From the NY Times today “Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
This man scares the fuck out of me.
If you think the bill of rights was under attack during the current administration, this guy should scare the fuck out of you, too.
I can’t quote Benny Frankliln enough. “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
He said that in 1994, to the New York Post (although the quote is now available everywhere). To be fair to Rudy, it sounds better in the original German.
But seriously folks. I think Giuliani is legimitely scary, and that quote is exactly why. I can’t read that quote without thinking that this guy would happily be an autocrat and lock up whoever he wanted if given the chance. His conduct as mayor confirms that impression, to me, but the essence of the man is in those sentences.
A lot of the rest is Republican boilerplate, but “freedom is about authority” and “you have free speech so I can be heard” is this man’s brain in print.
Ah, missed the date on the article, but that doesn’t change the fact that this knucklehead personifies everything I hate about what has happened to this country since that September morning. We have become terrified of our own shadow.
Sigh.
That’s really the sticking point with me. He seems to want to take the federal government in the exact opposite direction I think it ought to be going.
Oh, I dunno. Seems to me he might have a point, not so much about authority per say, but in that freedom is absolutely dependent upon the rule of law, and the means and will to enforce it, which is what I think he means by “lawful authority”. That was the impression I got, although he could have stated it much clearer.
All of his ads are playing on people’s fears about Terrorism. I thought that was finally backfiring on GW because people were getting sick and tired of being told to be afraid all the time so I wouldn’t think this would be a good advertising tactic for Rudy. Also the most recent one is insulting to anyone Muslim or in the Middle East. Yes, let’s just lump them all together and make them even more pissed at us.
I think his ads ARE backfiring on him. His lead nationally and his showing in these first few primaries/caucusi seems to indicate that the country is on to his shennanigans.
Weirddave, weren’t you a NYer during the Giuliani years, or am I mixing you up with someone else? If you were, then you would understand that Giuliani is about as subtle as a kick to the nuts. The kicker (“You have free speech so I can be heard.”) is vintage, and there really is no hidden, misunderstood meaning.
So – we disband government, and leave people absolutely to do whatever they wish.
Then, of course, we have achieved paradise on Earth, because mankind will live together in peace and harmony.
Until some tough guy gathers a few like-minded followers around himself, decides he wants to fuck your fifteen-year-old daughter, and pushes little pacifist you out of the way, perhaps pausing slightly to beat the shit out of you, and your pitiful cries about how this is brutal and wrong will fall upon deaf ears.
Er… better rewind.
Obviously disbanding government is not (I hope!) your argument. But it illustrates the truth of the statement you now inveigh against: in order to secure our critical areas of freedom, we obviously must cede some of our autonomy to a centralized government. That’s basic social contract stuff.
The only question is: where do you draw the line? Ron Paul has a very different answer than George Bush, and they both disagree with Barack Obama. But it’s a matter of degree – all agree that some kind of central authority is essential to how we wish to live, and all acknowledge the inescapable fact that we must cede to that authority some personal autonomy.
Nah, I’m a native Baltimoron. I do know a couple of NYers whose opinions I respect highly who are big time Rudy supporters, but I haven’t made up my mind on ANYBODY yet.
I’m not particularly a Giuliani fan, but the speech from which excerpts have been quoted was not about terrorism, it was a former prosecutor talking about crime. It doesn’t seem like an assault on civil liberties. The point coming across is that lawlessness isn’t conducive to freedom, and that respect for authority is essential in a free society. It also makes sense that free speech allows Giuliani to be heard without interruption from protesters.
I have other problems with Rudy, including his pandering to the GOP right wing and statements suggesting that he has a permissive attitude on torture of terrorism suspects. He may be the best of a dubious Republican lot, but that’s not a particularly swell recommendation.
From Giuliani’s PoV, maybe. To me it means that the government does not have a right to suppress neither Giuliani’s nor the protester’s speech, even though they may be at odds with one another.
I’m sorry, where did I say anything about pacifism, or disbanding the government?
It’s the same old tactic, take an argument to an extreme, then try to argue how ridiculous it is.
I’m talking about the basic rights given us by the Bill o’ Rights. The current admin has been systematically trying to tear them down since they took office in 2000, and I think Guliani is cut from the same cloth.
That is the argument, I’m not lobbying for some hippie like utopia, just the ability to make a phone call with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
From Giuliani’s PoV, maybe. To me it means that the government does not have a right to suppress neither Giuliani’s nor the protester’s speech, even though they may be at odds with one another.
Really, we expect better than this sort of flimsy straw man from you.
Moving on to the actual issue at hand: Assuming that the OP quotes Guiliani correctly, he was rejecting the notion of balancing state power with individual autonomy in favor of the notion that the former is the only part of the equation worthy of concern. The OP’s characterization of that worldview is perfectly justified and appropriate – the only question I find worth arguing is the factual one of whether or not the quote is accurate.
That certainly isn’t what the first amendment means. It also depends, I admit, on your reading of that sentence: “You have free speech so I [meaning any speaker] can be heard” - which is incorrect, but I know what he means - or “You have free speech so I can be heard.” In turn I guess that depends on what kind of guy you think Giuliani is.
Yes and no. The current administration is known for being ideological and principled, and Giuliani is much more idiosyncratic. But they share a lack of interest in basic rights. Giuliani, after all, is the guy who went after a Brooklyn museum and threatened to cut off its funding because he was offended by a piece of art it was displaying.
There is ideological and principled, and then there is using the NSA to spy on Americans, suspending Habeus Corpus, and strongarming the telecoms to turn over all your internets.
Ideological and principled? These people are criminal.
Meh, fuck Guiliani. He ruined Times Square before I was old enough to get down and wallow in all of the nastiness I’d seen in movies and read about in books.