Jump to content

Do Americans Cherish Freedom Anymore?


nivek
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was going to buy up a recently defunct eatery in my town. After the till was tapped paying the functionaries their geld, permissions, inspections, repairs, codes, and taxes, there was nothing left out of my money to operate.

 

Building is still empty and our town has no sit down diner...

 

kFL

*********

Do Americans cherish freedom anymore?

Chuck Baldwin.Com

by Chuck Baldwin

 

“Virtually everything we do and say is monitored by the great Nanny

State. Practically every service, every act is regulated by the State.

Ask any independent business owner how many regulations, laws, acts,

etc., demand fulfillment, and how many fees, taxes, permits, etc., are

required by various government agencies and bureaucracies before he

can perform a single task. For example, the federal government

actually dictates how some restaurants can seat people or serve

tables. Farmers are told what and how much to plant -- and even to not

plant. We cannot buy a gun, drive a car, marry the person we love, or

even install a toilet without saying, ‘Pretty please?’ to a dozen

despots. And we still wave the flag every Independence Day and brag

about how ‘free’ we are. Again, we don’t know the meaning of the

word.” 902/06/09)

 

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbar...e_20090206.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to hear about this, Kev.

 

I've got 2 words for you.....Fire Insurance. :grin:

 

On the bright side, you can sleep well knowing that you've supported your local gov't. I'm sure they're grateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

 

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

 

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

 

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world.

 

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

 

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb. ( Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the Annual Message to the Congress, January 6, 1941)

Kind of ironic how we think we can bring about freedom with the crash of a bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . ."

 

What I find irritating about libertarians it that they end their idea of freedom at the ellipsis, except that the philosophy also seems to include freedom from responsibility. For the most part they would ignore or deny important parts of the Declaration of Human Rights which fills in the ellipsis. For example:

 

Article 25.

 

* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

 

Article 26.

 

* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 29.

 

* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

.

 

 

Libertarianism seems to suppose that we are not social animals that actually need a herd to secure freedom and the rights above, but even Baldwin writes:

 

"Jefferson and the rest of America's founders, however, rightly understood that the only legitimate purpose of government was "to secure these rights." The only legitimate purpose of civil government is to secure or protect the freedoms and liberties that have been given to man by our Creator."

 

Baldwin seems to ignore the fact that the Government needs resources to accomplish the security. Taxes are not theft they are part of our duty to the community. Now I would agree that our particular government goes beyond what it needs to do to secure our rights. I would say that most of the war budget could be considered theft of taxes, but taxes themselves are not theft.

 

I also don't agree that we are given rights by a creator. We seek to give them to ourselves via government. I can't think of any other method to secure rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well..

 

What I find irritating with equalizers of whatever name or stripe is their insistence that they spend everyone else's coin to make things "level".

 

Socialism is fun until you run out of money.

 

As far as Baldwin Que? You wanna do him, you are free to go ahead and offer.

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
Oh well..

 

What I find irritating with equalizers of whatever name or stripe is their insistence that they spend everyone else's coin to make things "level".

 

Socialism is fun until you run out of money.

 

As far as Baldwin Que? You wanna do him, you are free to go ahead and offer.

 

kFL

 

 

I am sorry Kev. I shouldn't have said those things

 

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well..

 

What I find irritating with equalizers of whatever name or stripe is their insistence that they spend everyone else's coin to make things "level".

 

Socialism is fun until you run out of money.

 

As far as Baldwin Que? You wanna do him, you are free to go ahead and offer.

 

kFL

 

 

What I find irritating is that you support people like Sarah Palin and think they would be good for this country.

 

What I find irritating is that "people" are "socialist" to you.

 

It gets annoying.

 

But hey, believe whatever you want to believe. A lot of good men and women died for your and mine's right to do just that.

 

 

Baldwin is waiting for his fucking.. Get to it.. you stood up for the task, don't chicken out.

 

What I find mildly amusing is that folks want to take the coin that I earn through through the efforts of my work and slight talents then desire to spend it FOR me.

 

No thanksyouveddiemuch.. Prefer to make those choices myself.

 

Feel free to hand over say 35% of your current earnings, loan me 3500% of your future earnings as tax credits and so called stimulus. Please, I NEED it to keep up my lavish lifestyle.

 

Far as Palin and the Republicans, you don't pay much attention do you?

 

Socialism is fun until you run out of other people's money..

 

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it is ironic. So ironic how we think we secured freedom with two A-bombs.

 

Denial is a river in Egypt.

 

State sponsored Terrorism as an ideological component to collective American consciousness wins, if we as a nation continue to view those acts as morally acceptable. They weren't even militarily required from what I can tell. We would have defeated the Japanese anyway and they were already ready to surrender.

Wow. Do you have to work out to be capable of that kind of mental gymnastics, or does it come naturally?

 

As far as the Japanese military was concerned, there was no word in their language for "surrender." Sure, we probably would have won eventually, but it would have been in the same way we won Midway. Hopping from island to island, facing dogged resistance the entire way from an enemy who would sooner kill themselves than admit defeat - preferably taking at least a few of us out with them. The death toll on both sides was already tremendous, continuing to fight as we'd done would have made it absolutely staggering.

 

It's possible the first detonation over Hiroshima wasn't necessary, but we can't know that for sure. Maybe they would have shortly realized the futility of their struggle and given up, but all available information at that time indicated otherwise. I'll grant the second detonation over Nagasaki almost certainly wasn't necessary, but the delivery of Fat Man was at least as much a message to Russia as it was a military strike against Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the Japanese military was concerned, there was no word in their language for "surrender."

 

But I bet they have one for "honorable peace". Negotiation was possible and direct invasion wasn't necessarily the only solution. One reason for the rush was the USSR's entrance into the war with Japan and worsening US-Soviet relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
Yeah it is ironic. So ironic how we think we secured freedom with two A-bombs.

 

Denial is a river in Egypt.

 

State sponsored Terrorism as an ideological component to collective American consciousness wins, if we as a nation continue to view those acts as morally acceptable. They weren't even militarily required from what I can tell. We would have defeated the Japanese anyway and they were already ready to surrender.

Wow. Do you have to work out to be capable of that kind of mental gymnastics, or does it come naturally?

 

As far as the Japanese military was concerned, there was no word in their language for "surrender." Sure, we probably would have won eventually, but it would have been in the same way we won Midway. Hopping from island to island, facing dogged resistance the entire way from an enemy who would sooner kill themselves than admit defeat - preferably taking at least a few of us out with them. The death toll on both sides was already tremendous, continuing to fight as we'd done would have made it absolutely staggering.

 

It's possible the first detonation over Hiroshima wasn't necessary, but we can't know that for sure. Maybe they would have shortly realized the futility of their struggle and given up, but all available information at that time indicated otherwise. I'll grant the second detonation over Nagasaki almost certainly wasn't necessary, but the delivery of Fat Man was at least as much a message to Russia as it was a military strike against Japan.

 

 

Your words are self refuting.

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?

Kevin, maybe more people WOULD "Get to it" if it weren't so obvious that Palin is a fascist. I mean, to be fair, it may not be obvious to others but it's damned obvious to me.

 

Palin, Paul, Baldwin, all of them.

 

I don't want socialism replaced with fascism on a local level with OT law ruling all of our wonderful fkin lives. Even if it is well hid, (in the case of Paul very well hid).

 

That would be like the Taliban for X-tianity in America. Nope, sorry I didn't sign up for that.

 

Nader can go fuck himself too. Dick with no balls. Egomaniac at that.

 

I am actually fairly skeptical about Obama. What's to say what Bush did to the right won't be done by Obama to the left? Obama could be ok, but then again I have my doubts...

 

And those doubts won't be reduced or altered by fanbois singing his praise.

 

I guess I just don't truly believe in ANY politician at the moment. Most of them are thoroughly crooked in some serious sense (the ones that ran in this last race). Obama might be too, we'll see. A very key thing to understand is that I won't be truly believing in anyone ever again. Tried that shit with Bush and I don't plan on trying it again.

 

 

Paul practically has his own fuking cult. He could throw his own "Boston Tea Party" or w/e the hell he wanted to do.

 

Sorry, I don't do cults either.

 

I am not interested in neo-cons or what might possibly even be a neo-con endgame strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now now people. Let's all take a deep breath and count to ten slowly before we continue okay? :)

 

That said, I'd say there is some truth to all the positions I've seen in this thread so far. While a government that has its hands on everything is surely bullshit, there are also indeed some things that a private citizen will find hard to do on her own. That should be the task of a government - doing what its people find hard to do individually. For these tasks, and only these!, having a way to get the money needed is acceptable - be it taxes or whatever else. The question is, will the money you have to pay to the state be used in a reasonable way, and efficiently? :Hmm:

 

As for the WW2 topic, if I remember correctly the Japanese regime back then was absolutely hot for "better death than dishonor". Yes eventually the US juggernaut ;) would have crushed the emperor.. but how many lives would it have cost on both sides? And that there was the question regarding the Soviet Union... well that's not one of the nicest reasons of the world but I'd say it's not wrong. The world is not perfect, we shouldn't expect to be able to live in it without compromises - sometimes of the dirty kind.

 

Whether nuking both cities was the best way to go, that's another question. Maybe the US air force could have dropped #1 into the sea close to the coast to send the message "Fight on and we'll do this to a city"? And then, if Japan doesn't surrender, use #2 on a city as threatened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
Now now people. Let's all take a deep breath and count to ten slowly before we continue okay? :)

 

That said, I'd say there is some truth to all the positions I've seen in this thread so far. While a government that has its hands on everything is surely bullshit, there are also indeed some things that a private citizen will find hard to do on her own. That should be the task of a government - doing what its people find hard to do individually. For these tasks, and only these!, having a way to get the money needed is acceptable - be it taxes or whatever else. The question is, will the money you have to pay to the state be used in a reasonable way, and efficiently? :Hmm:

 

As for the WW2 topic, if I remember correctly the Japanese regime back then was absolutely hot for "better death than dishonor". Yes eventually the US juggernaut ;) would have crushed the emperor.. but how many lives would it have cost on both sides? And that there was the question regarding the Soviet Union... well that's not one of the nicest reasons of the world but I'd say it's not wrong. The world is not perfect, we shouldn't expect to be able to live in it without compromises - sometimes of the dirty kind.

 

Whether nuking both cities was the best way to go, that's another question. Maybe the US air force could have dropped #1 into the sea close to the coast to send the message "Fight on and we'll do this to a city"? And then, if Japan doesn't surrender, use #2 on a city as threatened?

 

Or perhaps Truman just indiscriminately wiped out hundreds of thousands of people and didn't give a shit? Perhaps the pilot was a psychopath too?

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the Japanese military was concerned, there was no word in their language for "surrender."

 

But I bet they have one for "honorable peace". Negotiation was possible and direct invasion wasn't necessarily the only solution. One reason for the rush was the USSR's entrance into the war with Japan and worsening US-Soviet relations.

 

Yeah, I agree. I'm going to have to side against Woody here (how did that happen???). Testing the bomb and providing evidence may even have brought them to the negotiation table. At the very least, don't drop it in the population zone. Drop it where the least amount of damage could have incurred and then threaten to drop one on Tokyo next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps Truman just indiscriminately wiped out hundreds of thousands of people and didn't give a shit? Perhaps the pilot was a psychopath too?

 

Maybe so. Maybe not. I never knew any of the two personally. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin, maybe more people WOULD "Get to it" if it weren't so obvious that Palin is a fascist. I mean, to be fair, it may not be obvious to others but it's damned obvious to me.

 

Palin, Paul, Baldwin, all of them.

 

I don't want socialism replaced with fascism on a local level with OT law ruling all of our wonderful fkin lives. Even if it is well hid, (in the case of Paul very well hid).

 

 

:Hmm: Palin and Paul have next to nothing in common. Ron Paul is NOT fascist, you are aware of the fact that he was the only one to vote against the Fascist legislation named the Patriot Act are you not?

 

His votes on both abortion and gay rights are appalling I agree, it doesn't make him a neocon though. Makes him sux on social issues, but he's not a fascist.

 

As far as Palin goes, I'm not sure she knows what she is, had she been elected it would probably been more of the same neocon policy's, with that I agree.

 

 

 

 

Paul practically has his own fuking cult. He could throw his own "Boston Tea Party" or w/e the hell he wanted to do.

 

Sorry, I don't do cults either.

 

I am not interested in neo-cons or what might possibly even be a neo-con endgame strategy.

 

 

:wtf: Cult? Wow... Ron Paul was drafted to run, and has been asked to run by his supporters since the late 90s. He didn't get hardly any Electoral votes in any of the primary's. If he's a cult icon, what are you going to say about those who did? How are Ron Paul voters a Cult and Obama and McCain supporters aren't? LOL This is just ludicrous... He ran to represent a certain ideology, his ideology lost in the court of public opinion, no biggy, It's American government and the way the ball bounces. I voted for Ron Paul in the NH Primary, General Election I voted Obama.

 

You seem very angry and hostile, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a libertarian myself, and I don't have as dim a view of the American populace as Baldwin does. I really think people who use this site understand what the concepts of freedom of speech and expression are. I think eventually the American people will wake up to the loss of their rights, but being free and independent requires a hefty amount of capital to do so. At the very core of what I believe, I am a hypocrite because I rely on my state government to pay my pension. It's not so much a matter of ineptitude in regards to freedom, but as a matter of means to live in a libertarian society. In this kind of economy, who else are the people going to turn to but the "stable" federal government in need for support. Even though I find the thought of federal bailout distateful and I want the financial institutions to collapse to some degree, my money could evaporate that quickly because our financial world is solidly connected together. And since our society is so firmly connected in this regard, something has to act a check and in comes the regulatory commissions to make sure the financial world is running smoothly and correctly. It sickens me how far people will go in allowing banks and governments to strip their rights away from them. Of course, if you're using the de-facto state currency for your retirement, then you are subject to their rules and regulations. And because people don't like hearing that their government is going to be trimmed down when their very means of survival depends on it, libertarian candidates like Paul and Baldwin will not be winning the main office anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you hit the nail directly on the head, MG. Excellent summary.

 

Yeah, I agree. I'm going to have to side against Woody here (how did that happen???). Testing the bomb and providing evidence may even have brought them to the negotiation table. At the very least, don't drop it in the population zone. Drop it where the least amount of damage could have incurred and then threaten to drop one on Tokyo next.

It happened 'cause I hadn't thought the issue through like you have. ;) Getting Japan's attention then dropping one over the Pacific does seem like it would have worked at least as well. Though I still think the impact of the atomic bomb's destructive capability was intended to send a message to Russia at least as much as it was to pacify the Japanese. Which doesn't cast our government at the time in any better light than the fact we obliterated 2 heavily populated cities, but then, I stopped having illusions about the magnanimity of the U.S. government when I learned about the Whiskey Rebellion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
I think you hit the nail directly on the head, MG. Excellent summary.

 

Yeah, I agree. I'm going to have to side against Woody here (how did that happen???). Testing the bomb and providing evidence may even have brought them to the negotiation table. At the very least, don't drop it in the population zone. Drop it where the least amount of damage could have incurred and then threaten to drop one on Tokyo next.

It happened 'cause I hadn't thought the issue through like you have. ;) Getting Japan's attention then dropping one over the Pacific does seem like it would have worked at least as well. Though I still think the impact of the atomic bomb's destructive capability was intended to send a message to Russia at least as much as it was to pacify the Japanese. Which doesn't cast our government at the time in any better light than the fact we obliterated 2 heavily populated cities, but then, I stopped having illusions about the magnanimity of the U.S. government when I learned about the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

 

Yeah, so no big deal that we slaughtered a few hundred thousand civilians.

 

No biggie.

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, am I not displaying sufficient guilt for you? 'Cause I ain't gonna', anymore than I'm going to go around apologizing to black people for slavery. All this shit happened 40 years before I was even born, and I stopped believing in "sins of the fathers" when I stopped believing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?

I am not blaming you for anything, just pointing out the obvious that you are somehow OK with the indiscriminate killing of civilians that took place in that country in that instance as if it really wasn't that big of a deal.

 

And your comments about Russia have made that persistently and abundantly clear to me.

 

No need to feel guilty bro, like you said you weren't responsible.

 

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care pointing out to me exactly where I said I was okay with that? I said it happened, and I didn't necessarily think the reasons behind it were as malicious as you seem to think. Then Vigile disagreed with me (in a much more agreeable manner than I've seen you express anywhere), I saw the logic in his argument, and left it at that. No statement of position anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
Care pointing out to me exactly where I said I was okay with that? I said it happened, and I didn't necessarily think the reasons behind it were as malicious as you seem to think. Then Vigile disagreed with me (in a much more agreeable manner than I've seen you express anywhere), I saw the logic in his argument, and left it at that. No statement of position anywhere.

 

It's implied.

 

I have heard the tired old argument from every baby boomer out there "Oh if we didn't drop the A-bombs imagine how many more of our guys would have died".

 

I've heard that from people everywhere and anywhere, and in my opinion it's a collective denial of what actually DID happen that day and the implications thereof.

 

Your contentions of us somehow having to kill every Japanese down to man, woman, and child are laughable in the least. Most Japanese from what I have read didn't really want to fight and were war weary and the reason they DID fight was because they were forced to by the Emperor. That is, if you are talking about the average Japanese soldier. They thought it was fate.

 

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

2/13/2009 at approximately 11:25 PM

 

I am sorry for flaming you guys, and I hope you can accept my apology for being so hot headed and insulting. There was no excuse for doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.