If Obama got his way. . .

a reply to: dovdov

Ultimately, I don't feel comfortable putting limits on freedom.

Sure, my freedom to swing my fist should end at the tip of your nose.

But freedoms to NOT participate in healthcare, vaccinations, school, or any number of government mandated issues should also exist.

Government mandates, for whatever better purpose, is nothing but a benign tyranny. A soft and gentle and caring tyranny.


"Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.


I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.


en.wikipedia.org...

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.

a reply to: magicrat

Maybe this will help with the "Progressive" concepts....

The Progressive Movement, historically associated with left-wing politics, began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women. It also contributed to the development of progressive education.

Political parties such as the Progressive Party were organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism was embraced in the administrations of American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Progressivism

Not to be confused with the confusion of other meanings in other countries and to the references to and by Marx of course.

__________________________IMO follows:

Modern Pro(re)gressivism started in the late 1800's after Marx set the "standards" so to speak.

Notice how they got both American parties to "agree" in a very short time frame with T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson along with God knows how many other politicians.

Notice too, the onset of the U.S. Federal Reserve and the formation of the current IRS system. Both right out of the Marx 10-planks.

Also note that the Russian Revolution and the dawn of Soviet Communism timeframe.

Maybe the "wake-up" has already happened. It just hasn't "progressed" enough yet ?

a reply to: beezzer

You seem to be advocating unrestricted freedom, regardless of consequences. You're entitled to your opinion, but there isn't a single founding father, Supreme Court decision, or interpretation of the Bill of Rights or US Constitution who defines our freedoms in precisely that way. Your idea though is becoming very common, and I don't really know where it springs from, but I believe it is very dangerous. The reason it is dangerous is because it goes against the rule of law. If unrestricted freedom is the real meaning of freedom then there is no need for law. That's one definition of anarchy.

originally posted by: dovdov
a reply to: beezzer

You seem to be advocating unrestricted freedom, regardless of consequences. You're entitled to your opinion, but there isn't a single founding father, Supreme Court decision, or interpretation of the Bill of Rights or US Constitution who defines our freedoms in precisely that way. Your idea though is becoming very common, and I don't really know where it springs from, but I believe it is very dangerous. The reason it is dangerous is because it goes against the rule of law. If unrestricted freedom is the real meaning of freedom then there is no need for law. That's one definition of anarchy.

I'd rather embrace anarchy than soft despotism that creates an element of fear and rule of law so extreme because we are kept afraid.

a reply to: beezzer

I know I'm against the tide here as most posting on this thread agree with your point of view, but what exactly do you consider despotic about the rule of law? Additionally, how does the elimination of law help anybody? Is it more important to be able to 'do what you want' even if it means hurting others? Where are the limits? Should there be limits, in your view? If not, what makes your "freedoms" more important than the "freedoms" of other people? A good modern example would be why does the "freedom" to smoke trump the "freedom" of others to not be made ill by the smoker's second-hand smoke? Is not a person's health and well-being more important than your "freedom" to engage in an optional-and-proven-dangerous habit? There are real rights, but there are also fancied rights. Freedom requires responsibility. You don't seem to be accepting responsibility part of it.

If you are saying that you believe we have too many laws and too much control I would tend to agree with you. Things have gotten out of hand. But where I would disagree strongly is that only one party is responsible for it. There is plenty of equal blame to go around. The Republicans started this mess, the Democrats continued it and made it worse in other ways. Our government is broken, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

I know this is a bit of a cliche, but were you saying the same things during the Bush administration? That's when many of the most pressing of current political problems started.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Snarl

As stated in the posted above thread that this originated from. .

Obama would never use a drone to attack an American citi-. . . . wait, what?

uhmm...you do know that throughout history there were American citizens during the various wars we have engaged in that were shot by our own military because they were on the enemies side....right?...no arrest, no trial....just bam!...your dead.

a reply to: dovdov

Freedoms begin and end with the individual. If I do anything to harm someone else then it isn't a freedom that I should be allowed to have. However, if it is something that I am doing that doesn't effect anyone else then I should be free to do it without anyone else telling me so. That is what freedom is.

By the way I'm a Libertarian. I complain about both the Republican and Democratic parties cause they both suck something fierce. I'd complain about Libertarians too if the party became as bloated and corrupt as the two in charge currently.

originally posted by: dovdov
a reply to: beezzer

I know I'm against the tide here as most posting on this thread agree with your point of view, but what exactly do you consider despotic about the rule of law?

Laws themselves are fine to a degree. But they have become self-serving.

Additionally, how does the elimination of law help anybody? Is it more important to be able to 'do what you want' even if it means hurting others? Where are the limits? Should there be limits, in your view? If not, what makes your "freedoms" more important than the "freedoms" of other people? A good modern example would be why does the "freedom" to smoke trump the "freedom" of others to not be made ill by the smoker's second-hand smoke? Is not a person's health and well-being more important than your "freedom" to engage in an optional-and-proven-dangerous habit? There are real rights, but there are also fancied rights. Freedom requires responsibility. You don't seem to be accepting responsibility part of it.

Now here is where I take umbrage. I said, in a previous post, that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Rights should not infringe on others rights.

If you are going to start posting outright lies, then our conversation is over.

If you are saying that you believe we have too many laws and too much control I would tend to agree with you. Things have gotten out of hand. But where I would disagree strongly is that only one party is responsible for it. There is plenty of equal blame to go around. The Republicans started this mess, the Democrats continued it and made it worse in other ways. Our government is broken, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

There are too many laws.
There is too much government control.

I know this is a bit of a cliche, but were you saying the same things during the Bush administration? That's when many of the most pressing of current political problems started.

I was just as critical of Bush as I am of Obama.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dovdov

Freedoms begin and end with the individual. If I do anything to harm someone else then it isn't a freedom that I should be allowed to have. However, if it is something that I am doing that doesn't effect anyone else then I should be free to do it without anyone else telling me so. That is what freedom is.

I would agree with that statement. But perhaps where we would disagree is what is a definition of harm? When is someone harming another, and infringing on their rights? As an example, I often hear certain people criticize the EPA and say it should be eliminated. But even though there are stupid regulations and mismanagement in the agnecy the elimination of the EPA would make things monumentally worse than without it. It would be wrong to trust multibillion-dollar corporations and even the average person to 'do the right thing' by not polluting the environment and so forth. Laws exist because people don't do the right thing.

a reply to: Snarl Snarl, ain't that a Sidley Whiplash kind of thing?

originally posted by: beezzer
Now here is where I take umbrage. I said, in a previous post, that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Rights should not infringe on others rights.

If you are going to start posting outright lies, then our conversation is over.

Calm down. I'm not trying to misquote you at all. I'm trying to engage in a dialogue. We clearly disagree on some of these issues, but we also agree on others. When I ask a question I'm trying to probe your mind in order to better understand your perspective. What I'm not seeing though is any willingness to change your view, even a little bit. I think that's part of the problems we face in this country, everybody is in a self-protection mode and unwilling to budge. That's not healthy for people.

Anyhow, the point you made about your 'right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose' is true, but what you might not be seeing is that you are yourself setting limits. But what regulates those limits? Your conscience or law? If only your conscience then does this mean that every person should be trusted to do the right thing? If so, then why have law at all? If law, then how much law? How many laws are too many?

originally posted by: dovdov

originally posted by: beezzer
Now here is where I take umbrage. I said, in a previous post, that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Rights should not infringe on others rights.

If you are going to start posting outright lies, then our conversation is over.

Calm down. I'm not trying to misquote you at all. I'm trying to engage in a dialogue. We clearly disagree on some of these issues, but we also agree on others. When I ask a question I'm trying to probe your mind in order to better understand your perspective. What I'm not seeing though is any willingness to change your view, even a little bit. I think that's part of the problems we face in this country, everybody is in a self-protection mode and unwilling to budge. That's not healthy for people.

Why should I devalue my own principles simply because they differ from yours?

Anyhow, the point you made about your 'right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose' is true, but what you might not be seeing is that you are yourself setting limits. But what regulates those limits? Your conscience or law? If only your conscience then does this mean that every person should be trusted to do the right thing? If so, then why have law at all? If law, then how much law? How many laws are too many?

Everyone should be trusted to do the right thing.

But they should also be responsible for their own actions. Which means, they should be punished and own up for any violations of others rights.

originally posted by: [post=17976613]beezzer
Why should I devalue my own principles simply because they differ from yours?

Because that's how people achieve peace. They try to meet in the middle. Your view is the more extreme, in the sense that it is not the predominant view although it is becoming more common. I would argue that every person should be willing to evaluate their point of view and in the interest of peace seek to find areas where they can agree, as well as agree to disagree. Not everything is a principle. Many preferences are mistaken for principle and as a result preferences are given equal footing which results in obstinance.

originally posted by: [post=17976613]beezzer
Everyone should be trusted to do the right thing.

But they should also be responsible for their own actions. Which means, they should be punished and own up for any violations of others rights.

Right, but my point is that you are setting limits, however you personally define them. We're now entering into the philosophical side of the question rather than merely political. Do multibillion-dollar corporations have the same rights as a person? What if that corporation violates the rights of an individual or a community? Is everything a person claims as a right an actual right? Who sets the rules? Do you see what I'm trying to say? In order for there to be such a thing as "rights" and "responsibilities" and "limits" and "punishment" there has to be a code; it cannot be left to merely the conscience. If it were, then it would lead to chaos because what one person considers a "right" another person may see as an outrageous fancied right. It could even lead to one person or a group of people setting standards of what is right and wrong, whereas laws are established by the consent of the governed. Laws are an essential element of structured and peaceful society. Societies without laws are chaotic and often result in vigilante justice based on the opinion of one or a few.

a reply to: dovdov

One thing at a time.

So your values are more important than mine?



And we can play philosophical, but in the real world, legislating morality, legislating charity, is just another mandate from a controlling central authority.

Redefine whatever you wish.

In the end, people end up with less freedoms and government ends up with more control.

Something the progressive movement desires and those "fringe" folks like me don't.

a reply to: dovdov It is a matter of defining the "social contract." Obviously, rule one, is your right to swing your fist ends before it hits the nose of another individual. Add to that, there is no right to threaten or intimidate another individual. Finally, the group, the collective, the society has a joint responsibility to see that no individual is hungry, homeless, or without adequate medical resources. All societies that neglected that last are history. Consider the Depression Era solutions tried to meet all those criteria, and after a War managed to continue to do so and built a greater nation. Strange is it not, That as the individual has been glorified without limit, and the group responsibility is shrugged off. There has been increasing complaints about the status of society.
Now, that Admiral McCain has remembered that Admirals lead and others follow, I am regaining respect for him. Obama came on strong, and with a measure of power failed to push a complete agenda of progressive, but thoughtful changes. At least, he has not branded a group of singers as anti-American as the Bush Administration did with the Dixie Chicks, not implied directly or by proxy that failure to agree with him marks you as anti-American. Got bones to pick with a bunch of those fools, going back decades. I have very distinct memories about October, 1962. A Congress that had to prove its anti-communist rhetoric with draconian acts we still have to live with, most of which in good American fashion benefited a select economic groups, like sugar producers. There is plenty of room for a Conservative, Libertarian social contract without being beholding to the Reaction Right, while eliminating the talking points of the Radical Left.

originally posted by: beezzer
So your values are more important than mine?

Not at all, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to say is the opposite of that, in other words, the point that you yourself are expressing. Who sets the rules for what values or rights are proper or improper? If there are no rules then everything is proper because everything everyone does is a legitimate right. The notion of 'ends at the tip of your nose' is based on a value judgment, but something had to establish that value for you. You got it from somewhere, namely a law-giver, usually God and the moral codes set in the Bible. Laws set by man are based upon the divine standard. As the Apostle Paul said in Romans 5:13 "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law." In order for something to be right or wrong in a moral sense, as well as a personal "right" or a "freedom" there has to be a code. If that code is based on an individual's conscience then your standards can't be better or worse than mine and we would both have to accept anything the other person does. If I don't like you punching my nose I could either shoot you and your entire family because I considered it a slight to my honor, or I could simply slap you back. My reaction is based on my conscience and my interpretation of my rights and freedoms. As you can see, that leads to chaos. There has to be an established set of rules for what is proper and improper, what is a right and what is not a right. These rules are supposed to be established by the community, by the governed.

originally posted by: beezzer
In the end, people end up with less freedoms and government ends up with more control.

Something the progressive movement desires and those "fringe" folks like me don't.

Now wait just a minute, that is an inaccurate statement. Government rules by the consent of the governed, and if they don't like their government it is their right of the majority to overthrow it and replace it with another that the majority of the people support. No progressive seeks 'more control' from the government. In the United States the government is supposed to represent the people. We elect representatives from our individual communities to represent that community's wishes and desires. Your definition of "freedom" is the issue here, not government control. I don't know any rational person from any political point of view that thinks more government control is a good thing. We're talking about the value of the rule of law and the necessary limits on unrestrained freedom. These are notions expressed by the founding fathers, not merely my personal opinion. If you believe that law is not necessary, and that freedom and rights are an individual matter then yes your view is fringe because it is not representative of most humans in any culture. I'm not make a value judgment as to whether it is right or wrong, I'm merely stating the fact of the situation. A society cannot exist without laws, simple as that. Without law there is no society.

a reply to: dovdov

My biggest fear is what I cited at the top of this page.

"Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

This what we're experiencing right now.

Under the guise of "social justice" under the guise of "equality" more rules, more laws are being enacted to dissolve and erode our personal freedoms and liberties.
I blame republicans and democrats because they (for the most part) are infested with progressives who would rather live under a soft tyranny than run the risk of allowing personal responsibility and freedom.

originally posted by: beezzer
Under the guise of "social justice" under the guise of "equality" more rules, more laws are being enacted to dissolve and erode our personal freedoms and liberties.
I blame republicans and democrats because they (for the most part) are infested with progressives who would rather live under a soft tyranny than run the risk of allowing personal responsibility and freedom.

I agree with everything but the part where progressives are blamed as the cause of the problem. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a progressive does or believes. No progressive believes in tyranny, or despotism of any type. I agree with you that 'social justice' and 'equality' are often used as excuses to create more laws when all we really need are the enforcement of existing laws. I'm not quite sure where the misunderstanding of progressivism and liberalism originates from, but it seems to be coming from those of an Evangelical bent of mind who have again made political issues matter of right/wrong and moral/immoral which results in an all or nothing us versus them point of view. Liberals don't hate God and aren't seeking to eliminate morality. Progressives don't want more government control. The point I'm making is that freedom and rights are not absolute. Where one draws the line should be based on the decisions of the governed. The problem we face today is that our government is broken, and most of the problem is related to corporate power. As was published a few weeks ago we are no longer a representative republic (or "democracy" as some are wont to say), but in fact an oligarchy. Our government is controlled by a small cabal of the super rich and no longer represents the will of the governed. These rich oligarchs have an agenda and a goal, and it is certainly not a progressive or liberal one.

a reply to: dovdov

We've gone past an "oligarchy".

Soft despotism is closer to what we are now.

And anyone that endorses or encourages more of the same does not seek to embrace the values of the US.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: dovdov

We've gone past an "oligarchy".

Soft despotism is closer to what we are now.

And anyone that endorses or encourages more of the same does not seek to embrace the values of the US.

Agreed. And I can assure you NO PROGRESSIVE desires any kind of despotism, despite what you may believe.