You and your cite appear to be taking the Patriot Act to an extreme. I wouldn’t be worried unless Dubya gets his extension, if even then.
Lib, an honest quesion.
Given your premise that If even one man is not free, then no man is free, has freedom ever really existed in civilization? I can’t seem to think of a time when there wasn’t one man deprived of his freedom by a stronger man or men.
As to the OP, these brain dead fucks think they are patriots harassing a rabblerouser. They don’t seem to realize that only criminals and cowards send death threats.
Good lord. If you can come away from your cite worry free, then you and I have very different interpretations of the English language. No wonder we are having problems communicating with one another. Here is HR 3162, the so-called Patriot [sic] Act:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
And here is EPIC’s take on it:
An excellent observation, Spooje, and what I’ve been saying for five years here. The only way to freedom is a government that suppresses coercion. That’s because freedom IS the absence of coercion.
So you’re suggesting that we force everyone to be nice to each other, eh?
Didn’t that happen when Ned Flanders took over the world?
How many people have been prosecuted under the act? I’ve only found three: a pair convicted of manufacturing child porn and a guy who posted bomb-making insutructions on his website.
I’ve also found something about a portion of the act being used to recover $4.5 million from a group of crooked telemarketers.
Ain’t ever gonna happen on this planet Lib.
Certainly not by any government action, of course.
Lib, dear sir, if I’m understanding your views on this correctly you’re saying that there is no possiblity of freedom for anyone, ever?
That’s a depressing thought…
(and I would like to apologize for the curtness of my earlier post in this thread… it was late, I was cranky, and various other excuses. I normally strive not to be nearly so rude as I was back there. :smack: Sorry.)
So cancel his protective custody, and he’ll damn well find himself in a combat situation. 
So it would seem, though I’m getting the impression that he simply equates freedom with happiness.
I mean, frankly, I see the sort of bullshit outlined in the OP as one of the prices of freedom. Freedom means that dicks are free to be dicks. Hell, freedom means that SOMEone, SOMEwhere is going to rub someone else the wrong way… it’s a natural occurrence when you have unlike-minded people living together.
The only way, it would seem to me, to eliminate that inevitability is to make everybody of the same mind.
Alternative solutions, of course, are welcome.
Break the jaws of the people that threatened him?
Revtim, why do you hate America?
Something I once read attributed to Nietzsche: In the struggle for freedom, we must not only be without fear, but without hope.
I don’t speak for Lib, but here’s my own take on this argument: Freedom is constantly under threat. Even in times of peace, even in times of prosperity, even in times later eras will look back on as a Golden Age. It is under threat because there are always inconsistencies in any government, always people who can use politics to get away with crime and people who get dumped on unjustly. It is the citizen’s job to keep government in check, if only because the traps that snare others can be used to snare him.
I’m not advocating anarchy. Inconsistencies will crop up in any society, I think, and there will always be a fundamental unfairness to everything humans do. What humans can do is to limit the scope of unfairness and to rectify problems that come to light.
So, can you be free when others sit in chains? You can be in the short term, but in the long term you are living under the Damoclean sword of revolution and possible authortarianism. It is a fool’s paradise, is what I’m saying, and ensuring the freedom of at least those around you is essential to your own continued freedom.
I equate freedom with the absence of coercion — i.e., initial force or deception.
That is the part I have trouble with. I cannot envision a world totally free of coercion. Perhaps it is just my cynical nature.
Liberal appears to get tangled up over the problem of evil. His solution isn’t usually quite this radical: Anarchism is the only political option for Christians, but at times the lines he draws get a little fuzzy.
I think that sometimes people make a mystery out of a very simple thing. The line is very clear: no initial force or deception. A nine-year-old can understand this. Don’t start a fight, and don’t con people. I do sympathize, however, with people like Spooje who rightfully understand the nature of men and the tendency for a tyrant to rise up among them. There is also the tendency for men with power to become corrupt — even men with limited power, like libertarian enforcers. But in my opinion, this does not mean that we should give up and resign ourselves to our inevitable fate. The enemy of corruption is vigilance.