Free Is A Relative Term In America - Freedom At Issue (Steven Greenhut's Libertarian Musings Alert)

Orange County Register ^ | 06/24/2007 | Steven Greenhut

[radioman]

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

I am in an area away from people but that's not good enough for you authoritarians. My neighbor died of a heart attack during an early morning drug raid on his home. He had no drugs. He died because an idiot in a helicopter thought his tomatoes were marijuana.

If you want to give up your liberty that's fine with me. When you demand that the rest of us give up ours we have a problem.
.

[radioman]

Well lets see
LOL!
You said:
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 asked you to name one. The Roman Empire was fascist, Germany was fascist, Japan was fascist and the Netherlands has not failed.

I'm trying to think of THE NOW instead historical

Well, looks you failed history both recent and ancient.

The idea of America can not and will not survive without acknowledging God and his morale code.

Do you claim to speak for God?
God gave us freedom. You want to restrict that God given freedom. Looks like you don't respect God to me.
.

[Old Professer]

Don’t you have to get a passport from the master before departing?

[Old Professer]

I’d rather be in the biggest lifeboat following a shipwreck myself; but it would be preferable not to have had the boat sink.

[hedgetrimmer]

Don’t like the searchs? Don’t travel

How unAmerican of you.

I am sure you apprectiate that an NGO can be hired by the government to develop an unconstitutional plan to protect the private property of the airlines with taxpayer funded workers while violating individual rights of citizens our government is sworn to uphold. That includes the right to be secure in their persons and papers against warrantless searches. So while you may appreciate how our governnment has been corrupted so that unconstitutional NGOs may prosper(is this where you get your paycheck?) and private companies can have a government run security force protecting THEIR property, most Americans DON'T.

[MrB]

“If he gets up, we’ll all get up, it’ll be anarchy!” - Breakfast Club

Seriously, though. If the government didn’t try to alleviate all the consequences for bad choices, we could freely allow those bad choices to occur, since the consequences would incentivize future deciders to make better decisions.

[tpaine]

Please, post your cites of "Gods truth" incorporated within our Constitution. I'd really like to see them enumerated.

You Libert's. are so utterly thick headed and clueless when it comes to understanding why America works!

Typical, - unable to cite the 'Truths' requested, - you make a personal attack and launch into a sermon.

It's not about the form of gov't that makes America work, it the acknowledgement foremost that ALL MEN are created equal by a CREATOR!

I have no problem with belief in a Creator. Nor does our Constitution. You are belaboring the obvious in an attempt to gloss over the fact that there is no "Gods truth" incorporated within our Constitution.

Which is the underlying theme for our law! Because the Declaration acknowledges men don't give enaliable rights, but God does, leads into the whole basis for our form of constitutional gov't. Why do you think the ten commandements are listed on the veranda of the supreme court and are plaqued in many courtrooms in this land?

Because 'We the People' respect the concepts of religions, but forbid their establishments being enabled in our laws.

It's not about acknowledging a religion, it's about acknowledging the idea that MEN are given their rights by someone other than man and we will always adhere to that standard.

Who gets to define the rights "given" by which of mans Gods? Your concept of a "standard" is ludicrous.

Because a certain religion is bound by that same concept probably is how the founders established this great idea! Freedom of speech: Freedom of religion are directly connected to God's Truth. God gives FREE WILL, not man and that is what establishes the idea to form the basis of the Constitution. The idea that no "MAN" can have single rule over another (Monarchy) and the people are FREE to persue happiness. I realize this is DOI material, but it is the foundation of our constitutional law.

Again, you are belaboring the obvious, probably in an attempt to gloss over the fact that there is no "Gods truth" incorporated within our Constitution.

The theme is quite evident to all that want to take the time to study history.

You aren't teaching anyone history. You are sermonizing.

The constitution is set up in a way which "Acknowledges" God precepts, because they are great, but does not establish men follow a certain religion or have to adhere to it's tenants. Especially the ones from which these "Truths" were derived to form the Republic.

Which is more or less what I've been posting all along. - Which you admit here:

However, even though history shows our foundation to be based [partially] on the precepts of the Judeo/Christian God it does not "establish" the Christian God as the only giver of rights, it establishes each "individuals" God, whomever the indiviual may acknowledge.

Thanks for conceding that each individual is free to acknowledge his own version of how rights are established. -

[alexander_busek]

>>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”...<<

So I guess that Islamo-Fundamental states like Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia, are “free societies?” Whereas countries like Japan, where the only thing approaching a state religion is Shintoism (akin to Animism), are totally enthralled?

[Just another Joe]

Our condition isn't as great as we'd like to believe. Yes, all of what he wrote takes place every day of the year in America.

While this may be true, we are still one of the freest people living on the face of the earth at this time.

The conflict between the individual's freedom to do as they will, with no boundry but force on force, and societies needs, anytime more than one person is involved, is a fine line.

The pendulam swings between one and another with regularity.

The only way to be absolutely free is to move to a deserted island, become completely self sufficient, and have no contact with another sentient being.

If you live in a society that involves more than one person you will, at times, be forced to do things that you don't agree with, find abhorrent, or literally despise.

Until a majority of the society decides that these things need redress, or a minority achieves force enough to make the majority unnecessary, you places your bets, you roll the dice, and you takes your chances.

Let me ask you one question, is there any other country on earth that you would rather live in, as a citizen of that country, at this time?

[Dead Corpse]

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.

This is incorrect. If this were true, we would have had no need to rebel against the King.

[sirchtruth]

Thanks for conceding that each individual is free to acknowledge his own version of how rights are established. -

I'm not conceeding anything, that's why I've belabored the point. I can counter respond to each and every point you made, but I'm not going too simply because if one can not grasp the concept of "God's Truth," and really understand why we acknowledge that truth in our basis of law, then the next best thing is to define what is God's Truth.

You seem to be insinuating I'm preaching or sermoning when all I'm pointing out and you can't seem to grasp the simple concept is we, as a people, in the DOI have acknowledged there is a higher power and "HE" endows each of us with unforfeitable rights. That is "God's Truth." You say we forbid religious establishments in our laws when infact we've established religious concepts and precepts into almost all of our law. Infact, if I wanted to preach and sermonize I WILL, and will do it in public because the whole premise of our founding is based on my RIGHT to do it!

"...Nor prohibit the free exercise of..." And that means in gov't, and IN the public arena. This along with Free Speech basically says you can KMA if you don't like it!

Oh, don't let me forget this...

Jesus is The Truth! How's that for preaching?

[sirchtruth]

So I guess that Islamo-Fundamental states like Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia, are “free societies?”

Put down the crack pipe for a minute. I don't follow your supposed logic, but let me try this. The concept of the underlying basis of America is God gives rights. Many other religions, as the one you've mentioned, God takes rights away.

[tpaine]

Thanks for conceding that under our Constitution each individual is free to acknowledge his own version of how rights are established. -

I'm not conceeding anything, that's why I've belabored the point. --
-- you can KMA if you don't like it.

"-- The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others. -"

[sirchtruth]

"-- The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others. -"

The fact that you have used this quote just further signifies our thinking is not congruent on this subject and you seem to see some imaginary zealot who you think is trying to convience you America was founded by implementing an illgotten theorcracy. I think you're thickheaded about history and obviously biased against any mention of Christian concepts, which are clearly a part of our founding as a nation.

Liberty is exactly what the Christian religion is all about. All the founders did was recognized this and incorperate these TRUE precepts into our system. WHY? Because they are ALL good, and all have the underlying concept which espouses "freedom of choice!"

[tpaine]

I think you're thickheaded about history and obviously biased against any mention of Christian concepts, which are clearly a part of our founding as a nation.

My concepts mirror the following 'bold' words of Justice Story:

On The Establishment Of Religion (What Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1840)
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970797/posts

Joseph Story on religious tests (Article 6, Clause 3):

"- § 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States."
This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility.
The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom.
The history of the parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. -"

[sirchtruth]

It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own.

I agree with this. Think about where the founders came from and what their circumstances were. The Church of England was the government and told people not only what to do, but how to think. So what did Jefferson do? Basically purposed the idea that ALL people can govern themselves.

What I think might be a source of confusion here is the point that I've been making about "Religious Concepts" being used to form our gov't. I'm not insinuating that I think the Christian Religion or any religion for that matter, is responsible for our system of gov't, but what I am saying and history bears me out...Religious precepts were used in establishing an underlying basis for how our gov't should be formed.

For instance, God gives man "free will to chose" is a concept. The founders said hey, that's what we believe let's intergrate this concept as a basis for this "new" idea. It works!

Am I making myself more clear? It is obvious, our system of gov't can not make a law to "respect an establishment of religion," but that does not mean it can not use certain religious precepts to establish law. I think that was the genius of the founders, they understood how good some religious concepts were and used them to form our republic and at the same time realized that if they formed a gov't establishing even the BEST religion, then that would contradict what they just previously purposed.

Plus common sense dictated they wanted to form a gov't of the people, by the people, and for the people so there was no question about WHO governed WHO.