Fear... Will it Reasult in the Eventual Loss of Liberty?
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
It is, as we should have expected. Really the only question is which ideology (right or left)will get us to tyranny first. I suppose that depends entirely on what a individual (or society) believes he meaning of tyranny is. And the march goes on...
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
 |
| Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. (Photo John Moore/Getty Images) |
Politicker - Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. (Photo John Moore/Getty Images)
Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. (Photo John Moore/Getty Images)
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.
“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said. {Read More}
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"... Benjamin Franklin
It is, as we should have expected. Really the only question is which ideology (right or left)will get us to tyranny first. I suppose that depends entirely on what a individual (or society) believes he meaning of tyranny is. And the march goes on...
Via: Memeorandum
Why even ASK that question, Les? The only possible answer would be, "OF COURSE!"
ReplyDeleteWe lost the vision of the Founders with the advent of Abraham Lincoln, our first dictator.
Things have just kept getting steadily worse, since the idea that Doing what Somebody High Up Thinks is Right can and SHOULD supersede and short circuit the democratic process, and obviate LIBERTY.
After The Lincoln Debacle The Industrial Revolution set in motion a series of social and economic conditions that made us ripe for the advance of Marxism followed soon by the Crony Capitalism that quickly developed to defend Vested Interests against Marxism.
For several generations we've been sinking deeper and deeper into a very slow-acting form of ideological and political quicksand.
The only thing FDR ever said that I agree with was "We have nothing to fear but Fear, itself."
I wonder if that stupid, pompous old mountebank really knew what he was saying?
I doubt it, but it was right anyway. Fear is really a form of GREED -- part of the ME FIRST SYNDROME that sooner or later destroys everything it infests.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell FreeThinkers I suppose I threw it out there hoping somebody might make the connection and run with it. You my friend did and I am pleased that you did.
ReplyDeleteI have long held that Abraham Lincoln was our first great STATIST president. From there we have seen the progression through TR, WW, HH, FDR, LBJ, RMN, GWB to name a few of the most notable. Did I mention BHO?
Being an individualist and a Objectivist the national trajectory has always intrigued me. I do not ascribe all failings to Marxism, neo fascism, or any other ideolpgy because they all bear some responsibilty. No, I rather ascribe the failing to protect and preserve liberty to society in general. The siren song of security provided by a benevolent state has simply to great allure for the people of the USA today.
When the will to protect liberty is overshawdowed by the desire for assured around the clock fedrral security
... we know the pillars of liberty are crumbling. But, as we both realize (I think) it is what a majority of people want. As our government is designed to respond to the "will of the people" the ultimate outcome is assured. No matter who is controlling the levers.
DeleteUltimately the tyranny of the majority will be realized. But that is a subject for another day.
Sorry, Les, the reply I'd prepared for you did not post. A copy of something else arrived instead.
DeleteNow, I can't recall what I tried to say before. Perhaps later -- if it matters?
I look forward to your reply when you recall it. Of course it matters, reasoned thought always does.
DeleteIn the heart of major cities there are thousands of cameras watching and recording. This has been going on for years. So far, they've proved unobtrusive and useful. In the time of Ben Franklin, as both a subject and an American, most all large cities subsequently large, ubiquitous security. Today, these cities are far larger, and so subsequently...
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to terrorism, unlike most of the country, these large cities are in fact targets of terrorism, so...
It is quite reasonable that these large cities have security designed to handle terrorism. And it's very reasonable to keep a close eye on their close eye.
It makes no sense whatsoever for the entire country to do this, and only an idiot or a crooked pol reaching in the defense cookie jar, would say otherwise. Terrorists are an infinitesimal threat to the vast majority of Americans.
JMJ
I believe the 2nd amendment should be changed; not for better security, but to reflect the difference of the people and society we live in, in the 21st century. nuts will always kill, but current gun laws are unable to help law enforcement cathch the criminals.
ReplyDeleteThey do, Jasper. But law enforcement fails us when they fail to prosecute existing gun crimes and turn violent felons lose. No new gun laws, no gutting of the 2nd Amendment will fix that.
Deletedmarks, we can prosecute all you like, if you feel like ponying up the taxes, but most of the unchecked sales are not illegal. It is a stupid sleazy lie propagated by righties that we currently have the laws on the books to deal with this, let alone the funding to enforce it.
DeleteJMJ
Jersey: We already pay more than enough taxes for it. Much more than enough funding, with tax payment totals at a near record total. Consider Obama's $11 billion dollar gift in mad money for rich government employees earlier this year. This money would have been better spent on this.
DeleteAs for background checks, too many states have registries of firearms owners. This is unreasonable. Until there is complete assurance that no state or federal or other government keeps a registry based on background check information, it is quite reasonable and supportable to have the gun show loophole.
I go back and forth with this character, Bloomberg. On the one hand I admire his independence and the fact that his aggressive policing has made the city safer. But on the other hand his record on civil liberties and the full-bore creation of a nanny state is troubling. And, besides, who in his right mind would ever disagree with ol' Ben Franklin?
ReplyDeleteYou trade in absolutes, Rational.
ReplyDeleteIn the tug between community and individual you seem to feel the answer is to swing way to the side of the individual and join FT in embracing social Darwinism. A real winner in human history, right?
The comfort of absolutes as a salve for the great hurly-burly of life is a dead end.
And when you think your dogma is anointed, bad news.
Actually Ducky from a practical standpoint I trade in the grey areas. Absolutes rarely work in the reality of existence and this is something. 35 + years in management has confirmed is accurate.
DeleteHaving said this we are ALL individuals first, we ALL learn with our own INDIVIDUAL cognitive abilities and we are ALL a minority.
I'll take my individualism over your collectivism in a heartbeat Ducky. I Don't know if you see what I'm saying, and in the final analysis it does't matter as long as I understand it and live a functional and rewarding life.
RN said: "I'll take my individualism over your collectivism in a heartbeat Ducky."
DeleteAll collectivism is is individualism for the rulers only. That is, the most powerful maximize their wishes and control over the rest, whose individualism is negated as a result. That is no "community". It is in fact the maximization of social Darwinism. A "collective" is mere an organization to get the power centralized in one spot so the most ruthless person can seize it.
The community interest is actually served when the individualism of ALL individuals is protected and respected, and there is no "collective". Then the individuals, sovereign human beings, band together according to their mutual interest.
Collectivism is part of the ideology of the the elite and or powerful controlling societal norms. It includes Facism, Nazism, Totalitarian Leninist, Stalinist, Mao Communism, and all other forms of collectivim.
DeleteOnly by respecting the right to individual liberty, life, property, and the pursuit of happines can society truly thrive and survive.
RN said: "Only by respecting the right to individual liberty..."
DeleteWell stated. Respecting these is real human progress. The various systems you named (mostly socialist) are regressive throwbacks to the "Divine Right of Kings" and other such justifications for strict totalitarian societies such as the Pharaohs' Egypt. Socialism and collectivism are just attempts to turn back the clock and to replace the old "might makes right" ideology with pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about labor value theory, the proletariat, and other nebulous concept cooked up by the power-mad.
Freeing ourselves from England, the statements in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution scream "collectivism." For the good of all then and to come. Founders were not fighting for themselves, but for a new kind of government that respected rights of all. That's why we fought to end slavery; and continue to fight to end discrimination of all kinds. Our military principles are based in freeing PEOPLE from oppression, not saving one persons life.
Delete"We the people"...........
Not Jasper, ABSOLUTELY not!
DeleteRespect for EVERY INDIVIDUAL is what it is ALL about dude.
We are ALL INDIVIDUALS, we are NOT COLLECTIVISTS property.
Think it through dude. Or have you been so collectivized in our thought process you simply fail to get the connection?
People who dust off Sociology 101 terms such as "social Darwinism" are exceedingly hard to be taken seriously, I think.
DeleteSocial darwinism is maximized with socialism and Marxism, Ducky. Those repugnant ideologies that demand that the people submit and serve the powerful that rule over them. Its the direct antithesis to respect for individual liberties.
DeleteJust reading the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We are individuals that act collectively for a better society. Communal taxation is an extension of that ideology. So are Welfare programs. Individuals don't build highways, bridges, pay for police, fire, libraries, etc. The founders understood the necessity of a "union." United we stand divided we fall. I'm talking about the manner in which we act in law and in society to better society. There is no individual liberty unless there is collective action to defend that liberty. I doubt you can stop international aggression against America, by yourself.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals, out of a love for and understanding of the RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness act "collectively" to insure these rights are extended to ALL individuals.
DeleteTime to step back and take a deep breath Anon. Perhaps if you do you will someday understand the above truism. If not, well I guess you are just too far gone...
I said the same thing. Geez, you are an insulting jerk as I have been told. Your is a Rand ideology, not a Jeffersonian ideology.
ReplyDeleteMove along, move along now...
DeleteNever mind, RN. This Anon just makes up crazy stuff for effect.
DeleteLike Dmarks still makes up that Iraq had WMD's. You both live in lala land and then insult anyone who disagrees. A clear sign egomaniac stupidity.
ReplyDeleteYou Anon is the one suffering from both egomanical behavior AND stupidity. As well you're are a troll without substance. Move along, move along now.
DeleteAnon said: "Like Dmarks still makes up that Iraq had WMD's. "
ReplyDeleteYou are one of the more stupid of the bunch. You make up stuff just to sound crazy, don't you?
And you sure do after you have read the facts about documents, including Wikileaks, which have detailed Saddam Hussein's existing WMD stockpiles
Anon, you lie like Scott Ritter, who told whoppers to make Saddam Hussein look good because Saddam Hussein was paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. What's your excuse? Did Saddam pay you too, or do you just love terrorist despots?
Why not look to "Rational Nation USA" here, Anon. He is and was opposed to the Iraq war. But he doesn't go around trying to lie WMD stockpiles into non-existence.
Anon said: " You both live in lala land and then insult anyone who disagrees. A clear sign egomaniac stupidity. "
I merely point out the facts. That you are so stupid and ignorant that you have become the only person I have ever encountered that thinks Wikileaks is false only proves how stupid and ignorant you are. Forgive me for being accurate in describing this.
Anon said: "Your is a Rand ideology"
Your is a fascist ideology, which tells lies in favor of dictators and consistently shills for the super State and against the rights of the people. Your is dumb.