?

The things they outlaw are the things they can't profit on, and when they can . . . it becomes legal! Like prostitution, or gambling, or drugs!!! The taxable and controllable forms are all legal!!!! But how dare you make $ and not give it to them!!!! THATS what's really illegal. . .

Yikes, I just realized that I have too many gripes on this subject to really want to keep going on too much longer . . . the list goes on for days!!!

Then there's d.c. residents who seem to have less rights than most, having no representation, but plenty of taxation and regulations.

Don't get me wrong, this country's definitely much more "free" than other countries, but we're also very controlled in so many ways. Like I said, they know exactly what they're doing and how to keep us under their thumb, and just happy enough to not want to rebel. They've given us something to fear losing!!!!

--add this to the examples that everyone else is and surely will tell you of, and do you still have a doubt in your mind of the superficiality of your "freedom?"
-------------------------------------------------------

If you couldn't tell . . I've been listening to a lot of Otep, and Rage Against the Machine, and Arch Enemy recently!!!! and remember: don't steal because the govt hates competition and . . "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you!" :poke-eye:

0 Replies

The Diminishment of Freedom

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know