I am free.
I am free to think what I want to think.
I am free to say what I want to say, within the just bounds of libel and
slander laws. I am most certainly free to criticize my government (and often
do).
I am free to live where I wish.
I am free to marry whom I wish.
I am free to have the frineds I wish. I am free to join the organizations
of my choice
I am free to worship in the church of my choice, or not worship, as I see
fit.
I am free to work for any employer that will have me or to work for myself,
if I so choose.
Outside of a modest tax on my labor (which provides necessary government
services), I am free to spend, invest or waste my money as I see fit.
I am free to own the property of my choosing (up to the point that I can
afford it) and dispose of it as I see fit.
These are freedoms all people should enjoy, but sadly, many do not. These
are the freedoms we fight for.
As for restrictions on my freedom, there are things that I am not free to do
that maybe, I should be free to do (some of which you articulate below), but
I understand the reasons that I am not free to do these things. And they
have nothing (or little) to do with puritanical cultural issues. There are
serious health and safety issues underpinning many of the laws that restrict
our ability to do absolutely everything we might like to do. The nuances
and implementation of these laws are open to debate, but they fit well
within the concept that we are not free to yell "fire" in a crowded movie
theater. Like I said before, with freedom comes responsibility.
As for who gets elected. You mix two arguments.
First, we are a republic. The vote is not counted so much by individual
numbers as by weight. Where the balance of that weight falls, that is who
wins the election. This is the most orderly way to pick leaders. I am a
whole-hearted believer in the Electoral College because I believe it
prevents a tyranny of one class of people over another class. In close
elections, the people in rural areas have an equal chance to have a voice in
who ultimately takes the oath of office. To me, this smells like freedom.
As for the money part of the issue -- I too am frustrated by the power of
our political parties. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned
us:
"... all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character,
with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular
deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of
this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize
faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the
place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a
small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according
to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public
Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of
faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by
common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or
Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends,
they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines,
by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert
the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government;
destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust
dominion."
My solution to the political parties is to change voter registration forms.
I want to take off all mention of political affiliation on the registration
forms. For one thing, as a matter or privacy, not just any body -- least of
all a political party -- should be able to look up my affiliation. Second,
if the parties were unable to do this, it would hamper their organizational
abilities. Finally, it would cause many of us to feel less wedded to a
particular party. If a person wish to proactively join a political party,
they would contact that party and join. I'm not even sure I would prohibit
people from joining as many political parties as they so desired, just as a
person can join as many civic groups as they desire.
I think such a system would radically alter our political process and give
more people a voice in the process.
H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary P. McNeel, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:30 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
If you really think we are free, you are sadly mistaken. We only have the
semblance of a democracy (or republic).
You are free to run for the President. Only, that game has been priced so
far out of the reach of the common man that it you may as well NOT have that
freedom. Face it, it is a quasi-dictatorship. I got to vote for either Bush
or Gore (no one else stood a chance). Good God. Sadly, because we have a
winner take all system, over 50% of the American people are not represented
in the Executive Office.
Your are, in some cases, free to own a handgun. Only, most people cannot
legally carry it - anywhere in the mode of self defense. (I, the
bleeding-heart "liberal", can BTW)
You are not free to walk around naked at work (yikes!). But that was
God-given, wasn't it? (This from an agnostic).
You are not free to pick up a prostitute (or a bunch of them) and pay them
for services rendered (see that kids, PC, went gender neutral on that one).
You are not free to do drugs, even extremely mild ones like marijuana. (Of
course, the alcohol and tobacco lobby keep that one down, while they sell
liver destroyers and carcinogen sticks).
Your freedom is an illusion and it erodes slowly over time. America was
founded mainly by Puritans run out of England and other countries. We are
sort of like Australia in that regard (sorry, no insult intended). Many of
our laws are out dated. Why should you not be able to do things that are
consensual by the parties involved? Like prostitution. Or drugs.
If you do not INFRINGE ON ANOTHER'S GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, WHY NOT?
Don't get me wrong, it may not be perfect, but is still, to me, the best
system around. I just don't fool myself with all this rhetoric about
freedom.
Oh, one more thing. Whoever in the forum said FOX News is Fair and
Unbiased(TM)..... PLEASE! The president is Steve Aylor. Hello?! Senior GOP
strategist. In tight. Big money. I am really sure he is going to be "Fair
and Unbiased" in his coverage of the Democrats. Of course, he will make it
"look" like that, but really, who possibly could believe that? That is why
O'Reilly has to tell you "you are entering a no spin zone". Because the
whole time you are saying to yourself, "but wait, he just spun that... and
that... and that..."
Oh, just one more thing. Those legions of lawyers get paid (handsomely) to
try to "convince" the justices on how to interpret the amendments. To me,
they are pretty clear.
Some good reading.
"Escape from Freedom" Erich Fromm.
"Ishmael" Daniel Quinn.
"The Land before Time" (not sure of the author, but I love the dinosaurs).
"Demon Haunted World" Carl Sagan.
"Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" Al Franken (pretty funny reading)
-Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:19 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
>
>
> You mean, you don't believe that the right to be free is worth
> fighting and
> dying for? You would accept the yoke of dictatorship rather than be free?
>
> And where in the Bill of Rights does it say "do no harm"?
>
> I'll answer that for you -- it says it no where. Read it for yourself:
> http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html
>
> What we are all taught as school children is that we have a responsibility
> not to trample on the rights of other U.S. citizens. We have a
> responsibility to respect and protect the rights of others. We are also
> taught -- at least I was in the '60s -- that our rights are worth fighting
> and dying for, as men from throughout our history have done.
>
> If men and women had not been willing to make the ultimate
> sacrifice in the
> 1770s, there would be no U.S.A. today. And of course, if people
> of the free
> world had not been willing to stand up to aggressors in the
> 1940s, dictators
> would rule the world today.
>
> As for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, legal rulings and common
> acceptance of the law have generally found that people within the
> borders of
> the U.S. and terroritories have all of the legal protections therein, not
> just U.S. citizens.
>
> Obviously, in times of war, ensuring due process (Amendment V) before
> killing somebody is not practical. But .... I'm at a lost to proceed here
> .. I'm am so much under the impression that you believe that rather than
> fight, we should just accept the shackles of bondage, that freedom is not
> worth killing and dying for ... that is a frame of mind I find totally
> incomprehensible ... I don't know how to answer it. I mean, yes, we would
> rather not kill in the name of freedom, but ... sometimes ... it MUST be
> done. Freedom must be defended no matter what the cost.
>
> Since you come from a country of freedom, I hope your fellow countrymen do
> not feel as you do, or you soon will no longer be free. It
> certainly wasn't
> the feeling of your countrymen in previous chapters of your nation's
> history, as many of your forebears fought and died valiantly in
> the name of
> freedom.
>
> One final point ... if you think the meaning of the Bill of Rights is very
> clear, you are a very smart man, because legions of lawyers have made
> millions of dollars arguing over what those words mean and how they should
> be applied. Almost all cases taken by the Supreme Court over the last 200
> years have dealt with just those amendments.
>
>
> H.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trent Shepherd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 3:28 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
>
>
> So lo and be hold the right to bear arms and blow the crap out of
> anyone who
> stands in the way of your right
>
> > to pursue the virtues of money (i.e., capitalism (economic
> > freedom), the most important and only righteous economic system),
> > individual rights (which are God-given) and freedom (also God-given)
>
> is your right?
>
> > I think my meaning is clear.
>
>
> that's why I am afraid of Americans.
>
>
> Trent
>
> BTW.
> Look at your own bill of rights which says you have the right to
> pursue all
> the things as long as you do no harm anyone else.
> I think the meaning in this bill was clear!!
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2001 3:15 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
> >
> >
> > In other words, you want to play semantic games.
> >
> > I think my meaning is clear. You don't need to twist it.
> >
> > As for your final graph. If we stop pursuing power and money and
> > individual
> > rights and freedom (especially the latter three of that list, which are
> > vitally important pursuits), then the terrorists have won. Power
> > under pins
> > the ability to pursue the virtues of money (i.e., capitalism (economic
> > freedom), the most important and only righteous economic system),
> > individual
> > rights (which are God-given) and freedom (also God-given) --
> without these
> > three things, life is not worth living.
> >
> >
> > H.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Trent Shepherd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:13 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
> >
> >
> > It was not a case of my "missing the point". It was more a case
> of looking
> > at the truth and seeing it for what it really is. I was once taught the
> > difference between truth and honesty. The truth might be "that I
> > went to the
> > bank" however the honesty would also tell you "that while I was there I
> > robbed it" When you use a diluted analogy of a situation
> > substituting sugar
> > for arms the context of meaning changes entirely.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > It is a time where as people of the world we can stand up and be
> > accountable
> > for what we have let happen for so long. The pursuit of power and
> > money and
> > individual rights and freedom at the expense of others has got to stop.
> > Perhaps we can think about the freaky hippies of the
> > sixties/seventies with
> > their mantra of "love and compassion". Hey wait a minute are
> these not the
> > same people who have the power and our now running the world. How
> > quickly we
> > become corrupted.
> >
> >
> >
> > Trent Shepherd
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
