"I can't breathe....Breathe Easy"

[Henry]

He can suppress it...but even in the state of violation the right still exists.

 

[HoughMade]

Vote? Lol, I think that was the last those groups were worried about in 1814.

Certainly. Just examples. Impossible to quantify.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He can suppress it...but even in the state of violation the right still exists.

And are rights universally understood, by both the victim and oppressor?

 

[Henry]

Universal understanding nor lack there of dictates or negates existence.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If I was smart, I'd just stay out of this....but here goes.

There are ways we (collectively) have more freedom than 1814. There are many ways we have less. It is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify. What are the "freedom points" for hunting, essentially, wherever you want, or having minimal intrusion into family life versus the "freedom points" for women and certain races NOT having freedom to vote?

If you guys want to try to come up with a system, have at it.

This is where I part ways with the entire family of academic studies known as the social sciences. How do you "control" a set of statistics for inherently unquantifiable data? Gun control works, but only when the data is "controlled" for laws against cocaine use? What? How does that even begin to make sense, mathematicly if no other way?

 

[hoosierdoc]

And what about me, would I have had less legal restrictions in Indiana in 1814, than 2014?

You asked me if I wanted you to explain. I said yes.

 

[Iroquois]

So, an acquaintence of mine got arrested in Houston while participating in an 'I can't breathe ' protest. I asked if he was alright and he said that it was disturbing but he was careful not to resist because he didn't want to get hurt....that was his first arrest. If this guy figured it out his first time in the system, how come Eric Garner couldn't figure it out after 30 tries?

 

[Twangbanger]

I think one take-away from this discussion, is that there are multitudinous ways of looking at or defining "freedom." To me, living on a deserted island would be absolute freedom...but to someone like Kut, that might well approximate a prison to him, because there's no cable TV there, no Speedway store to buy lotto tickets, etc. Thus, the misunderstanding over the whole 1814 thing.

One problem is that people confuse the concepts of "Freedom" and "Social Permissiveness." To a person on the LH end of the spectrum, having gay marriage be sanctioned by the state = more freedom. Whereas another person might say that there's no change in the quantity of freedom in the universe, because the courts are still recognizing the government's authority to dictate who can be called "married" and who can't, and whether you consider the current state of affairs to be "correct" or not doesn't change the fact that the government has that power, and could change its mind on what to do with it tomorrow, when the whims of the majority shift once again.

It's sorta like having a benevolent King. He may say beer is legal, or he may say it is not, in accordance with popular views on the subject; but either way, he can change his mind about it tomorrow. One way is more "permissive" than the other, but it's a stretch to say it represents more freedom, in the "Capital-F" sense of the term. You're still on that leash, and the next shift of public opinion may snap your head back.

This whole issue really points up the idea of "Bread and Circuses" to me. Apparently to Liberals, the government may be able to tax you to smithereens and remotely turn your phone on and use it as a listening device...but as long as you are "permitted" to "jailbreak" that phone, and use what's left of your income to go stone yourself into oblivion on a Casino Boat, to the chagrin of religious fundamentalist busy-bodies - you're "free" in their eyes.

The government can easily fool these people into thinking they're free - as long as it "permits" them more bread and circuses than they had in 1814.

 

[88GT]

I think one take-away from this discussion, is that there are multitudinous ways of looking at or defining "freedom." To me, living on a deserted island would be absolute freedom...but to someone like Kut, that might well approximate a prison to him, because there's no cable TV there, no Speedway store to buy lotto tickets, etc. Thus, the misunderstanding over the whole 1814 thing.

One problem is that people confuse the concepts of "Freedom" and "Social Permissiveness." To a person on the LH end of the spectrum, having gay marriage be sanctioned by the state = more freedom. Whereas another person might say that there's no change in the quantity of freedom in the universe, because the courts are still recognizing the government's authority to dictate who can be called "married" and who can't, and whether you consider the current state of affairs to be "correct" or not doesn't change the fact that the government has that power, and could change its mind on what to do with it tomorrow, when the whims of the majority shift once again.

It's sorta like having a benevolent King. He may say beer is legal, or he may say it is not, in accordance with popular views on the subject; but either way, he can change his mind about it tomorrow. One way is more "permissive" than the other, but it's a stretch to say it represents more freedom, in the "Capital-F" sense of the term. You're still on that leash, and the next shift of public opinion may snap your head back.

This whole issue really points up the idea of "Bread and Circuses" to me. Apparently to Liberals, the government may be able to tax you to smithereens and remotely turn your phone on and use it as a listening device...but as long as you are "permitted" to "jailbreak" that phone, and use what's left of your income to go stone yourself into oblivion on a Casino Boat, to the chagrin of religious fundamentalist busy-bodies - you're "free" in their eyes.

The government can easily fool these people into thinking they're free - as long as it "permits" them more bread and circuses than they had in 1814.

Assigning subjective opinions to freedom muddies the waters. We're talking about a very specific and narrow definition of freedom and the GPS coordinates where one hangs one's hat doesn't factor in to it.

Since the standard for the U.S. has been assumptively that individuals possess all the authority to act in their own interest*, any restriction is less freedom. Those of us who maintain that the authority rests in the individual recognize the ludicrous nature of Kut's claim. Those who do not recognize the individual as the sovereign being may be be fooled into thinking that use of force equates to authority.



*Excluding the choices that infringe on the rights of other through the use of force.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Any decision that cuts against individual sovereignty in favour of collective sovereignty is objectively authoritarian and anti-libertarian and hence objectively results in a loss of freedom in every meaningful and true sense of the word.

 

[Twangbanger]

If I understand you correctly, 88, then I agree.

It goes back to the FDR definition of freedom: "Freedom from Want." In this worldview, the purpose of government is to insulate people against the uncertainties of life. Ergo, if the government gives you unemployment benefits, and it didn't in 1814 - then you are more "free" today than you were then. (Totally ignoring the increase in government authority which was needed to make this possible). Just because the government has afforded you more amenities, doesn't mean you're more free. I'm not arguing against unemployment benefits, simply pointing out that things like this do not equate to freedom, but often are just the decorations and trappings of a plusher, more softly-padded prison, which is mistaken for freedom by many.

"Amenities" and "Social Permissiveness" do not equal freedom. When you look at some of the examples given above, things like Casino Boats...it just couldn't be more obvious that many have lost any connection to what freedom really is. And it explains why things like NSA spying, which should be the outrage on the tip of everyone's tongues, do not even warrant conversation for most people. They're too busy "jailbreaking" their phones, and thanking Obama for Neutralizing those evil bandwidth vendors while sipping their microbrew on Sunday. "Ha, take that, you evil Religious Fundamentalists," they think to themselves. "I'm drinking BEER on SUNDAY, ha ha ha - stick that in your religious pipe and smoke it!"

 

[hornadylnl]

Am I any more free when the law says I can do action x but the lynch mob says I can't than vice versa?

 

[88GT]

Yep, because if your argument is that the illegal actions by individuals that *might* happen are in any way evidence of some diminished level of freedom comparable to the state usurping the individual's authority, then we're all just flippin' slaves.

 

[hornadylnl]

The people are the state, are they not? I continually read of this bygone utopia where society, not government kept everyone in line. There was no law against burning the flag but everyone felt justified to beat the burners ass. If the law overlooked said assault, what difference does it make if the person assaulting the burner wore a uniform or not?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Fair enough. As I disclaimed, I didn't follow this case all that closely and the last I thought I heard is they were sent packing and they went home.

Who went home?

They didn't go home. The Obama administration made such an asinine decision with appealing the asylum decision that the political backlash was too much. DHS granted indefinite deferred status to them, essentially allowing them to remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

If we want to ask questions about the importance of choices made, why is it that the Obama administration felt it was necessary to appeal the legal and proper (duly executed) decision of a court when it plans on giving more than asylum status to millions of ILLEGALS? Why did the Obama administration change it's mind by allowing DHS to let the Romeikes remain indefinitely when it had "won" the appeal to have them deported? If it was SOOOOOO important to deport them, why didn't they enforce it when they had the opportunity?

Not to mention the error in the appellate decision that said the homeschooling prohibition in Germany doesn't have roots in Nazi law. Because it absolutely does. The statute used to fine and persecute the Romeikes and other homeschoolers in Germany is exactly the Nazi law that was enacted under Hitler to keep the citizenry from independent, anti-state thought.

Moreover, this is exactly what the modern German nazi state has ruled regarding religious freedom and homeschooling. I'm going to save myself the trouble of re-typing it all and just link to the same responses I've given every time we have to re-hash this issue.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-forbidden-may-deported-us.html#post4488390

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-forbidden-may-deported-us-2.html#post4589001

 

[Twangbanger]

Am I any more free when the law says I can do action x but the lynch mob says I can't than vice versa?

Using your example a bit differently to highlight the foregoing discussion: if the Lynch Mob decides a person should be able to marry, for example, a Polar Bear...and the benevolent King grants the Mob's request (with no change to his ability to be involved in such decisions); society has no doubt become more "permissive" and in line with the Mob's values...but has it really become more "Free?" (I'm not opposed to GM, just trying to use your example to direct folks to think back about the foregoing discussion).

We have Government to protect you from the Lynch Mob; that's "Justice." We have the Constitution to protect you from the Government; that's "Freedom" or "Liberty." We seem to be doing an ok job on the first part of the social contract; the second, not so much. The rub is when the changing definition of "Justice" requires the Government doing more and more on the first part - for example taxing and redistributing the "Lynch Mob's" earnings to benefit particular individuals - that the second part of the social contract starts to be eroded.

 

[chipbennett]

I've actually said that, without any reservations, earlier. I don't belief a "higher power," endows people with rights. "Rights," unfortunately originate with men. The most we can hope for is that just men execute them.

And such sentiment is troubling, especially so given that you are a law enforcement officer (I assume, based on your comments in other threads).

Agents of the State who lack the humility to recognize that fundamental human rights come from a power higher than humans and are therefore inviolable, are especially potentially dangerous, because the logical conclusion of their belief is that they, through the State, wield the ultimate power.

 

[chipbennett]

For the record, I don't like Barry's amnesty eo, and I don't like immigration in general, for ALL groups. But seriously, academic oppression as a legit reason for asylum???? Come the hell on.

"Academic oppression" is a straw man. The real issue is the fundamental right of parents to determine how their children are educated, including the principles and values they are taught. (While schools today aren't so drastic, the reason that Hitler instituted kindergarten in Germany was purely for indoctrination purposes, outside of the influence of the parents. The principle remains the same: parents have the right not to have the State indoctrinate their children.)

 

[Henry]

And such sentiment is troubling, especially so given that you are a law enforcement officer (I assume, based on your comments in other threads).

Agents of the State who lack the humility to recognize that fundamental human rights come from a power higher than humans and are therefore inviolable, are especially potentially dangerous, because the logical conclusion of their belief is that they, through the State, wield the ultimate power.

AMEN!

 

[HoughMade]

"Academic oppression" is a straw man. The real issue is the fundamental right of parents to determine how their children are educated, including the principles and values they are taught. (While schools today aren't so drastic, the reason that Hitler instituted kindergarten in Germany was purely for indoctrination purposes, outside of the influence of the parents. The principle remains the same: parents have the right not to have the State indoctrinate their children.)

I'm on board with that.