They Hate Us Because of Our Freedom

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Eric_Boyer, Apr 29, 2004.

  1. Ben_n_austin111

    Ben_n_austin111 Benched

    734 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    This way of thinking is the whole problem.

    The United States government-especially under the current administration- is taking more and more away from the individual and his/her rights and we are becoming less and less free because of it.

    Religion will soon be your government.

    In Texas-right now, our Governer is trying to impose "sin taxes" for education. "Sin taxes" is just what it is called. And it means that you pay taxes for "unhealthy behavior" What he is proposing or imposing is that if you go to a tiddy bar that you pay a 5$ door fee that will go to fund education in the state of Texas.

    "Unhealthy behavior"...

    You have to know when to stop.

    What's next?

    The Cheeseburger tax?

    And define "Sin" for me...

    What if I don't practice Christianity?

    What does "sin" mean then?

    I am still having to pay the "sin tax" at the door and what message is that sending to children - really?

    Child: "Thank you Red Vixen for paying for my text books"

    Our current governor is no better than our last one.
  2. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,352 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    I can't imagine things getting better under a Kerry regime. I guarantee you that your freedom to take responsibility for your own life and your freedom to keep the fruits of your labor will only get much, much worse if this guy is elected. ;)

    Partisan politics aside, however, I agree with the original post that we should maintain constant vigilence to protect and restore our freedoms from government intrusion. But I think a lot of the posts in this thread ignore or take for granted the incredible amount of freedom we do have in this country.

    Let's continue to fight to preserve freedom and liberty -- whether we're going about it from the right or the left -- but don't make it sound like we're living in a totalitarian regime. Hysterical overraction like that only marginalizes one's cause and hurts your ability to make meaningful change.
  3. gbrittain

    gbrittain Well-Known Member

    5,124 Messages
    66 Likes Received
    What part is so wrong?
  4. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,352 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    Come on, now! NOBODY wants a Cheesburger tax.
  5. Ben_n_austin111

    Ben_n_austin111 Benched

    734 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Or even a tiddy bar tax. You pay enough as it is. ;)
  6. Ben_n_austin111

    Ben_n_austin111 Benched

    734 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    The guy hasn't even selected a VP yet.

    You're "swatting at flies" with that statement.

    I disagree with you about things getting better under Mr. Kerry. He is a practicing Catholic and keeps his beliefs about abortion seperate from politics. He understands the meaning of "Seperation of Church and State". The Catholic church really looks down on that, but the guy has enough nuts and discretion to seperate that from the law of the land.

    It's only in the Constitution and Bush walks all over that document.

    The more Kerry talks about himself. The more I like him. He is not afraid to stand up to the Bible thumpers who want to end all "unhealthy behavior", such as this moron we currently have in Texas or the moron before him. You have to respect everybodies rights. Even if they are the minority.

    Kerry also has the ability to change his mind. Things change, facts change, circumstances change, people change. It's not always black and white all of the time. Ask Hanz Blix. Circumstance in the U.S. changed and Bush wasn't able to change his mind given the circumstances. He attacked Iraq even after the focus should have been on terror. He was dead set on doing it.

    Done deal.

    Now, I am not a guy who will try to pull out every technical aspect of the Constitution and spin it like Eric, but he makes good points in this thread. Very good points. And I believe the points he has made are exactly what the forefathers were afraid of.

    This time Eric has said it right.

    If you're a freedom loving person such as me, you learn to appreciate the guy who doesn't force his religion down everyones throat and make it part of the government.

    This is what is happening with the current "regime" and some people are loving it.
  7. Ben_n_austin111

    Ben_n_austin111 Benched

    734 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Hypothetically, it'd be your daughter who's books were being payed for by Red Vixen.

    You're ok with that?
  8. Mavs Man

    Mavs Man All outta bubble gum

    4,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    But it does matter! In your example of the FDA, you assume that people would know about unsafe food preparation and therefore stop buying that particular product. But how many would know that it was unsafe unless they tried it? And how many cases of sickness or death should it take until someone took action?

    In such a case, is that not a violation of the 'natural right' - one set of individuals harming an another unsuspecting set of individuals?

    So, in essence you're arguing that if consumers eat poorly prepared (unaware) and unregulated food (which, in a land without the FDA includes all food, and drugs), it's the consumers' responsibility if they die from it?

    There's a reason the "unalienable Rights" in the Declaration of Independence are in this order: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Desires last, then freedom, and then, above all - Life. Freedom doesn't matter much if you're dead.

    Override your decision? I'm not sure what you're talking about - when did I suggest that?

    My argument this whole time has been that the "natural right" (i.e. "An individual should be able to do anything he wants as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of another individual.") is correct and should be upheld.

    However, it applies completely only in an ideal world, because in order for it to work individuals would have to:

    (a) know everything


    (b) always abide by the 'natural right'

    Alas - a fantasy.

    As I've already mentioned, people don't always know all the facts in a situation. They may assume that what they do doesn't affect someone when it actually does. Many individuals do things that do interfere with others' rights, even if they're not aware of it.

    Frequently while driving on the highway I see smokers toss their cigarettes out their car window onto the road. Since my tax dollars pay for highway litter clean up, a fraction of my tax dollars pay for that piece of litter - is that not a violation of my individual rights when I am forced to pay for someone else's litter?

    This works to show my second postulate as well - some people refuse to comply by the 'natural right'. And in that case, an authority is needed to protect the rights of the individuals being abused.

    But if you uphold the individual over all else, isn't society considered secondary to the individual? I don't understand how you can have it both ways.

    And while I agree that government's chief purpose is not to protect people from ourselves, that is one of its purposes. There are American citizens who commit crimes (murder, theft, rape, etc.) against other Americans - in this case does government not exist to protect its citizens from themselves? That is what I mean by protecting themselves from themselves - I don't believe the government has the right to tell you if you should or should not smoke, drink, sleep around, do hardcore drugs, etc. . . . if what you are doing only affects you.

    However, since several of those actions I listed above affect more than just the individual engaged, then government is obliged to interfere through legislation to protect the rights of other individuals being abused, since the individual is interfering with the natural right of others.

    You see the government as ever more intruding on the natural right of the individual, with the extreme being a totalitarian state that sets controls for everything in an individual's life. However, what you present could just as easily be abused to the other extreme - the individual holding the welfare and good of other individuals (the whole, the society, the collective good - whatever you want to call it) hostage to his own selfish desires.

    What we need is a happy medium.

    Now, since you agree that some amount of government is necessary, yet believe that individual natural rights are infallible - how much government is enough? Or, phrased differently, when does the government cross the threshold and go too far?
  9. gbrittain

    gbrittain Well-Known Member

    5,124 Messages
    66 Likes Received
    All I know is you did not answer my question.

    I have read plenty of what you have written on this forum.

    My view of where America is and where it should be going are vastly different than yours.
  10. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    5,248 Messages
    848 Likes Received
    You are making this more complicated then it needs to be.

    Again, the FDA could still exist. The difference is consumers have a choice to buy products that were inspected by such an agency, or get your hair cut by somebody that is not a licensed cosmetologist.

    You are still talking about it. The FDA, Licensed Doctors, etc.

    These are all impediments to freedom. you are taking my freedom of choice away and giving the responsibility of making my decisions to another individual.

    Again, nothing is perfect. All you are doing is letting someone else make your decisions for you. It is a fantasy to think they can do better.
  11. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,271 Messages
    11,658 Likes Received
    Do not know where you perhaps....but Where I live if I want to go buy a side of beef, Side of Pork, buy vegetables, fruits...then I can do so with out any worry of FDA....not all food must come out of a grocery store.....OR get this...if I want to bad enough...I can buy, raise and eat my own food.

    Many people around the united states get their hair cut by other people who do not own a liscense.

    So these freedoms you talk about already just want it to be Easier for you to find them.

    It is just as much of a fantasy to think that many of the ideas that you push forward will ever happen.

    I think deep down you know that many of them would never work on a grand scale in society...but that is just my opinion.
  12. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    5,248 Messages
    848 Likes Received
    This is a pretty annoying reply BP.

    Many things that are right and good will never happen. Hopefully we can move past that and actually discuss them anyway?

    And no, deep down I know that my ideas would work. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time explaining them. I also know that if we continue on the path we are on now that it won't work for much longer.
  13. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,271 Messages
    11,658 Likes Received

    I did not mean it in a mean way....just experessing my opinion.

    Many of your ideas I agree with but at the same time I just think that it may never lead to the ultimate goal of the individual having ALL of his rights....or the idea that if it does not hurt others then it should be ok...ONLY because many people may not THINK it hurts others, but in many cases it really does.

    The fantasy part is that some people want the golden Utopia and think they have the idea of how it may come about....I think if anything we have learned throughout history is that no matter how good one's ideas or intentions are we will never achieve that Utopian society.

    Once again not trying to sound mean towards your ideas...but luckily we live in a place where we can express our opinions...a place where you could take your views and express them to multitudes of people without some secret police coming and taking you away to never be seen or heard of again like what happened in Iraq to people who did not agree with Sodamn Insane.
    At the same time people who do have that freedom (like the guy in the article) want to go on wild binges and try to pass of silly statements like we should all have these rights when the truth is if we did then we would be in chaos.

    We can agree to disagree in that area....but in the end a society without some form of government will either die....or learn through trials that a form of government is needed to survive.
  14. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,352 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    You seem to be obsessed with religious freedom to the exclusion of all else. Honestly, no one is trying to tell you what, if any religion to practice. But plenty of people -- including John Kerry (and, I'll admit it, George Bush) are really restricting your freedoms through cumbersome regulation and excessive taxation. Don't lose sight of that while you're focused on someone saying a prayer at a graduation or including "under God" in the Pledge. That stuff is small potatoes compared to the freedom to with your own property what you wish.

    If anything, I think my religious freedom is threatened by people such as yourself who freak out (and often ligitgate) any time someone tries to express a religious sentiment anywhere near a public setting.

    I'm all for protecting religion from government, and avoiding a government-mandated religion. But this whole idea of a sacred (pun intended) "Separation of Church and State" being explicitly written in the Consitution is a modern, secular invention.

    I assure you, the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see how secular our society has become. Not that the FF are the end-all-be-all, but you're the one who brought up what is actually in the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about Separation of Church and State. It doesn't. That's a modern interpretation by the Supreme Court in an effort to completely drive religion out of public life.

    I can tell I'm not going to be able to sway your opinion about religion -- or about George Bush -- you have serious hostilities and mistrust towards both and that's certainly your right. I'm just saying don't get so caught up with religion that you lose sight of where your freedoms truly are threatened.
  15. Jammer

    Jammer Retired Air Force Guy

    3,656 Messages
    432 Likes Received
    The ability to change his mind is a trait well established with Kerry. He'll change his mind often enough to where he is on both sides of an issue.

    Some people call it waffiling. :rolleyes:
  16. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    5,248 Messages
    848 Likes Received
    The second that actions harm someone else then all bets are off. We already have laws preventing people from harming other people. Just because somebody is ignorant that their actions do harm somebody else they aren't off the hook. This needs to be real harm though. Mental anquish alone isn't going to cut it in my "unworkable" utopia.
  17. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,271 Messages
    11,658 Likes Received

    But there lies the problem...just because You do not think it may harm another individual and to a degree that You seperate what is considered harm....may not jive with what others may think is harm (mental anguish) and therefore you are trampling on the rights of that other person who happens to not agree with you and thinks what you are doing is creating mental anguish for them.

    Now mental anguish may not mean much to you....but it may lead to serious problems for another individual...even physical problems DUE to mental anguish.

    Who is to distinguish between what would be harmful to others and if it were YOU who was the one to distinguish what was harmful to another or NOT harmful to another then you are going right back into something that you do not want....someone telling someone else what is right or wrong, what they can or can not do as an individual.

    Example (and this is weak I know but it is just an example)....

    You feel you have the right to play your music as loud as you want and anytime you want because the CD player and speakers are on your property.

    A neighbor says...Hey could you turn that down please It is driving me crazy.

    You say...hey mental anguish does not count, it is my right to do what I want as long as it does not harm others and mental anguish does not count.

    Later that mental anguish could lead to lack of sleep, stress, physical conditions resulting from lack of sleep and stress...and so on.

    But hey mental anguish does not count....yet once again by exercising your own rights of doing something that you do not feel harms are doing something that IS harming others but you just do not see it that way.

    Once again weak example but I a sure you get the picture.

    WHO is the one who will decide that what you do does not affect others even if they say it does and you do not think it does?
  18. SweCowboy

    SweCowboy Member

    218 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Just some comments on what has already been said in this thead.

    I'm a libertarian. I firmly believe in a minimal government which only task is to insure our security and freedom from others. A government consisting only of courts, police and military more or less. These are the only services i believe only a government can provide, everything else can be taken care of by private citizens/organization. Say for example the FDA. As I understand it this agency controls and insures that the food sold in the US is safe. Well I for one would not buy/eat food I don't know is safe but I still don't see the need for a government agency to ensure this. I am quite sure that if the FDA would not exist some other form of organization would take over this role as it is in the long run benificial to the food industry that such an organization exists.

    The thing that people have a hard time understanding during these discussions is that changes like this take time. The libertarian utopia won't come overnight if ever. Private organisations/institutions need to take over some of the things the government does today. If things don't work out in the long run, if people are dying in the streets as a lot of my/our political opponents here in Sweden think I would enjoy, then we'll perhaps need to consider if there should be some form of social welfare. But we need to try before we say "It won't work".

    BTW Ben, his name is spelled Hans with an s, and he's not all that popular with some of his former party collegues here in Sweden.
  19. CoachParcells

    CoachParcells Benched

    101 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    "They hate our freedom" is government-speak for send us more young boys so we can continue stoking the fires of the war stew.

  20. Ben_n_austin111

    Ben_n_austin111 Benched

    734 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    That's cool Gbrittain. It's ok that we have different views. I'm not a hater. I understand that.

    About you're question: I know it's hard to hear tone on this board, but if you read that post again. I think you'd hear my tone....


    That's my answer.

Share This Page