The price of freedom

[renata]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084315/

Interesting editorial. Please read the entire thing, I can not quote it all, but it is very thought provoking.


We Americans are a freedom-loving people. Or so we like to think. Other peoples are freedom-loving too, we recognize. But, looking around the world, we suspect Europeans like the Germans and the French of being a bit too eager to salute. Asians are conformists, we feel. Africans go from one military coup to the next, and Latin Americans aren't long past a similar habit. In America, though, we have a special knack for freedom. After all, we invented it.

From the Declaration of Independence to rap music, America really is the model and inspiration for freedom around the world. But precisely because our freedoms are so deeply rooted and apparently secure, our commitment to them is untested. After 230 years, we don't need to love freedom in order to have it.


Do the Department of Homeland Security and other outgrowths of 9/11 add up to a threat to my freedom? It's clear that our government has disgracefully betrayed American values in its treatment of many non-citizens in this country, almost all of them innocent of anything but routine immigration violations. These violations, by the way, suggest a greater love of freedom than most American citizens have ever had to demonstrate. But, frankly, that's other people. That's not me. How much I care about the freedom of other people is a slightly different question than how much I love and what I'll do to guard my own.

Perhaps you have thoroughly studied the Homeland Security situation and have reached an informed opinion one way or another: that our freedom is imperiled, or that the impositions are minimal and the complaints are hooey. If so, in either case, you are a better citizen than I have been until the past few days (when a looming deadline, more than a love of freedom, impelled me to become better-informed). I suspect that most Americans have not done their homework on this issue. What does that say about our alleged love of freedom? On the one hand, you might say that anyone who hasn't even bothered to find out if his freedom is missing, like a pet cat, cannot love it very much. On the other hand, you might say that if you cannot even detect your loss of freedom without making a homework assignment out of it, the deprivation cannot be too severe.
.....


Nevertheless, the hard core of American civil liberties—your right to speak your mind, especially to dissent from government policy, without looking over your shoulder—still seems pretty robust. Counterexamples exist, but they are pretty rare and mild.

This does not mean there's nothing to worry about. Incipience is legitimately scary. To return to the original question, Americans are not so innately freedom-loving that we would never let it dribble away without noticing. I can prove this because it actually happened, within the adult lifetimes of anyone over about 50. On August 15, 1971, more or less out of the blue, President Nixon declared a freeze on wages and prices. Legislation authorizing this had passed Congress the year before, with little controversy. The freeze evolved into a system of formulas about who could get paid what, requirements about filing forms with the government and keeping records and posting notices, all enforced by a growing bureaucracy of wage and price cops. The controls lasted a couple of years at full strength and then faded away over the next couple.

The notion that the government could tell everyone from General Motors to a baby-sitting teenager what they could charge—and did so—seems shocking in retrospect, at least to me. There was no real national emergency. It was part of a cynical re-election strategy to gun the economy while holding inflation temporarily in check. But at the time, controls were not just accepted but popular. When they disappeared, even those (like me) who had opposed them found it strange and, at first, unnatural. You mean, anyone can just charge whatever they want? How does that work? The analogy isn't perfect. The right to set your own price isn't as profound as the right to express your own political opinion. But it is, if anything, even more a part of every citizen's daily life. And yet when they took it away, we freedom-loving Americans didn't even miss it.

[Jon_in_london]

In America, though, we have a special knack for freedom. After all, we invented it.

:rolleyes:

Thats right, just keep patting yourselfs on the back. You are the greatest, you are the best. They are all jealous. Bury your head in the sand. That way you wont see the next low flying 767 coming your way.

[renata]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


:rolleyes:

Thats right, just keep patting yourselfs on the back. You are the greatest, you are the best. They are all jealous. Bury your head in the sand. That way you wont see the next low flying 767 coming your way.


Was that necessary? Was "We are number 1!" the point of the article?

Do you have any comments on the substance of the article?

[Tony]

I think people are starting to wake up to our loss of freedom. I think 2 groups are responsible, the PC thugs and the fundies.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony
I think people are starting to wake up to our loss of freedom. I think 2 groups are responsible, the PC thugs and the fundies.

Hey Tony! I agree with you for once :D

[renata]

Originally posted by Tony
I think people are starting to wake up to our loss of freedom. I think 2 groups are responsible, the PC thugs and the fundies.


Dear god, did anybody actually read the article? It does NOT talk about PC, it talks about recent government power grab. Can you comment on the article, and not bring PC into this?

[Cain]

Jon- I think Kinslely's being a little sarcastic there.

From the Declaration of Independence to rap music, America really is the model and inspiration for freedom around the world. But precisely because our freedoms are so deeply rooted and apparently secure, our commitment to them is untested. After 230 years, we don't need to love freedom in order to have it.

Freedom for whom? Shay's rebellion? Alien and sedition acts, anyone? When did women gain the right to vote again? African-Americans?

Kinsley occasionally gets off a good idea or line in an article every now and then. This isn't one of those times, though.

Tony: How have the "PC thugs" seized your freedom again?

[Tony]

Originally posted by renata



Dear god, did anybody actually read the article? It does NOT talk abotu PC, it talks about recent government power grab. Can you comment on the article, and not bring PC into this?


I read it, my point was that this recent power grab is just one event in a long series of events that have slowly eroded our freedoms. I then went on to say who I thought was responsible.

[renata]

Originally posted by Tony



I read it, my point was that this recent power grab is just one event in a long series of events that have slowly eroded our freedoms. I then went on to say who I thought was responsible.

So you think liberal PC people are behind the Department of Homeland Security and detention of immigrants?

Is Bush, Ashcroft and the Republican Congress PC?

[Tmy]

How free are we in the states? And how are you defining freedom. Sure I have probably more freedom of speech in the States than say I would in Holland. But in Holland I have freedom to smoke pot, which I dont have in the States.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by renata

Was that necessary? Was "We are number 1!" the point of the article?


Because America is transiently the most powefull nation on earth, what America does and thinks is important to the rest of us. If America thinks 'invented freedom' then it is up to me to raise a dissenting voice to combat this insidious meme.

[renata]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Because America is transiently the most powefull nation on earth, what America does and thinks is important to the rest of us. If America thinks 'invented freedom' then it is up to me to raise a dissenting voice to combat this insidious meme.


I agree with Cian- Kinsley was being sarcastic. Now would you please post on the topic, please? I do not wish this thread to become yet another America is great- No, America sux thread.

Thanks

[Tmy]

Originally posted by renata


So you think liberal PC people are behind the Department of Homeland Security and detention of immigrants?

Is Bush, Ashcroft and the Republican Congress PC?

Political Correctness is not the sole property of the librals. For example it was PC to back GW and the Iraqi war.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tmy
How free are we in the states? And how are you defining freedom. Sure I have probably more freedom of speech in the States than say I would in Holland. But in Holland I have freedom to smoke pot, which I dont have in the States.

Why do you think you have more freedom of speech in the US than you would have in Holland? Do you have any factual basis for this?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tmy
How free are we in the states? And how are you defining freedom. Sure I have probably more freedom of speech in the States than say I would in Holland. But in Holland I have freedom to smoke pot, which I dont have in the States.

Just out of curiousity, why do you think you would have less freedom of speech in Holland?
I'm not asking because I'm refuting your statment, I'm simply asking because I don't know.

I know that I have never felt here in Canada that I have less freedom of speech than if I lived in the US. I've never looked at the US and been jealous of their freedom to express their thoughts and opinions, because we have that here as well.

Plus, we can pretty much smoke pot here as well without penalty (at least in Vancouver)

[renata]

Originally posted by Tmy


Political Correctness is not the sole property of the librals. For example it was PC to back GW and the Iraqi war.

That is true, although PC tends to be associated with liberals. Why do toy think backing the war was PC? It was probably PE- politically expedient.





I would like to reiterate, that I wanted to hear people's opinions on the article, not make this into a thread that discusses PC or American position in the world. Thanks all in advance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by renata


So you think liberal PC people are behind the Department of Homeland Security and detention of immigrants?



You are ignoring where I mentioned fundies.


Detention of immigrants?? You mean, Illegal aliens? Dont you think people that break the law should be held to account for their crimes?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy


Political Correctness is not the sole property of the librals. For example it was PC to back GW and the Iraqi war.

According to this (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml), PC originated from, and belongs to the left.

[Cain]

That's such bullsh*t, Tony. "Politicial Correctness" did indeed originate on the left, but as once humorous quip. During the 60s, when people were attracted to the movement because it suddenly became hip and fashionable (they would later become the yuppies of the eighties), deeply involved activists derided their paper thin beliefs as "politically correct." People could regurgitate the popular slogans, but they didn't share the same moral outlook. They were politically correct.

I'm still not sure how a conservative can possibly view "politcal correctness" as oppressive. Yes, universities have fascistic speech codes. Many of them are also *private* institutions, and conservatives/libertarians do not believe in government restrictions as such. The same goes for newspapers, corporations, and so on.

PC really means Patriotically Correct. Bill Maher, for example, could spout off all kinds of sexist comments nightly. Nobody cares. Say one thing that offends the military establishment, and your show will go straight off the air. We see no few to none dissenting opinions in the U.S. press. Commissars like O'Reilly and Hannity quickly denounce anyone they deem "Un-American." We went to WAR without a free flow of discussion and debate. Certain views were systematically marginalized.

A thread can rarely go by without someone here making a comment about political correctness. I'm really truly interested to know how you (and others) have been oppressed.

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too." -- Ann Coulter

[Globert]

Incipience IS scary, yet it is precisely the sort of actions the article sets as example that fosters american complacency in the erosion of liberty. We'll swallow any thing in a "trial sized" "sunsetting" bill. The fact that whatever bill is "temporary" has us giving the nod to all sorts of nonsense. It's the 'Send No Money Now' syndrome, get the magazine in the mail and discuss the subscription price later.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by renata



I agree with Cian- Kinsley was being sarcastic. Now would you please post on the topic, please? I do not wish this thread to become yet another America is great- No, America sux thread.

Thanks

No, but the Department of Homeland Security etc is a domestic issue for the US. Americans claiming they invented freedom/ democracy etc is an international issue. Jon is right to bring you up on this. When countries start believing they have copyright on how others should run their affairs problems occur.

[Tmy]

I find alot of the homeland security stuff to be a big waste of time and money. I just saw a story on how State Police in Bostons Logan airport will now have machine guns. WHY!??!? What to they expect to happen. If they had machine guns on Sept 11 we still would have had the same results.

[Tony]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the "Department of Homeland Security" isn’t so much a new department as it is a re-organizations of existing agencies. I don’t see the problem with that.

[Globert]

Originally posted by renata


So you think liberal PC people are behind the Department of Homeland Security and detention of immigrants?

Is Bush, Ashcroft and the Republican Congress PC?

Perhaps it's the meld of fundamentalist christian CERTITUDE and the politically correct institutional ability to shut down debate that makes for a situation some see as dangerous.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


:rolleyes:

Thats right, just keep patting yourselfs on the back. You are the greatest, you are the best. They are all jealous. Bury your head in the sand. That way you wont see the next low flying 767 coming your way.

Ahh, yes, we need lunatics like you, who are the source of the exrement that keeps the lunatic right-wing in power here, just to make sure that Jedi and Baker and their ilk (THAT WORD THAT WORD ILK ILK ILK) stay in power.

If that's what you want, keep it up. If you'd like to see a moderate government here, you can help by not acting like a total kneejerking dork.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
Why do you think you have more freedom of speech in the US than you would have in Holland? Do you have any factual basis for this?

Draft EU constitution and the parts of it that propose we ought not say bad things about the EU?

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
I think people are starting to wake up to our loss of freedom. I think 2 groups are responsible, the PC thugs and the fundies.

The PC thugs got you "you have the right to remains silent...". The Fundies are getting rid of your Miranda rights.

Now, some of the PC thugs are thugs, and represent willfully destructive quacking like "science is a masculine plot", and stuff like that, yes. Some of the right-wing quacks emit quacking about "creation science" and other such quackery, too.

Some of the PC thugs do want to take our rights "for our own good". In that, they are just like the present government, who wants to take our rights "to save our souls and for our safety".

I will agree with what appears to be your basic premise that there are dangerous twits on all extremes.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Draft EU constitution and the parts of it that propose we ought not say bad things about the EU?
Where in the draft is it made illegal to say bad things about the EU? Do you have a link?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by renata



Was that necessary? Was "We are number 1!" the point of the article?

Do you have any comments on the substance of the article?

I agree with Jon_in_london.

That's what is so very sad abot the whole thing. The article just assumes that "we are number one" and then goes from there. LOL, what ajoke of an artilce. Its points are worthwhile, but the real problem is in its assumptions from the start.

That IS the problem with America, most people have a false understanding of our freedom in the first place.

America is free becuase we have military and economic presure on the rest of the world, keeping them down to keep us up. WE contribute to the problems that the rest of the world has in trying to gain their own freedom, and THAT is why we need Homeland Security IN THE FIRST PLACE.

America will in danger as long as America continues to contribute to exploiation and disparity around the world. When America allows teh rest of the world to be free, then America will be safe. What the wealthy elite in America are doing though is trying to built a fortress America so that we can continue to rape the rest of the world and defend ourselves from those trying to gain their own freedom from American practises.

What is the price of Freedom? Well that's what this guy really does not understand. The whole world is paying the price for our freedom. Ask the people in Nicoragua, or Panama, or Venezuela, or Indonesia, or Iraq, or Nigeria, or Cuba what the price of American freedom is? They know. They are paying it.

The price of American freedom is exploitation of the global masses.

And as for PC, the whole PC thing started, back at a time when it was common to hear white men yell "Hey ******!" and say stuff like, "We shouldn't buy that Jap rice burning piece of ****", or "There's too many faggots in the theater.", or "The Kikes have control of the media."

Go back about 30 years and you would hear that in common conversation, and around the work area. Now you tell me, has the whole PC thing paid off or should we go back to calling black *******? And Oriental people chinks? I mean I am going to Florida soon, maybe I'll run into some faggot spics down in Miami that will sell me a fake gold watch.

The real failure of the PC thing is that it has failed to address the root issues so that people, apparently like you, still feel the desire not say these things, and still fell this way, you just don't want to say it anymore.

[renata]

Excuse my manners in this post, but

That will teach me to post interesting articles in PC&E

It seems everyone is jumping on whatever their favorite soapboax - America is evil! It is great! it is PC fault! It is the radicals! America is the best ever! Europe is better- no, Europe sucks! America has it coming!


Frankly, with the exception of 2-3 posters, it appears either nobody read the article, or is willing to come off their pet issue to comment on it. I have asked several times for people to stick to the topic, it has not worked. Have fun! This thread will now become just like every other thread in this forum- torn between the radical left and radical right, with reasonable voices drowned out.

Perhaps I will post the same article in Banter- it may actually generate some on point debate.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by renata
Excuse my manners in this post, but

That will teach me to post interesting articles in PC&E

It seems everyone is jumping on whatever their favorite soapboax - America is evil! It is great! it is PC fault! It is the radicals! America is the best ever! Europe is better- no, Europe sucks! America has it coming!


Frankly, with the exception of 2-3 posters, it appears either nobody read the article, or is willing to come off their pet issue to comment on it. I have asked several times for people to stick to the topic, it has not worked. Have fun! This thread will now become just like every other thread in this forum- torn between the radical left and radical right, with reasonable voices drowned out.

Perhaps I will post the same article in Banter- it may actually generate some on point debate.

Well, okay. I agree that the Homeland Security measures are problematic for our freedoms. I think that these types of measures will have to take place and will continue to take place until more global equality is created in which we won't need these protections. We bering the need for these types of constraints on ourselves.

Attacking the Homeland Securty legislation is not attacking a root cause therefore I don't pay much attention to it, I would rather attack root causes.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Thats right, just keep patting yourselfs on the back. You are the greatest, you are the best. They are all jealous. Bury your head in the sand. That way you wont see the next low flying 767 coming your way.

Did you even READ the article, Jon?

Somehow, somehow I don't think so.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
America is free becuase we have military and economic presure on the rest of the world, keeping them down to keep us up. WE contribute to the problems that the rest of the world has in trying to gain their own freedom, and THAT is why we need Homeland Security IN THE FIRST PLACE.


*ding ding ding* FALSE ZERO-SUM GAME ASSUMPTION ALERT!

BS at high noon!

We stand to gain by bringing the rest of the world UP, Malachi.

Malachi, you and Jon are incredibly helpful to the right. Did you realize that? When you go off on nonsensical claptrap like that, you give them the kind of ammunition that gets them elected.

Is that it? Is that what you want?


"and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,"

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jj


*ding ding ding* FALSE ZERO-SUM GAME ASSUMPTION ALERT!

BS at high noon!

We stand to gain by bringing the rest of the world UP, Malachi.

Malachi, you and Jon are incredibly helpful to the right. Did you realize that? When you go off on nonsensical claptrap like that, you give them the kind of ammunition that gets them elected.

Is that it? Is that what you want?


"and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,"

Well actually I agree that we ultimately stand to gain by bringing the rest of the world up. However, specific individuals do not, and those specific individuals are who have influence. This primarily being businessmen.

Now, do we need to go into all the documentation on how our international business have been working for 100 years?

Businessmen have an immediate interest in securing cheap labor and products in foreign countries so that they can make huge profits when they sell them in the US. Or are you telling my that companies don't work to keep labor prices down? Let's see, shoes made for $1.00 in Asia can be sold for $100 here.

Why don't these companies just get smart and pay their Asian workers $5.00 a hour? Hmm? They are free to do so afterall.

This isn't really the thread to get into this, but the documentation on how America keeps other coutnries down to keep our standard of living up is mountanous.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. - General Smedley Butler.

Been going on for a LONG time, and still is.

Americans standard of living has been maintained for the past 30 years by increaing cheap imports from foreign countries, where people continue to go on w/o proper labor rights, and where thier leders recive huge payments in foreign aid from America, yet, hmmm. strangely they still have no labor rights, and the money isn't going to help teh people.. hmm.. gee I wonder why.

If you want to go into Indonesian history just let me know.

Now let us assume that we lose Indochina. If Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula would be scarcely defensible- and tin and tungsten we so greatly value from that area would cease coming… All of that weakening position around there is very ominous for the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world hold the rich empire of Indonesia? So you see, somewhere along the line, this must be blocked. That is what the French are doing…

So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America- our security, our power and ability to get certain things from the riches of South East Asia. - President Eisenhower

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by jj


Did you even READ the article, Jon?

Somehow, somehow I don't think so.

The article could have been about municpal bonds.

Jon would have engaged in his favorite pasttime anyway. Saying how much America sucks and has terrorism coming to it.

(talk about knee-jerk reactions)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
How free are we in the states? And how are you defining freedom.

If you cannot live your life the way you see fit, if you cannot do as you please so long as you do not harm others or their ability to do as they please, you are not free.

If you can't have a toilet of a certain size, you are not free.

If you can't have a gutter on the side of your house, you are not free.

If you don't have a choice to forego vehicle liability insurance and self-insure, you are not free.

If you cannot put a substance that you wish into your own body, you are not free.

If you cannot marry whomever you wish, you are not free.

If you cannot carry around a gun as a means of personal protection even if you have never harmed another soul in your life, you are not free.

If you cannot even work at a job without government claiming part of your payheck, you are not free.

If you cannot hold property without paying what amounts to protection money to the government, you are not free.

If your property can be siezed from you at any time, through "asset forfieture," "eminent domain," or rezoning, or whatever, you are not free.

If you cannot vote for the candidate of your choice, you are not free.

If you can be declared an "enemy combatant" and taken without charge or the benefit of counsel, you are not free.

If you cannot carry around a large amount of your own money, or purchase a car with cash, without being arrested and convicted as a drug dealer, you are not free.

These and many other freedoms are taken from American citizens every day. And the Democrats and Republicans seem to be just fine with it.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by mbp:
Where in the draft is it made illegal to say bad things about the EU? Do you have a link?

Article 5, apparently.

Article 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 5 in the draft Constitution, can be used as an illiberal and authoritarian tool to underpin the European State, even at the expense of free speech.

It is a threat to freedom, in particular freedom of speech, because it lists subjects that EU citizens have no right to question. The Charter enshrines in law soft-social democracy that can not be challenged by ‘any act or any activity’. Thus ending democracy in Europe, by excluding alternative policies.


Here (http://europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/other/oth260503_en.pdf) is a copy of the draft constitution. To be honest I can't find the offending article. In my defense I'll say that when anyone claims the EU is prepared to act in an anti-democratic and dictatorial fashion then I'm inclined to believe them on the EU's past form. (www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-06-14&id=2388&searchtext=)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151




Businessmen have an immediate interest in securing cheap labor and products in foreign countries so that they can make huge profits when they sell them in the US. Or are you telling my that companies don't work to keep labor prices down? Let's see, shoes made for $1.00 in Asia can be sold for $100 here.



It is pointless for you to bring this up unless you provide data that shows that what is paid to workers in a given country is less than the norm in that country. If it is not, then there is no point.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ed


It is pointless for you to bring this up unless you provide data that shows that what is paid to workers in a given country is less than the norm in that country. If it is not, then there is no point.

LOL, so niave.

What difference does it make what the norm in that country is?

You obvoiusly just don't get it.

By keeping an entire economy depressed the "norm" for that country stays low, in which American companies get access to cheap labor.

Hence all the "ineffective" foreign aid, which is actually being effective in doing what its supposed to do, keep countries poor.

I mean damn you have to totally ignore the past 100 year of US foreign relations with 3rd world countries not to see this, which apparently, most people do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
LOL, so niave.

What difference does it make what the norm in that country is?

Different economies; different scales.

What's wrong with paying someone in a foreign country $1 an hour instead of $10 an hour when that $1 can in their economy buy an amount of goods and services to keep them in the same station a worker in he US making $10/hour would be in?

You obvoiusly just don't get it.

By keeping an entire economy depressed the "norm" for that country stays low, in which American companies get access to cheap labor.

Sorry, but you're the one that obviously doesn't get it. They wouldn't be able to find workers at that wage level if there weren't the demand for jobs at that wage level. The reason the demand is there is because those jobs are needed to create wealth in their economy. Paying them $1 will create wealth in their economy and raise the standard of living for everyone.

Hence all the "ineffective" foreign aid, which is actually being effective in doing what its supposed to do, keep countries poor.

Actually, I'll agree with this part about the foreign aid. But that has zilch to do with what workers get paid, other than placing a drag on their economy limiting the amount of wealth they can create.

[Tony]

Where ya been Shanek?

[shanek]

In between being a partner in a new business and spending time with my family, I haven't been on that much. Don't expect that to change anytime soon, though.