Lost Freedoms

[piece-itpete]

Only that many histories are written with a propaganda view in mind. I've read some, as one reads more and more they become more obvious. One can often tell just by reading the jacket.

I did not say you have only been exposed to propaganda history btw.

So the only restrictions on private property are imminent domain and taxes? But their reach is much farther than property.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Only that many histories are written with a propaganda view in mind. I've read some, as one reads more and more they become more obvious. One can often tell just by reading the jacket.

... and Glenn Beck is probably the best example of a revisionist "historian" in America today.

I did not say you have only been exposed to propaganda history btw.

I was just being a bit sarcastic (imagine that)

So the only restrictions on private property are imminent domain and taxes? But their reach is much farther than property.

Who is they? Republicans, Democrats, or both? Republicans seem to be pretty fond of reaching into people's bedrooms, don't ya know?

If you look at concrete examples cited on this thread (thus far), we're talking about privacy, due process, religious freedom, freedom of choice, equal treatment under the law, and freedom of assembly on one side and ..... light bulbs, salt, sugar, and SUV's on the other.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So it ends up vilifying the right again....

I've never been lumped in with the tea partiers before. I bet they appreciate a beer though At least a good fire and a good time.

If you've read that thread and don't see any examples I can't help. If you believe you have the right to take others' property to distribute as you see fit I can't help. If you've never read any non-propaganda history that quotes source material I can't help much (you don't have any frame of reference and will generally suspect what I say because 'I'm a right leaning Christian'). If you believe that the courts and the feds should be involved in every decision I can't help.

If you ponder that the Declaration as originally written said 'and the pursuit of property' you might be headed down the right path.

The police state discussed is simply a logical outgrowth of the power you have allowed the government to take, generally with approbation from the left and even the right. The government must enforce the rules you wanted it to make, because government is good and the people can't be trusted.

I'm using 'you' in the plural form btw. How do you like it?

Pete

Pete,

Yes, you can help. I was hoping that you would help me to understand what freedoms you believe we've lost and how it came to happen. All I'm seeing here is a vague, unfocused and somewhat paranoid rant. I'm pretty disappointed, mostly because I know you can do better.

By the way, the "Life, Liberty and Property" version of the Declaration of Independence was an earlier draft. Property was changed to Pursuit of Happiness before publication. I think it's particularly significant that the signers opted to change that wording in light of the fact that the British had made a habit of seizing the property of their colonial subjects. Given that fact, there must have been a pretty important reason to change that wording.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So it ends up vilifying the right again....

I've never been lumped in with the tea partiers before. I bet they appreciate a beer though At least a good fire and a good time.

If you've read that thread and don't see any examples I can't help. If you believe you have the right to take others' property to distribute as you see fit I can't help. If you've never read any non-propaganda history that quotes source material I can't help much (you don't have any frame of reference and will generally suspect what I say because 'I'm a right leaning Christian'). If you believe that the courts and the feds should be involved in every decision I can't help.

If you ponder that the Declaration as originally written said 'and the pursuit of property' you might be headed down the right path.

The police state discussed is simply a logical outgrowth of the power you have allowed the government to take, generally with approbation from the left and even the right. The government must enforce the rules you wanted it to make, because government is good and the people can't be trusted.

I'm using 'you' in the plural form btw. How do you like it?

Pete

Come on Pete, you're really reaching when you quote a rejected draft of the Declaration of Independence to support your position.

You might feel more comfortable with corporations and other propertied interests having even more control over our lives, but I don't. I have more trust in a democracy than I do in institutions whose only guiding principle is the pursuit of profit. In my world view, there are more important principles to govern the utilization of resources, the treatment of workers, the treatment of communities, and the welfare of all citizens.

The Constitution granted Congress the authority to govern commerce between and among the states, and with foreign states as well. That means that laws passed by democratically elected representatives can be based on principles other than the profit motive, and thus can restrict the ways in which property can be used.

You might have an issue with the power of the government to tax, and if that's the case, we have completely different views of the social contract. Note that the IRS will enforce the requirement that all people participate in creating universal heath coverage. The penalty for one's failure participate in universal coverage is a tax penalty. The required expenditure for insurance coverage is something that is done for the greater good, just like the payment of taxes.

The courts become involved in matters when a person brings before them an injury and a petition to resolve that injury under the law. The source of law can be the Constitution, statutes, or the common law. Unless there is a source of law with which to address the injury, the courts have no authority to take action. In other words, the courts only have the authority that the law gives them.

The only way I believe that we would come close to a police state is if these people spouting insurrectionist propaganda actually follow up on their threats of a "second amendment solution."

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Near as I recall it was the right wing of SCOTUS that declared corporations to be citizens, not the lefties.

Before my time but SCOTUS legalized bribery based upon "right of a citizen to petition congress for redress".

I guess I missed the the ceremony when Abu Dhabi and the Congo became citizens as they have K Street working Congress on their behalf. We did not collectively lose freedoms, we lost our friggin minds.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by merrylander

We did not collectively lose freedoms, we lost our friggin minds.

as usually you broke it down about perfect

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Come on Pete, you're really reaching when you quote a rejected draft of the Declaration of Independence to support your position.

You might feel more comfortable with corporations and other propertied interests having even more control over our lives, but I don't. I have more trust in a democracy than I do in institutions whose only guiding principle is the pursuit of profit. In my world view, there are more important principles to govern the utilization of resources, the treatment of workers, the treatment of communities, and the welfare of all citizens.

The Constitution granted Congress the authority to govern commerce between and among the states, and with foreign states as well. That means that laws passed by democratically elected representatives can be based on principles other than the profit motive, and thus can restrict the ways in which property can be used.

You might have an issue with the power of the government to tax, and if that's the case, we have completely different views of the social contract. Note that the IRS will enforce the requirement that all people participate in creating universal heath coverage. The penalty for one's failure participate in universal coverage is a tax penalty. The required expenditure for insurance coverage is something that is done for the greater good, just like the payment of taxes.

The courts become involved in matters when a person brings before them an injury and a petition to resolve that injury under the law. The source of law can be the Constitution, statutes, or the common law. Unless there is a source of law with which to address the injury, the courts have no authority to take action. In other words, the courts only have the authority that the law gives them.

The only way I believe that we would come close to a police state is if these people spouting insurrectionist propaganda actually follow up on their threats of a "second amendment solution."

Regards,

D-Ray

Not rejected, changed - but it does show their intent.

I was referring to my own property. If there is any doubt the government has total control actually read the 200 pages you have to sign to sell your house.

That said, corporations are free associations of people. I would argue that reality shows that democracy does not hold the people in higher regard - look who both parties work for and how they treat them. Government works for itself, it is a monopoly with the force of law.

I'm not saying the government can't or shouldn't tax either.

The federal government started expanding as soon as it started. The court operates under 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction]', no?

As far as a police state, I was referring to the earlier posts.

Originally Posted by merrylander

Near as I recall it was the right wing of SCOTUS that declared corporations to be citizens, not the lefties.

Before my time but SCOTUS legalized bribery based upon "right of a citizen to petition congress for redress".

I guess I missed the the ceremony when Abu Dhabi and the Congo became citizens as they have K Street working Congress on their behalf. We did not collectively lose freedoms, we lost our friggin minds.

I agree that foreign bit is troubling. However how can we justify restrictions on free speech?

Pete

[finnbow]

Not rejected, changed - but it does show their intent.

It seems that for the moment that you've forgotten that you're from the party of strict constitutional constructionalists, and not the party of legislative intent.

I was referring to my own property. If there is any doubt the government has total control actually read the 200 pages you have to sign to sell your house.

It ain't the government making you sign all those papers (that you didn't read anyway). It was the mortgage lender (i.e., a private corporation). Does that somehow make it feel better?

That said, corporations are free associations of people.

Nobody's disputing that, but are they people? Similarly, the folks in NYC wanting to build a mosque are a free association of people. It doesn't seem that you're equally concerned about their rights.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Not rejected, changed

If it hadn't been rejected it wouldn't have been changed.

- but it does show their intent.

Yes, rejecting the word "Property" in favor of "Happiness" certainly does!

I was referring to my own property. If there is any doubt the government has total control actually read the 200 pages you have to sign to sell your house.

So, regulating the sale of property is the same as seizing it? I never knew!

That said, corporations are free associations of people.

Not really. Corporations have employees which are far from being full partners in these "free associations". Actually, corporations have a great deal more in common with feudalism than they do with participatory democracies. That's why they hate unions so much.

I would argue that reality shows that democracy does not hold the people in higher regard -

"Reality shows" that "corporate persons" enjoy more rights and protections than do actual flesh and blood people. Just look at what happens when a corporation commits a crime.

The federal government started expanding as soon as it started. The court operates under 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction]', no?

This is natural and necessary as the size and complexity of our society increases. That's not the same as saying that expanded government has had the effect of reducing our legal rights. It may mean, however, that an expanded government has belatedly addressed areas (such as school prayer) that had been unconstitutional since the beginning.

I agree that foreign bit is troubling. However how can we justify restrictions on free speech?

It's the "money = speech" thing that's the problem. It's also that these foreign governments, trans-national corporations and so on can now spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence our government in total secrecy. We have to end corporate personhood. It's already well on the way to destroying our democracy.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep, the riddle is solved. Here's an extended excerpt elucidating, in the eyes of a Tea Partier, the erosion of our freedoms:

"Our freedom is lost. My freedoms are lost. To be able to preach anywhere we want, to have God in our schools, to drive any kind of car we want and if I want to drive a gas guzzler, I can, if I want to eat a lot of sugar and salt, and I shouldn't be forced to buy medical care. To be able to burn the kind of light bulb I want.The list goes on."

It's friggin' tyranny, don't you see? To the barricades!!!

On a serious note, these same nutjobs are trying to deny freedom of religion and assembly to American muslims (in NYC, Murfreesboro and elsewhere), equal treatment under the law to gays in CA, and the freedom to control their own bodies to women all over the country.

Forget the constitution, it's all about the light bulbs!!!

+1.

People have become incredibly petty, they assign constitutional rights to everything. The right to own an incandescent bulb, or slam your head through a windshield, (seatbelt laws), really? The right to get as wealthy as possible, even if you must oppress others to to accrue such wealth? Really? We have a constitutional right to cheap cigarettes and cholesterol laden fast foods? I read the consitution, I saw no mention of these things.

I don't even recall reading anything granting corporations the right to be free of regulation. But I do recall reading that the congress has the power to "regulate commerce".

To me, the heart of freedom is the right to choose your own path in life. To choose lifestyle, religion, career, friends, mates, hobbies, where you wish to live........ and yes, I believe you have the right to pursue financial goals as well, so long as you don't trample on the rights and wellbeing of others in the process.

That's the key. And I see a good many people are being trampled upon in the name of protecting the (wrongly) percieved right of a handful of folks to accrue Plutocratic wealth.

Dave