"Of the people, by the people" vs. "The Government"

Great Debates
21

… “Why is it so popular to feel victimized by the national government rather than seeing it as a tool of the people for our civilization?”

This is a good question. I think there are a number of possible causes. A great many people seem convinced that they cannot possibly have any influence on government and what it does. I think there is a perception that government officials are responsive to the CEOs of big corportions, but not to ordinary citizens.

Regarding our freedoms, I can site one area where we appear to be loosing ground, and that’s the area of probable cause. Government agencies seem to be more and more free to snoop into people’s banking records, emails, etc. without a warrent.

22

Thanks Rugby :wink:

I’d also like to add the comment about being thrown in the clink for reckless-buggy-operation. Are you implying that if I was doing donuts in some field out of the city that I would ALSO be in trouble?

This cannot even be correct proportionately IMO. Are you trying to assert that the number of laws which restrict action on a person has not increased in over 100 years?

23

RugbyMan Since the sight links to UNEDITED laws passed by the 106th congress, your outraged indictment of the source is neither enlightning nor a meaningful answer.

Still waiting anyrandlover

24

Mother Jones? The link gave me a bunch of stuff about the election, I saw nothing about bills passed into law anywhere.

Anyway, I did some searching at congress.gov to see what could be turned up. I limited my search to bills signed by the president.

H.J. Res. 54—settling disputes between Missouri and Nebraska. Restricts individual state freedom in lieu of compromise. Again, practical, but limiting. Also a bit of a stretch :wink:

Frankly, in three pages of searching I see a bunch of garbage. Nothing promoting any freedom (as was implied against me) nor removing any (as was implied by me). I got bored seeing fifty of the same title in different bills and I only sorted through 60 of 604.

Unfortunately I can’t link to the page as it creates a temporary file for you while reading it. I tried going back and it won’t open.

25

Not to get in on the arguing, but I’m surprised that no one has brought up the frightening loss of freedoms due to laws such as [ul]
[li]the Digital Millenium Copyright Act[/li][li]the Communications Decency Act[/li][li]the longstanding restrictions on encryption (though thankfully some measures are being relaxed now that they’ve been obsolete for a decade)[/li][li]the FBI’s powers to wiretap and use tools such as Carnivore[/li][li]Drug enforcement laws that allow confiscation of property on suspicion of illegal acts.[/li][/ul]

There are more. And truly, if you don’t see these examples as freedom-limiting, then this argument really needs to establish some common ground to work from.

26

TheNerd: That examples can be found of legislation which limits freedom or of government agencies which abuse their power means in no way that, as aynrandlover put it, “the modern American government is more concerned with removal of freedom than protection of it.”

C’mon.

27

Not to get in on the arguing, but I’m surprised that no one has brought up the frightening loss of freedoms due to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Of course, feeling of being victimized by the distant central government is older than that. After all, it’s the reason that we are a nation.

Yes, our freedom is curtailed by our government. No, this in not an entirely bad thing. Yes, the government can go too far. So yes, we need to remain vigilant against usurpation of our freedom. But the assumption that things are steadily getting worse is a misconception based on the false idea that things used to be rosy. They never were. Overall, the restrictions on our freedom have lessened.
There is no guarantee that this will continue, of course.

BTW- I took up Gadarene’s recommendation on that first book ( by Garry Wills ) and though I am only halfway through but I would like to thank him for the suggestion.
It is well worth it.

28

'Course you would be (though this going beyond hypothetical into farcical - I seriously doubt you could get a horse-and-buggy going fast enough to lay rubber. ;)) After all, it’s somebody’s field, and your horse is trampling that field, i.e. destroying private property. If it were public land, I’m sure that there were places you could do do this legally, just as now there are beaches and parkland where you can go off-roading.

It’s all in the interpretation. A few points:

  1. The last century has seen an enormous amount of codification of the common law. Thus, many things that were illegal according to precedent are now illegal according to statute. To my (oh so powerful) legal mind, this is not an increase in the laws, but simple a reorganization of them.
  2. You are probably right that the sheer number of laws restricting freedom has increased. However, the amount of freedoms available has also increased. Two examples of vastly increased freedom are the telephone and the automobile. These are regulated, much as the horse and buggy and the mails were. So both contributed to the number of laws restricting freedom, but they both represent a vast increase in freedom. (BTW, just take a look back at the old laws allowing censorship of the mails, and compare them to the current laws on the mails and the telephone. You’ll see that the freedom to use the mails and the wires has greatly increased.)
  3. Add to this the vast increase in freedoms across a whole panapoly of fronts. One example is the freedom to vote. It went from white male landowners over the age of 21 to non-landowners, blacks, women, and 18 y.o.s.

So, while the sheer numbers of laws may have increased, they are put in play in a field where the number of freedoms available to Americans have increased even faster. The result is that we live in a freer society today.

Sua

29

**aynrandlover ** You commented that thanks to legislation, it is no longer legal to do the following:

There are reasons these laws were passed and they have to do with promoting freedom, not stifling it:

Freedom to not be killed or have your property damaged by some drunk and reckless asshole who thinks it fun to drive like a lunatic.
Freedom to not be one step up from a persons slave.
Freedom to not be worried that the nut next to you in the supermarket is going to shoot you in the head because you took the last box of Frosted Flakes.

As for the last two, well if “Big Brother” wants to take away my freedom to exploit and emotionally scar children or have unprotected sex with an actual farm cow, well I can live with that.

Here are a few other “rights” being hijacked by the “New World Order”:

[SARCASTIC TONE]
The right to own a black man
The right to beat your wife and kids
The right to own a military weapon that has no other purpose than to kill as many people in as short amount of time as possible

And I just read an article that the government is even thinking about taking away our right to freak out on an airplane and attack the flight crew at 35,000 feet! Well welcome the USA, or as I call it “Nazi Germany”!
[/SARCASTIC TONE]

What do you think? There is some secret society pulling the strings of the government? Some “smoking-man” secretly plotting to steal away all your freedoms?

“We handled JFK, planted that Area 51 story, and engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union. What’s the next item on the agenda? Oh yes! Take away aynrandlover’s right to pull donuts in his pickup truck while having sexual relations with a pig. MWUHAHAHAHA!”

<<attachment: dualing_banjos_from_deliverance.mp3>>

30

“of the people, by the people, for the people” makes good pr but it never existed. in fact the internet is the 1st time technology made it reasonably possible. not enough people understand enough and the centralized media controlled by financial interests bias the information. i think the internet will slowly make america stranger.

Dal Timgar

31

msmith537
thanks for your sarcasm, but you seemed to miss what was happening here at all.
My original comment was that the government was more concerned with removal of freedom than protection of it. I still feel this is true by virtue of the nature of laws themselves.
My contention was that we are also less free than we were at the origination of the US government with the constitution. As Sua very elegantly pointed out, it is more likely that the laws have increased due to codification, but that the same things (largely) have always been illegal. As well, he pointed out that it is also very likely that the changes in society due to technological and economic growth have increased the number of freedoms more than we have increased our laws. Upon reevaluation I concede there and agree.
Your examples, however, support my point that the meaning of many laws do indeed remove freedoms. It is merely a matter of who’s freedom gets restricted.
Outlawing slavery, for example, limited slaver’s freedom while increasing slave’s freedom. Indeed, laws serve to limit someone’s freedom, whether that someone be an individual, a group, a corporation, or the government. Thus I stand by my original point: the government is more concerned with the removal of freedom than protection of it. You cannot protect one freedom without restricting another. Paradoxical, to be sure, and perhaps even a matter of perspective (I leave that to further debate).

I regret that you think I put “Big Brother” behind this movement, or that I even implied it was malaligned at all. I made, so far as I can tell, no value judgements about the laws passed. I clearly stated that I did not feel there was some malicious force at work here, and that I even felt it was impossible. As in

As well, I am a proponent of bestiality if you’ve ever seen me in those threads, but that doesn’t mean I fuck pigs.

dal_timgar
I think the internet and its associated workings are yet another hope for huge advances in freedom. I think the government will have a hard time keeping up with technological growth.
As well, I agree that in theory a true democracy is now possible, but I also feel a true democracy is not as nice as a representative one. Majority rule as a standard of legality is mob rule, and I just don’t think mob rule is a good way to go about things. A government not founded on some set of principles will quickly find itself (or the citizens will find themselves) in a heap of trouble. Research paranoia through the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution, malicious southern racism of the past, etc., but you know what those are and you know what I mean (I think).
I still can’t decide if I agree with you more or disagree with you :wink:

32

aynrandlover, I’m still not sure what point you’re trying to make. If your trying to say that the government forces us to give up certain freedoms for the greater good, then yes, you are correct. The government restricts certain behaviors that are dangerous and destructive. That is not infringing on our rights. Injuring people and destroying property are not human rights.

Government doesn’t make laws for the purpose of removing freedoms form individuals. They make laws so that the majority of US citizens can live in a country where they have the freedom of having their lives and property not threatened by criminals. The system isn’t perfect, but it works pretty well for most of us.

33

msmith537:“Government doesn’t make laws for the purpose of removing freedoms form individuals. They make laws so that the majority of US citizens can live in a country where they have the freedom of having their lives and property not threatened by criminals. The system isn’t perfect, but it works pretty well for most of us.”

So why are so many in our government bent on taking away our right to guns? Can anyone here see how banning guns can protect us from the criminals that msmith537 speaks of?

He says that “this system isn’t perfect” but the truth is that the system has no logical base.

There is no logical reason to ban guns to protect us from criminals.

This is the equivalent to banning bombs to protect us from terrorists.

Or removing fire extinguishers to save us from arsonists.

It makes no sense. But idiots try to make it seem reasonable.

The fact is that a criminal can get a gun. Getting a gun is very easy. If we banned all guns the criminals would have them. So what is the point?

Criminals get their drugs easily from outside sources and guess what?

Once they smoke/mainline them they need more. It is a never ending supply/demand but they get it, don’t they?

Can you argue this?

Now once a criminal has a gun he has a gun. There is no supply/demand like there is for drugs. A gun is not a consummable item. After you use it its still in your hand. You can use it again and again until you give it to the next thug.

So if you can’t stop drugs then there is no way that you can keep guns from the criminals. Guns are not going away.

Argue this.

And I think that a few of you here should reconsider your arrogance.

Like SuaSponte:“To my (oh so powerful) legal mind” Give it up. To say what you said makes me laugh. A reorginization is correct. But to say that the Telephone/Auto are freedoms given to us is a riot!! They are both forms of technology and were never “given” to us. We invented these things. The reason that we have more freedom is because these things exist. Just like the internet. I am talking to you and many others right now because technology has advanced to make it so. Many in our Government want to take this away from us, or tax it as if it was furnished by them.

These aren’t freedoms given to us by our government and it is very HaHa for you to insinuate that they are, in fact, gifts from the almighty Government that you are so willing to grow.

34

I insinuate nothing, son. I state.

You seem to believe that freedoms are things that are only given to or taken away from us by the government. Freedoms are all the things we are capable of doing. In this, aynrandlover and I seem to be in agreement - his examples of losing the freedom to drink and drive or pull donuts are examples of freedoms that did not exist until the invention of the automobile.

An American 200 years ago was not “free” to call his cousin in England. No government forbade it - the technology didn’t exist to give him that freedom. It’s a pretty simple syllogism that, if by regulating say the telephone is an example of government restricting our freedom, use of the telephone must be a freedom.

My point (and I think it was an obvious one) is that, with the advance of technology, we are able to do a many more things, like communicate on the internet as we are now doing. My position is that, while the absolute number of regulations has likely increased, regulations of freedoms have not increased at the same rate as freedoms themselves.

Sua

35

there is no such thing as FREEDOM. there is only POWER.

if someone told you to go get some darkness to put out the light in a room, you would look at them like they were nuts. when people say they have FREEDOM they are saying there is no EXTERNAL POWER inhibiting their PERSONAL POWER.

i am a Machiavellian Libertarian. the regular libertarians keep talking like the political power mongers of the government must be BAD GUYS but the economic power mongers of business and corporations must be GOOD GUYS. i consider this oversimplified emotional crap. they are all MOSTLY BAD GUYS so we must all be vigilant. everybody is a player but information hiding is the major strategy in the ECONOMIC and POLITICAL POWER GAMES. the internet is a new way to blow away information hiding. that is what my ECONOMIC WARGAMES essay is for.

Dal Timgar

36

Well, this sort of thing depends on what you mean by “rights” of course. If we consider man in some completely uninhibited state, that is, complete anarchy, rights as I think you mean them wouldn’t exist, and we would have absolute freedom. Injuring people and destroying property would have, in theory, no consequences (yes, I’m simplifying). Rights, then, are derived from the government and limit freedom. That is, you already had freedom of speech before a government; now you have a limited freedom of speech (no slander, etc). The right to live free from other people screwing with you is also a freedom-limiting right. By declaring you to be free from others hurting you, they are limiting the anarchy-implied freedom to hurt.

Again, I am making no value judgements, just comparing non-governed man to governed man.

You say “That is not infringing on our rights,” well of course not, because that is the right. It infringes on absolute freedom.

37

“I insinuate nothing, son. I state.”

I am not your son either. Are you related to the others who use this term whenever you need to feel superior? I’m likely older than you, Son!

Anyway, back to the discussion.

Of course we have more freedoms. There are many things that we are capable of doing now that we couldn’t do 100 years ago. And you are correct in saying that many of our new regulations are due to the new technology. We pay for stamps because the mail costs money to be delivered. We have speed limits because accidents would get out of control if we didn’t. Also speed limits are a nice convenient way to pay for many of the states “needs”.

But what about the freedoms that we have always had?

Some want free speech to mean that we should be able to do or say anything in the name of the first amendment.

Some of the same people want to turn the second amendment into allowing everyone “licensed permission” to own a limited stash of weapons. And only approved weapons.

Now if we interpreted the first amendment like this we’d have some angry journalists and loudmouths.

Imagine having to go out and get a license to say anything. If you weren’t a good speaker you would require training. If you spoke out of turn or at the wrong place your license could be revoked. If you used words that were deemed illegal you could have your license permanently revoked.

What would people think about that.

Again:msmith537:“Government doesn’t make laws for the purpose of removing freedoms form individuals. They make laws so that the majority of US citizens can live in a country where they have the freedom of having their lives and property not threatened by criminals. The system isn’t perfect, but it works pretty well for most of us.”

So why are so many in our government bent on taking away our right to guns? Can anyone here see how banning guns can protect us from the criminals that msmith537 speaks of?

He says that “this system isn’t perfect” but the truth is that the system has no logical base.

There is no logical reason to ban guns to protect us from criminals.

This is the equivalent to banning bombs to protect us from terrorists.

Or removing fire extinguishers to save us from arsonists.

It makes no sense. But idiots try to make it seem reasonable.

The fact is that a criminal can get a gun. Getting a gun is very easy. If we banned all guns the criminals would have them. So what is the point?

Criminals get their drugs easily from outside sources and guess what?

Once they smoke/mainline them they need more. It is a never ending supply/demand but they get it, don’t they?

Can you argue this?

Now once a criminal has a gun he has a gun. There is no supply/demand like there is for drugs. A gun is not a consummable item. After you use it its still in your hand. You can use it again and again until you give it to the next thug.

So if you can’t stop drugs then there is no way that you can keep guns from the criminals. Guns are not going away.

Argue this.

38

dal_timgar:

Boy, you must looooove Hans Morgenthau, huh?

39

When you deliberately misstate my argument, and then mock the misstated argument, you are debating in an immature manner. I assumed the immaturity reflected youth. My mistake.

And what is your opinion about whether the laws and regulations affecting these new technologies represent an increase or decrease in freedom compared with 100 years ago, Grandpa ;)? That is the debate going on here.

It’s considered impolite on this board to cut-and-paste your own earlier post. People can read, and will respond or not respond to your first post as they see fit.
As it happens, your discussion of the First and Second Amendments are not relevant to this debate. You seem to want to debate gun control. There are already scads of threads on this board about that issue.
This thread is a debate about two assertions made by aynrandlover’s:

  1. The American Government are more concerned with removing freedoms than restricting freedoms; and
  2. American society is less free than it was 100 years ago.

It’s been a pretty good discussion so far, and I ask that you not highjack it.

Thanks,

Sua

40

didn’t even recognize the name. don’t know what you think of machiavelli, he is usually portrayed as evil but i think this is a smoke screen. the powers that be don’t want people to think and scaring people off machiavelli serves that purpose. i actually prefer sun tzu but i like the LL’s for alliteration.

a FREE society demands that EVERYBODY understand POWER GAMES. look into transactional analysis, THE GAMES PEOPLE PLAY.

Dal Timgar