Are we Free?

[MetalMilitia]

Didn't even know where to put this It's not as far out there as the reset of the 'conspiracy' stuff, but It's something you need to think about.

Whenever I hear "they hate us because of our freedom" or "because they hate our way of life" or some other such drivel, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If real people didn't suffer the consequences of it, such ignorance would be amusing. But another annoying thing about statements like these is that they perpetuate the myth that we live in a land of freedom. The sad fact is, we are not free, and haven't been for a long, long time.

In "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45", Milton Mayer wrote about how the German people kept believing they were still free while the Nazis were tightening their control and extending their power over every facet of life. At first people refused to see the obvious, because the infringements on their freedom were coming in small steps. Each of those small steps, on its own, seemed to be no big deal, nothing to rebel against. But by the time you could no longer ignore the big picture, it was too late. Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing) . . . You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair. Remember, all the people had to do for all that to happen was--nothing. The same phenomenon is happening right here, right now, in the U.S. of A. It had been proceeding at a slower rate than 70 years ago in Germany , but now the pace quickens.

I know there are some who will say, Wait a minute, fella. You're going too far. The U.S. of A. is still a free country. O.K., then. If you're free, you should have no trouble doing something that people have done for time immemorial. Buy a cow, shelter and feed and care for it, milk it, and sell the milk. Go ahead, try it and see what happens. Come back and let us know how free you are to do such a simple thing, which has been done since the dawn of civilization.

Freedom is a state of being where an individual does not have to get permission in order to do something that harms no one elses person or property. How many things can you do without getting some form of government permission? Can you build your house on your own property without obtaining government approval? Can you put a new room on your house? Or a new porch? Put in a new toilet? Or even put a shed in your backyard? If you are not free to make your home on your own property, you are not free.

Once you have that home, can you refuse to sell it to the government if they want to use your land for some other purpose? Can you make them go away simply by telling them, "I will not sell you my property, at any price!" If you are not free to choose if, when, how, to whom, and for how much you will sell your property, you are not free.

Can you drive a motor vehicle across this "free country" without someone in government approving of you as a driver? Or without getting government permission to use that vehicle on the roads? If you are not free to travel without permission, you are not free.

Can you buy a pistol without government permission? Can you drive across the country with it on your person, even if you have permission to drive a properly permitted vehicle? There's a man, a good man from what I've heard, who got in trouble in Ohio for doing just that. And I'll bet there are many more good people that I haven't heard of who wound up in similar trouble. Lets remind them how free they are. Could anyone even ride a horse cross-country, with an old Winchester rifle in a scabbard, without being hassled? If you are not free to have a firearm at hand for self-defense, no matter where you go, you are not free.

Are you free to say to the government, "I don't like your retirement plan; therefore, I will no longer pay for it?" Can you, without penalty, tell the government that you will no longer pay for subsidies, for regulations, for wars, for empire, or for any activities that you disapprove? If you are not free to refuse to pay for things that you do not want, you are not free.

If the government decides it needs more troops to build and maintain its empire, can you refuse to go if it calls for you? Will they leave you alone if you tell them you wont kill and die for them? Can you simply ignore the draft, without consequence? Can you refuse to be a conscripted slave? If you are not free to tell the government "Hell no, I won't go!" you are not free.

Can you open a business, like a simple barbershop, without government permission? Or how about a bakery? A diner? A hot dog stand? A gun shop? Can you wire or plumb or fix TVs or cars without a government license? If you?re not free to make a living without getting permission, you are not free.

And once you have government approval to open a restaurant or bar, are you free to decide what people may do within your business? Can you choose whether or not they may smoke on the premises? Are you free to invite them to light up and enjoy a cigarette, a cigar, or a pipe with their drink, or after their meal? If you are not free to decide what people may or may not do on your property or within your business, you are not free.

Are you free to smoke a joint? Are you free to hire someone to help you satisfy a physical urge? You can do both in the same afternoon in Amsterdam . I haven't heard of anybody attacking the Dutch because of their freedom. (you know who you are ) If you are not free to entertain your mind and body in any way that does not harm another, with anyone who is willing, you are not free.

Can you undergo any medical treatment you think is in your best interest? Can you use whatever drug you deem appropriate for your condition? Can you even get some marijuana to help you avoid nausea so you can keep your meds from coming back up? Can you get it just to feel a little better for a little while? If you are not free to pursue any treatment or use any substance you think might help you obtain, regain, or retain your health, you are not free.

Are you able to criticize political candidates by name? A week before the next election or primary, place a newspaper or TV or magazine or radio ad criticizing a candidate. Let us know how you fare. The Supreme Court says it's okay to make that a crime (slander). If you are not free to talk about politicians at any time, at any place, by any means, in any form, you are not free.

Can you take your children out of a government or conventional private school setting, without explaining to some bureaucrat how you plan to educate them? Can you homeschool them without getting government approval of your lesson plans? Can you tell everyone to buzz off, that it's none of their business how or if you educate your kids? If you are not free to teach your children what you want, where you want, when you want, and how you want, you are not free.

(Strike the Root)

So, let's reiterate. You need government permission to make your home, travel, earn a living, defend yourself, obtain medical treatment, and educate your children. You will never get government approval for many of those things in many places. You will never get government permission to entertain your mind and body in unapproved ways. At certain times, you cannot criticize those who decide who and what gets approved. You must sell your property to the government if they want it, and you must kill and die for them if they tell you to. And you have no choice but to pay for it all anyway, whether you like it or not.

And still, we think we are free? We may have a better standard of living, but wake up and realize just how free you are. Basically, your whole life is dictated by these set of rules and standards so I ask you again... Do you think you're free?

-MM-

[Marajadex]

Bravo MM!!! Bravo!!! :yeah:

Well stated, very well stated!

[mickydoolittle]

MM - Actually, you are indeed free to do all the things you stated that one is not free to perfrom.

As far as the consequences are concerned..those mean very little as ppl break the law every day and the odds of getting caught are less and less as the size of the poulation increases.

Moreover, would you prefer to live in the countries that have a vested hatred of AMERICA instead of the modernized country you currently reside?

Hhmmm?

That's what I thought.

[MetalMilitia]

Moreover, would you prefer to live in the countries that have a vested hatred of AMERICA instead of the modernized country you currently reside?

I never stated such things, I was simply pointing out the common dilusions people have about what their rights are... It was to show how much of what you do is dictated by others, and is NOT in fact... free will. Getting permission to do things isn't free will, and in some cases with the law you DON'T have a choice at all what will happen to you... and that's not.... say it with me.... free will.

-MM-

[Maleko]

<tips a glass to MM>

Cheers!

[DarkAce]

First off you should put the source of where you copy and pasted this from so no one mistakens this drivel as your own.
Define 'freedom' in society. Because clearly you seem to think it means doing whatever the hell you want. Which in context would mean complete anarchy.
I don't even know where to begin on this.



What is with all you people applauding this? Do you not understand why these laws, rules, regulations, etc. are in place? Geezus! We should drop you people off in some third world country so you have real opression to bitch about then this BS that's been posted.

[Marajadex]

Here is another "Freedom" that they wish to take away.

Should we just get used to not being able to do things we have been able to do in the past? I know it is just a bill at this point but what is next if they pass it into law?

Louisiana May Ban Low-Slung Pants
Apr 23, 7:37 AM (ET)

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - People who wear low-slung pants that expose skin or "intimate clothing" would face a fine of up to $500 and possible jail time under a bill filed by a Jefferson Parish lawmaker.

State Rep. Derrick Shepherd said he filed the bill because he was tired of catching glimpses of boxer shorts and G-strings over the lowered belt lines of young adults.

The bill would punish anyone caught wearing low-riding pants with a fine of as much as $500 or as many as six months in jail, or both.

"I'm sick of seeing it," said Shepherd, a first-term legislator. "The community's outraged. And if parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law."

The bill would be tacked onto the state's obscenity law, which restricts sexual activity in public places and the sale of sexually explicit items.
Joe Cook, head of the American Civil Liberties Union's Louisiana chapter, said the bill probably does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for the prohibition of obscene behavior under the First Amendment.

"What about a woman who is wearing a bathing suit under her garment or she has something like a sarong wrapped around her and it's below her waist," he said. "I can think of a lot of workers, plumbers, who are working and expose their buttocks ..."
---
Information from: The Times-Picayune, http://WWW.TIMESPICAYUNE.COM


After all we do have The Declaration of Independence which states:
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Source:
http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...ranscript.html

[Maleko]

Originally Posted by DarkAce

What is with all you people applauding this? Do you not understand why these laws, rules, regulations, etc. are in place? Geezus! We should drop you people off in some third world country so you have real opression to bitch about then this BS that's been posted.

Please enlighten me. Please explain to me why a licensed electrical inspector needs to have someone else inspect his work within his own house. I can understand protecting a Dr, or a Miner, or anyone who doesn't work with electrical wiring from shoddy workmanship. I can understand protecting children from abusive people, and I can understand protecting people who couldn't be expected to know the risks of their actions. I can also understand protecting people from the actions of others. What I can not, for the life of me, understand is why the hell does the govt feel the need to protect ME from MYSELF!

If I choose to take an action that harms no one, or nothing, other than myself or my property, and I know the risks, why should ANYONE be able to stop me? If I buy a DVD, why can't I watch on on whatever device that is capable of playing said disk? Why can't I play a CD I purchased in my computer CD drive? Why can't I smoke a joint, in the comfort of my home? Why can't I kill myself if I feel that my life has to value to me? None of these actions hurt anyone or anything other than myself (smoking is bad mmmkay?)

I'm not advocating anarchy at all. I am however advocating PERSONAL responsibility. I should be responsible for my actions alone. The govt only has the job of protecting MY rights from other's actions, not from my own actions. The more the govt tries to protect it's citizens from themselves, the less people take responsibility for their own actions. Look at the way society is changing, and how morality is slipping, and how sue happy America is, and you will see that as more and more responsibility is removed from people and corporations (which are by definition considered a single entity), the more people "pass the buck" of responsibility unto others.

[Marajadex]

Just FYI Check this story out...

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[Bigsky770]

- - -For my part, I'll say that I think alot of this has to do with what your definition of "Freedom" is all about. Some would say that laws are implemented to "oppress & offend", while I happen to believe laws are implemented to "protect & defend". . .
- - -As a 'for instance' where I live, I can carry a gun in public, as long as it's EXPOSED on my hip or if I am driving, it must be visable on the dashboard; If I should want to 'carry concealed', I would have to take a one day course ($
75.00) but i figure, why bother? I don't carry in public unless I am hunting or treking anyhow, HERE (unlike living in the 'city') I don't really even see the need to bother in carrying a gun. But if I want to, the option to do so is available. . .The last shooting? (that happened in the community) was a few years back, two guys were drinking, the one dummy looks at the other dummy and says "shoot me", so, the other dummy took his gun, and did...Now, should he have been free to do so? I think not. He is now serving time.
- - -I happen to know right now also where someone is growing a small plot of plants for their own use, and the police know about it. Why are'nt they jumping his ass? 'cause around here, it grows everywhere. This particular gentleman is not marketing it (or) operating a plantation for profit. So, that's that. . .
- - -Yesterday, I passed a cop doing 65 mph. in a 55 m.p.h. limited area. Why did'nt he stop me? We do not have any speed-traps around here. They'll let you go a little over, but not to excesses that lead to accidents. Should I be 'free' to travel at a rate of speed that may provide a danger to others that I happen to share the road with? No. And I do not. . . .In closing, guys, I'll tell ya, I do not see anything that is so overtly oppressive about our current system. We need "Laws", if we did not have them, I would'nt wanna think of what the world would be like. . .ya know?

Joe (Bigsky770)

[mickydoolittle]

Originally Posted by Maleko

Please enlighten me. Please explain to me why a licensed electrical inspector needs to have someone else inspect his work within his own house..

Because of all the idiots that cut corners and do the job half assed. That's why there is the law requiring the inspection--you'd be bitching if there wasn't a law and your house burned down because of your neighbors bullshit work.

You can't deny this.

Originally Posted by Maleko

What I can not, for the life of me, understand is why the hell does the govt feel the need to protect ME from MYSELF!.

Because the idiots out there who are too stupid to keep themselves out of harm, also harm the rest of us. And now you know..

Originally Posted by Maleko

Why can't I kill myself if I feel that my life has to value to me? None of these actions hurt anyone or anything other than myself (smoking is bad mmmkay?)

What the hell are you on about here? Why should I be forced to pay higher premiums in my health insurance when you are running the cost up because you need to live with your tank of oxygen due to your lung cancer? It's not my goddamn fault you wanna die slow, but I'll be damned if I have to pay for it you inconsiderate motherfuq'r.

Originally Posted by Maleko

I am however advocating PERSONAL responsibility.

Yeah, but the problem here is that those who choose to be irresponsible are fuq'n things up for the rest of us. And it's illegal to shoot the bastards in the interim!

[Maleko]

Bigsky770, the examples you site, to me are fair and sensible implimentation of laws. But the type of thing that gets me seeing oppression, is that according to the fair use provisions of copywrite law, I can make a copy, for MYSELF of any DVD, or CD that I purchase. The rules of first sale allow me to sell any DVD or CD I purchase to another person if I so desire, as long as I destroy any personal copies I made. These fair use provisions also allow me to use (again only for my personal use) in any device capable of displaying the data contained on the media.

Now throw in the DMCA. It states that no matter if my copy of a digital product is legally obtained, I can only "play" that CD or DVD in players approved by the people who distributed the media. For example, I have a DVD player in my computer, if I play a DVD under Windows, I have broken no law. If however I play that same DVD in the same DVD player, but I use Linux (or BSD, or BEOS, or UNIX or ...) as an operating system, I have broken the law. According to the terms layed out by most End User License Agreements (EULAs) though, I can not resell my license to the product when I am done with it. Also the DMCA prevents me from breaking any encryption on said DVDs or CDs so that I may make my personal copies for back up that I am allowed.

Also, up until a few years ago, if a law enforcment agency suspected me of commiting illegal activities, they would take their evidence before a judge in order to obtain permission to search my house, communications, and activities. Now, any company that suspects that I may be commiting illegal activities can request identifying information from any company or entity that I do business with, without any kind of court intervention at all. And law enforcment can do the same, all they have to do is say that they feel I'm an "enemy combatant" or involved in "terrorist activities" and they can have their way with me, and I have no defense, nor does any company that I do business with have any choice but to comply.

These two examples (out of many I could have chosen) do indeed stink of the govt taking the rights of the corporations, and the govt itself and placing those rights above my own. And that my friend leads down the road to oppression. We are rapidly heading towards a society that determines are actions by what is allowed, as opposed to a society that states what is NOT allowed.

I do feel that laws are needed, I shudder to think what this world would be like without some structure to base our actions on. I'm quite positive that "might would make right" without laws to protect society.

[mickydoolittle]

Originally Posted by Maleko

And that my friend leads down the road to oppression.

I assure you: You're not oppressed - or anything near it. I'm disappointed you believe such.

[Maleko]

Originally Posted by mickydoolittle

I assure you: You're not oppressed - or anything near it. I'm disappointed you believe such.

I did not say I feel oppressed, yet. I do however fear the slope we are heading towards.

I will address the issues in your longer post later, as I am late for getting the kids to school, so don't think I'm ignoring you :-)

[Maleko]

Originally Posted by mickydoolittle

Because of all the idiots that cut corners and do the job half assed. That's why there is the law requiring the inspection--you'd be bitching if there wasn't a law and your house burned down because of your neighbors bullshit work.

You can't deny this.

Your right, I won't deny it. But your taking my statement wrong. Lets say Steve (who is a lic. electrition) wires a house for Joe (who is an electrical inspector). Joe now has to pay John (another inspector) to inspect the wiring even though Joe is legally able to determine if the work is sound. That doesn't sound right ot me at all. It's Joe's house, Joe knows more than enough about the subject to make a highly qualified opinion, so the govt should step aside.

Originally Posted by mickydoolittle

Because the idiots out there who are too stupid to keep themselves out of harm, also harm the rest of us. And now you know..

What the hell are you on about here? Why should I be forced to pay higher premiums in my health insurance when you are running the cost up because you need to live with your tank of oxygen due to your lung cancer? It's not my goddamn fault you wanna die slow, but I'll be damned if I have to pay for it you inconsiderate motherfuq'r.

Again I think you misinterpreted my words. But at least this time you are supporting my point. :-) If I develope incurable lung cancer, I can not even save the taxpayers, and insurance companies money, by killing myself. the govt says it's wrong so therefore if I try and fail, I face punishment (at the very least forced psychological councelling).

Originally Posted by mickydoolittle

Yeah, but the problem here is that those who choose to be irresponsible are fuq'n things up for the rest of us. And it's illegal to shoot the bastards in the interim!

And I fully agree with you on this point

[mickydoolittle]

Originally Posted by Maleko

Your right, I won't deny it. But your taking my statement wrong. Lets say Steve (who is a lic. electrition) wires a house for Joe (who is an electrical inspector). Joe now has to pay John (another inspector) to inspect the wiring even though Joe is legally able to determine if the work is sound. That doesn't sound right ot me at all. It's Joe's house, Joe knows more than enough about the subject to make a highly qualified opinion, so the govt should step aside.

It's a conflict of interest--just as when judges won't hear cases where they have a social or other relationship with either the defendant or the plaintiff.

[VegasRonin]

I think everyone can agree that we need laws and rules in order for our society to exist. Some laws are pretty stupid, and are obviously Corp. Driven to protect or raise their profit margin. Still, out of all the crooked Govts. out there, ours is the best.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Still, out of all the crooked Govts. out there, ours is the best.

...that money can buy.

BTW, was it Cheney that went fishing with the judge presiding over his pending case? I forget, where's that link.

[VegasRonin]

BTW, was it Cheney that went fishing with the judge presiding over his pending case? I forget, where's that link.

Yes it was, but the kicker is that the Judge has ruled against Cheney on occasion. Smoke screen or an individual who can seperate personal from professional?