- This topic has 5 voices and 21 replies.
-
Posts
-
As Donnie had mentioned in another thread somewhere, Europeans aren't really "free".
Is America truly Free? For that matter, what is freedom anyway? I would argue that freedom can be defined in many ways. I for one dont think that the government should have the ability to listen to my pghone calls without a warrant whther they are going overseas or not. I dont think they should be able to access my bank records with a National Security Letter. I certainly dont think people in a free society should be on camera almost everywhere they go. I know I sound kind of libertarian here, but I dont see a whole lot of diffference between the repressive measures of the Gestapo and Nazi party and some of the things that the US gov. does today, often without our knowledge or consent. the amount of behind the scenes surveillance in America today is amazing. I also dont think the state should be able to just take someones children away from them, the FLDS case in Texas is a case in point.Perhaps a debate about what freedom really means is in order. I wonder which thread I should put that in?
Alright, I hope you don't mind that I split your post from the WWII topic and put it here. It seems like a good place to start. If we were to all of a sudden eradicate all traces of government from society at the federal, state, and local levels, but all citizens continued their existences - what would happen? Would we survive? Yes, but for how long? Would we be any more "free" than we are now?Extreme example obviously, but it's one end of the spectrum between a land devoid of laws and oversight and one where the people are restricted and watched in a 1984 type of scenario. Would either of these present us with true freedom? On one hand, the lack of any governmental oversight would allow us to do what we wanted to do but would likely lead to a quick collapse due to internal or external forces; but on the other hand too much governmental oversight would crush us as people and turn us into slaves rather than citizens even as the nation continued on, perhaps indefinitely, since its enemies would be conquered. Where is the balance?Historically I think that the United States tries to determine this line against the framework of the U.S. Constitution, and at different times the line might shift slightly in either direction. As it stands citizens give up some privacy expectations for the government's "greater" purpose of protecting the nation's interests, including the citizens whose rights are curtailed. In times of peril the government has a greater interest, and in times of peace the expectation of privacy becomes greater. I see this situation in continuous flux and see the careful balance as being a hallmark of the American experiment. It's not a perfect system, but then again no system can be perfect.
I am not advocating Bakuninesque anarchy. However, I do think that we have become a society under constant surveillance. Often, in ways we do not even know about. I question the need for this kind of surveillance and I especially question the constitutionality. I guess you could say that I am a big privacy advocate, even while I readily acknowledge that privacy is largely an unattainable goal in today's world unless one is willing to live in a cave. On the issue of civil liberties, I definitely side with the Libertarians. My basic belief is that unless the government or any other entity can demonstrate a pressing security or financial need for information about me, they should not be allowed to keep it on file. I specifically reject the concept of companies that I do business with selling my name and address without my explicit consent, if I wanted to receive unsolicited advertising I could place my name in a database, it should not be up to a company on whether or how they can use my name and other information except to verify my identity or conclude financial transactions, it should be up to me. I do not think the state should have the right to invade my house and take my or anyone else's children out of a supposed abundance of caution because they suspect abuse. If nothing else, that is a violation of due process.I do not expect the system to be perfect. However, I do expect lawmaker to err on the side of individual liberty and freedoms when crafting laws. I do not think they do this very often, often it seems that they craft the law based not on the constitution, but on what their biggest financial contributors want and not the constitution. I especially, resent the constitution as living document crowd. I have read the constitution and can find no evidence of a right to abortion, a right to gay marriage, a right to not be offended, a right to free health care, or a right to unlimited immigration. Nowhere does the constitution say I have to register my guns, it just says that I have the right to own them.I do however; see a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, a right to keep and bear arms, a right to freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to a speedy trial and to be judged by a jury of my peers. The key passage in the constitution that is often quoted but not so often followed is right in the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Notice it does not guarantee anything except the freedom to succeed or fail of our own volition.Before we can debate freedom, we must establish what freedom is. My definition is: The ability to choose a lifestyle of my choice so long as it harms no one else, regardless of whether others find it objectionable on moral grounds. The defining difference is whether it harms others, not whether it harms me. Freedoms is also the ability to read, watch, or listen to what I want, not what others think I should watch. Lastly, freedom is the ability to raise my children with MY values, not the values of others who think they know better."As I see it, the role of government is not to regulate behavior, except where it is harmful to others. The role of government is to provide for the security of its citizens and ensure that conditions exist whereby the individual is free to conduct business and live their life without fear of assault, theft, or other harm to their person or property. It is all right there in the preamble to the constitution, which is perhaps the greatest, most profound and succinct documents ever written by the human hand.
America is catching up to Europe in many ways. Perhaps it's time for another revolution here to end that trend.
I am reminded of the famous quote from Jefferson, I believe. “From time to time it is necessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of patriots” I think that is correct ar at least close to it..
Before we can debate freedom, we must establish what freedom is. My definition is: The ability to choose a lifestyle of my choice so long as it harms no one else, regardless of whether others find it objectionable on moral grounds. The defining difference is whether it harms others, not whether it harms me. Freedoms is also the ability to read, watch, or listen to what I want, not what others think I should watch. Lastly, freedom is the ability to raise my children with MY values, not the values of others who think they know better.”
I think, though, that a belief in "freedom" as that which harms no one, myself not included, is problematic. In my understanding suicide was traditionally prohibited and I believe that its legal effect provided for negative consequences, and I highly doubt such an act would have been thought of within the realm of a "free" act, or else it would not have had such legal fallout associated with it. I believe this view of sucide as being outside the realm of freedom would have been that of the Founding Fathers as well. This is just one example but it suggests that a) freedom is not simply doing what one wants, or b) the Founding Fathers did not advocate the same type of freedom that you advocate. I think you are generally correct but I think there was more to it that provided for an associated duty. We sometimes hear about freedom and responsibility going hand in hand, and so I think a more traditional understanding of freedom would incorporate both of these together.
There has to be a balance. We cannot keep this country safe without looking into certain people's behavior. Unfortunately much of those things you say infringe on our freedoms are reactive in nature. No one is watching to prevent crimes/terrorism, most is used to check on who was there and find who comitted the act.You can always move into the woods, grow your own food etc. You still have satillites that can put you on Googlearth.
Just because the government has the technical and technological capability to do something does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea. For every great sounding idea or tool people can think of to foil crimes or hunt people down there are several reasons why it is not a good idea for the government to do it.I read yesterday where a bill just passed the house that requires the federal government to maintain a database of the fingerprints of the holders of federally-backed mortgages. Luckily, it has not completed the legislative process and become law yet. I wonder what is the purpose of a database of this sort? What need does the government have to maintain a database of mortgage holders fingerprints? This king of stuff it what I am talking about when I talk about government limits on freedoms. The bill itself is innocuous, but what is the need? We are on a slippery slope towards a total surveillance society, does safety demand this?Lawmakers should ask themselves what the founding fathers would think before they write every bill.
You can always move into the woods, grow your own food etc. You still have satillites that can put you on Googlearth.
I shouldn't have to do that, I should feel confident that my government truly does have my best interests at heart. Sadly, I do not.
Why did the Patriot Act extend to the banking loan system? I don't really understand the need for this.
Why did the Patriot Act extend to the banking loan system? I don't really understand the need for this.
Hear, Hear! Bravo! My thoughts exactly.
Why did the Patriot Act extend to the banking loan system? I don't really understand the need for this.
Wouldn't the government's rationale have been that this is how terrorists had easy access to means of financing their operations? Following the money trail could lead to the source, right?
Following the money trail doesn't mean having the ability to troll anyone's account. That is essentially the power granted to the federal government by the Patriot Act. It is unbelievable the information that can be extorted from private business through the use of a National Security Letter, which are not vetted by any court before they are presented.
I'm actually just presenting a rationale that could possibly be used by the government to have the Patriot Act extend to loans. I'm unfamiliar with this particular provision of the Act. For all I know this was a means by which terrorists were attempting to fund themselves.
The Bank Secrecy Act for BeginnersThe only thing "new" the Patriot Act did (and the BSA was going on well before the Patriot Act; it started with the War on Drugs) is require banks to ask customer's name, address, SSN, source of income, and a few other standard items of information to identify the customer.
The Bank Secrecy Act for BeginnersThe only thing "new" the Patriot Act did (and the BSA was going on well before the Patriot Act; it started with the War on Drugs) is require banks to ask customer's name, address, SSN, source of income, and a few other standard items of information to identify the customer.
Of course, that is all it did. Why do they NEED it? They didn't seem to have too much trouble ID'ing the 9/11 hijackers before these provisions existed. They would have to monitor everybody if they wanted to stop something like that again. I am not sure I want to live in a society like that.The issue isn't that banks are required to collect this information. The issue is that (insert Federal investigative agency of your choice) can show up to a bank and present a national security letter demanding what should be privileged information and the bank is required to provide it. This despite the fact that there is no provision for judicial or legislative oversight of the National security letter process. This is an obvious violation of due process and probably a 5th Amendment violation as being an unreasonable search and seizure. The feds do not have to show probable cause to issue one of these letters, in fact, they don't go farther than the lowest supervisor for approval. Why does the government need the authority to essentially subpoena mine or anybody else's financial records without showing probable cause? These kind of provisions frankly, scare the pants off me. What is next, commissars? That is not as far fetched an idea as it may seem, I am sure the Russian common man did not know what he was in for when he supported the Bolsheviks, as a matter of fact I know they didn't have a clue as to what they were going to get. If they knew, why did collectivisation have to be imposed? The Bolsheviks made the autocrats look tame by comparison.It is a slippery slope we are on and if people don't guard their rights they are apt to lose them.
