Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 06/24/2007 5:08:56 AM PDT by goldstategop
f I refuse to pay the full amount, I will become a ward of one of the biggest growth industries in the country: the government-run prison system. I am free to pay about half of all my earnings to the government, which will use those taxes to erect a multitude of offices and pay its workers salaries and benefits that are far more than most of us will ever earn. The government's "child protective services" workers are free to take anyone's children away from them based on their discretion. Parents are then forced into a totally secret court system, in which they must prove their innocence rather than having the government being forced to prove guilt.
We are all free to travel where we choose after government agencies search, poke and prod us. We can drive on government roads, pay government tolls, fly out of government-owned airports and pay for government-issued bond debt. We are free to pay for the government schools, which teach our children what the government wants them to learn.
The government can seize our personal property and not give it back even if we are cleared of any crime, and even place us in permanent detention, without any hope of legal representation, if the government determines that we are an enemy combatant. The government can bomb any government it chooses, based on any shoddy pretext (i.e., weapons of mass destruction). We are free to speak and write as we choose as long as the government doesn't decide that we broke campaign-finance laws or engaged in "hate speech."
The 18th century German poet Johann Goethe said: "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Am I off-base to wonder whether we are careening down that road?
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Absurd nonsense. You are free. Don’t like the searchs? Don’t travel. Don’t like the taxes, emigrate.
Read the quote from Goethe again.
It applies to you.
It's hardly "absurd nonsense." You should read Tocqueville's Democracy in America to get a sense of what political life in the USA was like before the government created by Jefferson, Madison, et al., was destroyed.
ML/NJ
You can say MNJohnnie is not absurdly nonsensical all you want, but that won’t change anyth . . . oh, . . . never mind.
Ironic that this writer is actually decrying the loss of freedom to dissolve an oppressive government as Jefferson etal intended. This option was forfeited to the might of the Federals in 1865.
Freedom is a word you NEVER hear ANY of the candidates use. Its only home these days is on the net.
LOL! And just where does the author of this piece think is a better, more "freer" place to live? Libertarian rabble is always about not being "FREE" enough, which usual means not being able to smoke dope anytime they want so they can get stoned outta their minds!
We are "Free" as one can get without complete anarchy taking hold!
I have felt this way for many years. Just have not been able to address the issue as well as written here.
Thanks for the post.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Do you mean that you cannot imagine one law that we could repeal, without complete anarchy taking hold?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
In Ottumwa, Iowa, “It is unlawful for any male person, within the corporate limits of the (city), to wink at any female person with whom he is unacquainted.”
In Los Angeles, you cannot bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time.
In Carmel, N.Y., a man can’t go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.
In St. Louis, it’s illegal to sit on the curb of any city street and drink beer from a bucket.
In Hartford, Conn., you aren’t allowed to cross a street while walking on your hands.
In Baltimore, it’s illegal to throw bales of hay from a second-story window within the city limits. It’s also illegal to take a lion to the movies.
In Oxford, Ohio, it’s illegal for a woman to strip off her clothing while standing in front of a man’s picture.
In Carrizozo, N.M., it’s forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public (includes legs and face).
In Pennsylvania it is illegal to have over 16 women live in a house together because that constitutes a brothel...however up to 120 men can live together, without breaking the law.
In Michigan, a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission.
Ping
Some could call doing WHATEVER you want anarchy.
There are some rules unless you own an island where you can do what you want without violating another person’s rights.
On an island, you can get all drugged up, get on your tractor while nude in the moonlight and howl to your delight and nobody is hurt or will care.
Off the island, nobody wants to hear you or to get hit by someone while they are drugged up on their tractor or driving a car.
I guess I consider this common sense to some point.
If you are in the middle of nowhere and don’t effect your neighbor, then good day.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
...And that's the point. If those things are left up to individuals with no sense of "responsibility" then you have anarchy, a crumbling society...that would be the ultimate end game to libertarianism.
You can not truly have a "FREE" society without standards and accountability. Libetarians don't seem to know history very well and those societies that allowed the "freedom" with no consequences to do these things and how it torn them apart and how they failed miserably.
I think this gets into more of a right/wrong argument on morales than anything else.
What??? This is about morales and responsibility, not laws.
That's why "UNDER GOD" is so vitaly important to even allow a
FREE society exist, especially in America!
Surprise, surprise! Americans are no better at socialism than any other benighted nation.
The unique twist to your system is that your politicians have built a socialist order whilst claiming all the time that they were doing it to fight communism.
Ya gotta give your slick Yankee lawyers credit - they’re the fearless commmissars of Soviet America!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Nicely put.
We are "Free" as one can get without complete anarchy taking hold!
Huh?? If that were true then it must have been "complete anarchy" from the time of Washington up until today. Do you really think our nation was in a state of "complete anarchy" in the time of Jefferson, or Roosevelt or even Eisenhower?
Instead of moving towards a big government nanny state with ever less freedom we should be trying to cultivate the culture of personal responsibility and freedom that leads to less government. You might consider this some kind of crazy libertarian idea but it was the key to Ronald Reagan's electoral victory. We could use a resurgence of his ideas among our candidates today.
Libertarians do not accept the reality in order to have a free society (or better the Idea Of America) you must have a Standard Bearer. A higher "authority" recognized outside of gov't. What is absolutely essential in FREEDOM is the idea of "all men being created equal under God." However, what Libertarian's want to do is make "Behavior" equal. That will not work, because again, there has to be responsiblity with free will.
Whatever "moral code" Liberts. might adhere to is not a code given by a higher authority and accepted, this is a code "developed" in a box. It will not work.
Go back and read again to put my statement in the right context. You're missing my point.
You may not think we live in a free country, but you're certainly at liberty to say so.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
I'm trying to think of THE NOW instead historical references, but the ROMAN EMPIRE would definately be one. Japan would be another. Germany. Basically any socialist country you can think of that allowed certain "freedoms."
Remember, we're talking within a moral/law context of society. Pretty soon it will be America if we don't go back to acknowledge who ultimately gives us our freedom instead of relying on some secularists idea of what a "moral code" should be...
The idea of America can not and will not survive without acknowledging God and his morale code.
When you are by yourself in an area away from people, you are less likely to lose rights and can expand the desires of your heart since there would not be anyone around that cares.
It is that issue IMO that restricts the total freedom of the individual, not that you could ever own your own nuke or anything like that. :-)
Good post. Thanks.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Look at all the corrupt stooges in government..yeah, they have the answer.
And, just look at history. Anytime a government can make you a criminal, they will. It seems many have not yet learned a lesson from history. In fact, many here on this forum would have have us careening down the same roads in the name of “morality”.
Political anarchy isn't a "free for all". It isn't the "land of do as you please". It's a harsh world where your actions have direct and even dire consequences.
That it also allows for the greatest level of industry, the greatest level of individual happiness, and the greatest level of individual freedom should not be over looked as well.
Governments ALWAYS trend toward totalitarianism. Our is currently doing so. Hide your head in the sand. Shoot the messenger. Look away or run and hide. This fact is incontrovertible: The government we have now is NOT the one the Founders drew up and codified in the Constitution.
No one can make that argument and maintain any credibility what so ever. A simple look at the number of laws on our books should suffice it to prove that maxim out as a proof.
Piffle...
We have them, - in both our State and US Constitutions.
those societies that allowed the "freedom" with no consequences to do these things and how it torn them apart and how they failed miserably. --
-- do you think the Netherlands are a successful, strong society today or are they crumbling?
As a socialistic, non constitutional society, they are crumbling.
I'm trying to think of THE NOW instead historical references, but the ROMAN EMPIRE would definately be one. Japan would be another. Germany. Basically any socialist country you can think of that allowed certain "freedoms."
Yep, socialists "allow certain freedoms". - We constitutionalists ~insist~ upon certain freedoms. - One is to be free from fanatics who demand that we acknowledge a specific 'moral majorities code'. - Such as the socialists code, or a specific religions code.
Remember, we're talking within a moral/law context of society.
No, in our Republic, we're talking within a constitutional/law context for society.
Pretty soon it will be America if we don't go back to acknowledge who ultimately gives us our freedom instead of relying on some secularists idea of what a "moral code" should be...
"Who ultimately gives us our freedom" is a telling line. - We ~fought~ for our freedom from men who thought their God gave them the power to rule. Our constitution ended the concept of religious qualifications for office.
The idea of America can not and will not survive without acknowledging God and his morale code.
We can acknowledge God and moral codes; - while we honor our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land; - the two concepts are not incompatible.
In a public elevator, would it be right to scream, smoke, cuss, get naked and so forth?
When you live close to others, you have your rights restricted due to proximity, that is the point I made.
I DON’T LIKE SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM or PERMANENT SAFTEY NETS IN GOVERNMENT.
Welfare, food stamps and such should be for a few months, after that, at least have them clean up roads or something to earn their way.
The difference begin, in my philosophy... no one will put a government gun to your head if you do those things while the elevator is otherwise EMPTY.
Further, social strictures used to have more force than law. Ostracism was one of the worst things that could happen to a person. Now, under the protection of the laws of the government you are trying to excuse... these freaks and morons are a protected species. People are ACTIVELY prevented from protecting themselves or their property by those laws.
This is not a system that can last long without it truly decaying into violence and chaos.
Well, if you fart, smoke and so forth, some of the behavior might remain as residue for those boarding soon.
Again, gets back to a murky fair freedoms for all issue.
If we were all living in 1776 with far greater distances today between our neighbors compared to now, we would not IMO be facing the limitations we need to today.
My neighbor supposedly should have the common sense to not go on his roof to stare into the windows of neighbors that fences had prevented in the past.
In a thin population, there is a lot of give.
In a dense population, there is a lot of take.
Population dictates a lot of what is happening and that was my point.
Is someone here arguing that anyone has a ~right~ to annoy their peers?
When you are by yourself in an area away from people, you are less likely to lose rights
You've never had ~rights~ to annoy/harm other people.
and can expand the desires of your heart since there would not be anyone around that cares.
In other words, your perceived loss of rights
No 'rights' have been lost. Unless you percieve your inablity to annoy/harm or maybe ~control~ your neighbor as a loss.
is due to growing population and the need in common sense to adapt so all can live closely among each other.
We've always lived in very close groups [tribes/clans]. - Gradually we've developed constitutional methods to deal with those problems, - but now majority rule/socialism/tribalism is again being touted as somehow necessary to "-restrict the total freedom of the individual, not that you could ever own your own nuke or anything like that."
Why do you advocate restricting individual freedoms?
Whatever "moral code" Liberts. might adhere to is not a code given by a higher authority and accepted, this is a code "developed" in a box. It will not work.
There is no requirement for any particular moral code to be a libertarian, no more than there is a requirement for any particular moral code to be a conservative.
There are plenty of devoutly religious people who would prefer a society with less government instead of more, and more freedoms instead of less. Actually, many religious people are at the vanguard of securing more rights for everyone, like the thousands of religious Americans who made homeschooling possible in every state.
btt
You and I agree on this point. However, the further point is where do you think we have derived our "Constitutional" premises from?
What I am saying is this "Idea Of America" was set up by incorperating the foundational precepts of the Judeo/Christian God. The whole IDEA is built around acknowledging God and his precepts because God gives free-will, but with responsibility and accountability. There is no other system better equipt to develope a prospering society. That was the genuis of the forefathers because they so readily recognized and accepted what is good and incorperated it! Take the responsibility and accountability out of the equation of God's precepts and you will get failure every time! Honoring our constitution with the correct understanding actually runs hand in hand with honoring God. And make no mistake, God's truth is the central theme around our constitutional gov't.
I agree with the first part, and this sound just like any Libert. I know, ANYTHING GOES, right?
The problem I think is those that have not fully investigated the nature of God to understand how our constitution truly is meant to work.
Remember, we're talking within a moral/law context of society.
No, in our Republic, we're talking within a constitutional/law context for society.
Pretty soon it will be America if we don't go back to acknowledge who ultimately gives us our freedom instead of relying on some secularists idea of what a "moral code" should be...
Your, - "Who ultimately gives us our freedom" is a telling line. - We ~fought~ for our freedom from men who thought their God gave them the power to rule. Our constitution ended the concept of religious qualifications for office.
The idea of America can not and will not survive without acknowledging God and his morale code.
We can acknowledge God and moral codes; - while we honor our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land; - the two concepts are not incompatible.
You and I agree on this point.
If noticed that you've ignored all my previous points above, which leads me to doubt that you really agree.
However, the further point is where do you think we have derived our "Constitutional" premises from?
Any student of the Constitution is aware that non religious [even pagan] greco-roman/nordic traditions and premises were used in the reasoning behind our Constitution, and its rejection of religious/political ties. [no religious qualifications for office, as above]
What I am saying is this "Idea Of America" was set up by incorperating the foundational precepts of the Judeo/Christian God.
You are wrong. We built our idea upon insuring that inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, or property, will not be infringed.
The whole IDEA is built around acknowledging God and his precepts because God gives free-will, but with responsibility and accountability.
Nothing in the Constitution itself supports your theory. The founders were quite clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, --" or prohibiting its free exercise.
There is no other system better equipt to develope a prospering society.
States that support specific religions have been a source of much of the worlds misery & war. The Islamic states we are currently fighting are a case in point.
That was the genuis of the forefathers because they so readily recognized and accepted what is good and incorperated it!
Into the constitution? - 'Incorporated' what?
Take the responsibility and accountability out of the equation of God's precepts and you will get failure every time! Honoring our constitution with the correct understanding actually runs hand in hand with honoring God. And make no mistake, God's truth is the central theme around our constitutional gov't.
Please, post your cites of "Gods truth" incorporated within our Constitution. I'd really like to see them enumerated.
Ping to the article and the comments.
Or, we could just make it all stop.
I agree with the first part, and this sound just like any Libert. I know, ANYTHING GOES, right?
Wrong. You are repeating a common misconception about libertarian principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.