You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
'Left vs. Right' or 'Freedom vs. Tyranny'?
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
Quote from Ricter:
No, it means someone has to be in charge.
I.e. what I said.
Who should be "in charge" is the people - and those they appoint to handle political affairs are their servants, not their masters. The job of these servants is to ensure that liberty is preserved and defended, not to try and seize the reins of power.
It doesn't take much reading of history to notice what tends to happen when political elites are given the green light to be "in charge", as you suggest. Every country's historical record shows that the more checks and restraints on state power, the freer and more prosperous the country is. This directly contradicts your authoritarian jackboot-licking philosophy.
Quote from Free Thinker:
which side instituted the patriot act, the tsa, warrentless wiretaps?
The big government side, supported by scared people who don't know much about political history or philosophy (mostly due to poor education).
Remember that left wing governments, such as Tony Blair's Labour party in the UK, also instituted similar measures. The only other guy apart from Ron Paul in the USA who voted against the Patriot Act was a Democrat. As Rearden says, it is not a left vs right issue, it is about freedom vs tyrannical control, liberty versus abuse of power.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
The big government side, supported by scared people who don't know much about political history or philosophy (mostly due to poor education).
Remember that left wing governments, such as Tony Blair's Labour party in the UK, also instituted similar measures. The only other guy apart from Ron Paul in the USA who voted against the Patriot Act was a Democrat. As Rearden says, it is not a left vs right issue, it is about freedom vs tyrannical control, liberty versus abuse of power.
I don't think it was that unanimous. I do remember voting for the Republican contender in my state for US Senator in the next election because the Democrat running for re-election voted for that steaming POS. I cut off my contributions to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee because both of my Senators, both Democrats, voted for it. But as I recall the roll call was not nearly that one-sided overall.
Hmph. I take it back.
Google is your friend: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
Google is your friend: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
I.e. what I said.
Who should be "in charge" is the people - and those they appoint to handle political affairs are their servants, not their masters. The job of these servants is to ensure that liberty is preserved and defended, not to try and seize the reins of power.
It doesn't take much reading of history to notice what tends to happen when political elites are given the green light to be "in charge", as you suggest. Every country's historical record shows that the more checks and restraints on state power, the freer and more prosperous the country is. This directly contradicts your authoritarian jackboot-licking philosophy.
You will notice that the US is the most prosperous country on the planet by a few different measures. Just another reason why using tyranny in relation to the US government is just a bit tone deaf.
Things like the Patriot Act or what's happening right now to Wikileaks are bad, but hardly indicative of total tyranny. We're nowhere close to that.
Quote from trefoil:
You will notice that the US is the most prosperous country on the planet by a few different measures. Just another reason why using tyranny in relation to the US government is just a bit tone deaf.
Things like the Patriot Act or what's happening right now to Wikileaks are bad, but hardly indicative of total tyranny. We're nowhere close to that.
Ok, wild guess here: You haven't touched a prohibited narcotic substance in years (or ever), am I right?