I see the words of individuals Like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers of this beautiful nation and a sense of pride rushes into me as I see the beauty of the document they created, the laws they created that transcend time, technology and base themselves on the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Simple rights....simple ideals and the ability to fight tyranny from any opposing groups trying to take those rights from us, even our own government. Adam Smith, one of the brains behind the economic system that has resulted in the prosperity we see today coupled with the freedom that allows for that expansion, marvelled at a free society in which certain unalienable rights would lead to economic success which usually solves most problems. Power corrupts. This is also a statement that transcends time and history. The government of this country is here to serve the will of the people, the government is not here to take care of its people. I see many rights that are slowly being taken away from us as Americans that are masked by fear and propaganda. This reversion to a socialist system in which the governement has more control over our everyday lives and more knowledge of our everyday lives is starting to remind me of the beginnings of what George Orwell's 1984 began to look like. Imagine, many years ago in this country the police, or the government could never enter your car, house or commit an "illegal" search and seizure. The reasoning behind this was the drug trade, though I feel it is just another tactic behind a growing socialist regime that wants to control much more than the founding fathers wanted. I have spoken to individuals of Bosnian and Palestinian descent whose homes were invaded and their families were jailed or slaughtered because they did not have the means to defend themselves. If every Bosnian had a weapon in their house, i'm sure the Serbian Orders to "rape the women" to take away their pride and honor, would have been a bit less persuasive. That is why guns are outlawed in communist countries, dictatorships and other totalitarian regimes, because the government wants to maintain power over the people. The reason why the founding fathers allowed weapons to be held without registration, scrutinous laws etc. is so that in the face of tyranny, Americans can fight back against any oppresive regime. The events of Columbine, and other tragic events I feel are being used to further this agenda. I feel these are social family problems, not simply "gun-control" problems. Children have had access to weapons for over 200 years, yet why is this form of violence beginning now? I see these two examples of using events to undermine our constitution given liberties, and I fear the horrific events of September 11th may prey on our fears and allow them to further limit what rights were given to us by our founding fathers. I see Racial Profiling and other forms of information gathering whether it be wire taps, email access etc. as simply ways for the government and other entities to watch over our every moves. Capitalizing on our fears will allow our constitution given rights to be taken from us unless we realize that some of the paths our governement is taking are fallible. I ask everyone to try to read between the lines and view every small change in laws not in simply a fear based short-term horizon, but how it will change the society and the rights for our children and our grandchildren.
<b>F.D. Khan</b>: "I see the words of individuals Like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers of this beautiful nation and a sense of pride rushes into me as I see the beauty of the document they created, the laws they created that transcend time, technology and base themselves on the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Simple rights....simple ideals and the ability to fight tyranny from any opposing groups trying to take those rights from us, even our own government." <b>RR</b>: Times are not so simple anymore. The Declaration and the Constitution were simple, straightforward and elegant. In the 225 years since then our law books have exploded with minutae. Ben and T.J. never worried about anthrax or smallpox-- a guy with TWO muskets was their problem. <b>F.D. Khan</b>: "The government of this country is here to serve the will of the people, the government is not here to take care of its people." <b>RR</b>: Ever hear of the United States Armed Forces? FBI? CIA? FDA? FEMA? Is it not the will of the people to feel safe and secure? Protecting our nation is one of the government's paramount responsibilities. As long as we don't give up our guns, we don't have to fear what has happened to so many. Do you see President Bush as seeking to take our guns away? Wasn't that ex-President Clinton? Guns are the least of our worries in all of this fiasco. <b>F.D. Khan</b>: "Capitalizing on our fears will allow our constitution given rights to be taken from us unless we realize that some of the paths our governement is taking are fallible. I ask everyone to try to read between the lines and view every small change in laws not in simply a fear based short-term horizon, but how it will change the society and the rights for our children and our grandchildren." <b>RR</b>: I thought it was Conservatives like me that were supposed to be paranoid? How is a little bit of information transfer going to hurt me-- unless I have something to hide? If you want to be afraid of your government, look no further than our own Armed Forces. We regularly fund, train, and arm them to the highest degree. These brave individuals are some of the most god-fearing, freedom loving Americans we have. Our rights may change because our world has changed and the lazy, open society that we have previously enjoyed may be gone forever. I have 4 children-- ages 2 weeks to 18 years. I'll gladly give up a few inconveniences for a greater degree of safety and security in their lifetime. I am more concerned about our enemies without and within than I am my own government. It's not even close.
RichRocket, I appreciate your comments wholeheartedly and feel that everything I say is always up for critisism. By no means did I mean that this takes precedence over foreign matters now. We are united and should destroy those who have plagued our countries with their extremist ideas and attacked us on our own soil. But we must look at those "inconveniences" that you speak of under a not just the light of what is happening now, but about how the changes can go from short-term to law. We must analyze these matters in the light that it will affect your children's children. When the drug problem was at its peak, many saw the "short-term" revokement of previous search and seizure policies as a small matter, yet now we see it as a fact of life that we can be stopped by police and thoroughly searched under a whim of an officer. This may not shock you now, but i'm sure generations ago would have been shocked at this type of invasion of privacy. Yet our attitude has coalesced towards it and it has become a law within our own minds as well. It just scares me we today don't have many rights that earlier americans had. And I do feel the Constitution transcends time and technology in a manner that the Religious books (Bible, Torah, Koran) do. And that if we look to the constitution as the basis for our actions, we would be better off.
So you're saying that the government is using the murder of thousands of people to further their own agenda? I'm as suspicious of the government as the next guy but guess what? The government is trying to protect YOUR life! People are so quick to give the government a hard time because they think they're taking away their rights. Maybe the government is trying to prevent you from being murdered by terrorist. Everybody makes mistakes, and the 9-11 disaster was terrible, but instead of giving the government a hard time and constantly crying and complaining about "your rights" being taken away, how about HELPING the government! We're at war. People are trying to KILL you! There are people that want you dead! Yet all I see are people crying and complaining about their rights being taken away! I see people complaining because they have to get to the airport 2 hours early, or have to show I.D.s Well it beats being murdered doesn't it? All this capitalizing on our fears to take away our rights, people are making the government out to be as bad as these terrorist. How about the government just back away and let the terrorist have a good time! People complain that the government isn't doing enough to stop terrorist, so when they do it suddenly the same people are screaming "What about my rights!" Yeah what about your rights. How about going over to one of those other countries that is run by a dictator and you'll realize how precious our rights are. At least we can change our laws, and at least the government actually cares about our safety. I doubt that there are many countries that would call up their reserves, and spread out their agencies just to protect their people. I'm willing to sacrifice a few of my rights if it means saving lives and getting rid of the monster who are ready to kill Americans.
<b>F. D. Khan</b>: "This may not shock you now, but i'm sure generations ago would have been shocked at this type of invasion of privacy." <b>RR</b>: Those generations are shocked and disappointed by a lot that they see today! The government as expressed by the will of the people is largely reactionary. I appreciate what you are trying to say. For me, though, it is a little too romantic. Times have changed FOR THE WORSE and we have to adapt to it, I'm afraid. I agree that those works are timeless but they don't define life as we know it. They center life, I guess, instead.
These laws don't really transcend time. I'd hate to think of all human history prior to 1789 as unjust. History creates new standards and new values. Even within continuous ethical systems (like Christianity) you have drastical changes across time. The odds are that in 500 years people will have new systems that they consider "timeless." True. Adam Smith didn't create the "economic system." He predicted it. Huge difference. Or humans are flawed to begin with and those flaws become apparent once magnified through power. Powerful people have done great things and bad things. The second sentence, I agree with. Ok, this is absurd. Socialism does not have anything to do with totalitarianism. Socialism is not incompatible with "rights" and "freedom." Socialism actually stipulates that the state can't even exist... allowing for MORE freedom than in a modern republic. If you refer to some countries that have called themselves socialist... well, that's true. However, there are many democracies that are just about as "socialist" as capitalist. Socialist? You're still using a completely inappropriate word. If you mean totalitarian, I might agree. Socialism is an economic system, even under the widest definition of the word. Many rights have been expanded considerably. Right to an attorney, the right to privacy, modern substantive due process, etc, have all been established in the modern era. Currently, the Supreme Court is retrenching a bit, but that's because of a conservative bent in the court, and likely to change as soon as we can string together a couple of Democratic presidents . yes, but if we restricted the sell of light arms, nobody would have had the guns to begin with. Guns are outlawed or access is severly limited in most democratic Republics. Sorry, you're simply wrong. The proliferation of the handgun has made this more possible. Urbanization has encouraged this. But even if you're right, and it's a "social" problem, the gun escalates the level of damage possible to inflict. Your argument is specious. You don't give independent justification. Liberty? The 2nd Amendment was never intended to be interpreted as giving the individual the right to bear arms. If you're so hung up on the founding fathers and their precious words, then at least be aware of what they meant. The 2nd Amendment was meant to give the states the power to overturn the federal government if it became too encroaching. States have the right to a militia. Last I checked, Billy Bob ain't the state militia. Pragmatically, even this much is pretty pointless now. Let's face it, a gun isn't much use against the feds these days. Racial profiling is unconsititutional. As for wire taps... what the hell? They have to possess a warrant. If someone's suspected of illegal activities. They get tapped. Do you oppose that? No substantive changes have been made recently. Bush rejected calls for a National ID card. Congress rejected Ashcroft's more extremist proposals. You're paranoid and factually incorrect.
What do civil liberties matter if you're dead. For your information, civil liberties have been tremendously curbed during times of war throughout American history to an extent incredibly higher than what's happening now. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, Wilson used the Espionage Act to throw people in prison for being disloyal during WW1, and FDR put 120,000 Japanese-Amerians in camps. The stuff that's happening now is nothing compared to what has happened in the past and our liberties have never been stronger.
So I guess that at times of war, the concensus is that it is ok to do things to our own citizens that at other times would be unacceptable? I'm sure that things were reall efficient in Nazi Germany, and the citizens felt really safe from disruptive elements. Are you aware that as many as 150 of the people arrested after September 11th are still being held, despite the fact that only 4 of them have been named as suspected terrorists? The rest are being held anonymously, without any sort of charge? You can read about it in The Nation. I really like the tone of this editorial, which I got off of the web. The comments in bold are the ones that seem most relevent.
Removal of our civil liberties worries me too but taking the guns, as RR pointed out, is the least of our worries. Even if we were all armed, there is no way we could defend ourselves against our own government, the army, the CIA, the FBI, etc. The problem is that, for many years now, the government is not truly "of, by and for the people." Most of the people in power are people who had money to begin with and, sadly, use their position to flex political and social muscle power.
So I guess that at times of war, the concensus is that it is ok to do things to our own citizens that at other times would be unacceptable? That's not only the historical concensus but the current concensus as well. Your Germany comment is so far out of left field that you're not even in the ballpark. The article you present is light on evidence and high on exagerration. How about some proof to what he asserts? What groups have been arbitrarily tagged as foreign terrorists? Does this writer know that Islamic charities have been used as fronts to funnel funds to Al-Queda? What people have been held for years without evidence? He says airports before 9-11 were virtual prison camps and that's frankly ridiculous. I flew about 2 weeks after 9-11 and I was disgusted with how lax the security was. C'mon now...
haven, I am curious...do you view socialism as a better form of government than what we have in the U.S.? And if you do, can you give an example of a country that best practices socialism? Just wondering.
In moments of war and 'crisis' in American history, the government has routinely expanded its powers at the expense of the individual. Of course, if people voted for politicians who would appoint judges who actually could read the Constitution (as amended) then we would have nothing to be concerned about. And yes, this goes for both major political parties.
Rox: That's really an interesting question. I've actually read quite a number of good things about places like Norway in terms of how socialism has really made things better. My problem is that I don't think it would work in a country the size of the US. It might be ok for a country that had 10 - 50 million people. That's like a state here. To apply socialistic models to a radically diverse country that is very large geographically and has over 250 million people would be almost impossible. The diversity of culture, belief and society just within our own country would make socialism difficult at best and a disaster at worst. Canada seems to have a modified socialistic model that has worked for them, but only throughout non-French Canadian areas. Quebec is still trying to seceed for God's sake! Damn Frenchies!
I'm not so sure of that, dude. If we ever see the army turn on the people, I have a feeling there's going to be more than a few defections from these agencies. Do you think the average soldier is going to take part in the oppression of his own family?
I find this amusing. We live in different times from 250 years ago? True, but the constitution was written on viewing the past, not the present. History repeats itself. FD Khan is so correct. If you haven't read Orwells book, then perhaps you should. I don't even want to reply to this because people will not even think about it. The government is here to protect us as a whole ... as for individuals, I don't think so. Im not saying they want to line us up and shoot us all, but they will be more than willing to sacrafice a few lives. Incidents like Colombine or Sept 11 are not government conspiraces. Our government may not have the intent to take away our civil liberties when they start searching us now at airports. Or start running technolgy checks on telephone/email/cell phones ect ... Crap, even taking our guns. This is not temperarily. This is permanent. Every conviction shreds our constitution just a little more. Take the guy that was convicted for writing his fantasies down. yes, this guy was a sicko and would probably act on his fantasies. But what next? I get convicted of conspiracy of murder because I write "i will kill you" because killing is illegal? The east is doing just what they want us to do. Don't think for a second that a large portion of them hate us. They may not want to kill us, but they hate us. We are becoming them. We are losing our liberties. Unfortuately, we have to. We have to live in fear of terrorist attacks. We have became the greatest country in a very very short amount of time. And we can topple twice as fast. At the rate we are going, we won't be a democracy for long. We may not be a dictatorship, but the constitution will be done away with.
Maybe it's all just a matter of interpretation, but I view these (even) drastic steps as being done FOR us not TO us. Our American mindset is us against the world, not the world against us. The former is rather unifying in spite of our diversity. The latter is splintering out of desperation. Too many X-Files fans here! Just imagine how radically different a Democratic takeover versus a Republican takeover and expansion of the governmental powers would be?!! Once they have a new power there will be a reluctance to give it up; that's nature. Would sundown clauses be sufficient precautions?
1. Socialism is not a form of government. It is an economic system which can be ued with mandy different types of governements (Stalinist totalitarianism, democratic, libertarian, etc). 2. The US already has socialism, just a corrupted version. If you look at the Fortune 500 businesses in this country, many have received economic aid from the government. At one time (around 1996) about half of the top ten companies had been completely bailed out by the government. This works as a kind of top-down hybrid system. 3. Every industrialized nation (except the US) has the more commonly thought of forms of socialism (health care, transportation, etc). They just vary in degree. As Jeff said, most people like to point to the Scandanavian model. A little saying I heard a while ago: Marxism is to Communism as Christianity is to the KKK.
F.D. Khan's post is appropriate and timely. As the new MrSpur pointed out, our government tends to expand its powers during times of war. It is up to all of us to make certain that the expansion is appropriate and returns to 'normal' afterwards. To address one line in Ottomaton's quote, While these measures have gnawed away at the American tradition of liberty, they did nothing to prevent the horrors of September 11, 2001. But they may very well have prevented horrors since then.
