|
|
|
|
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 26 | |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 8:46:19 AM |
I believe that true freedom will never come to Americans until you amend one word in your Constitution. The line that reads "freedom of religion" should read "freedom from religion".
been an amature scolar of the constitution for some thirty years. as a tradition i read it every fourth of july beginning with "we the people" all the way through the 27th amendment. but i'll be damned if i can find anywhere a line that reads "freedom of religion". my guess would be that you refer to the first amendment which is the only place the word "religion" can be found either in the body of articles or the amendments. here it is so you don't have to look it up.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
so tell me, where do you see this line or phrase or grouping of words "freedom of religion"? we already have "freedom from religion". as an example. i believe in no religious doctrine. can't imagine being any more free from religion than that. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 27 | |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 8:57:36 AM |
Seriously...If you live in North America and think you live in a free country, you need professional help.
There are only a couple of (comparatively) free countries on the planet, and they aren't in North America.
hmmmm. which couple of countries would those be? i guess i need that professional help you speak of. you see, in my career i've been fortunate enought to visit 52 countries on six continents not counting my home country the US. i realize that's not every country on the planet that i'm familiar with but just wonder if i've visited these couple you mention. if i have, i must have slept through the visits because i damn sure don't remember any country that constitutionally protects individual liberties as does america. and yes, as a constitutional scholar, albiet a rank amature, i've read many of those other constitutions to see just how they do compare to ours. i find the subject fascinating so if you can shed some light on your statement i'd be truely interested. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 28 | |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 9:02:38 AM |
147 of the top economists predict that the US will lose its financial independence within the next 5 years. Sounds more like a bidding war will soon be waging over our "freedom".
when since the declaration of independence was signed, has the US had anything close to financial independence? just who are these "top economists" who make such a prediction? | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 9:13:14 AM |
when since the declaration of independence was signed, has the US had anything close to financial independence?
In those periods when it didn't have one of the central banks printing the money for them and loaning it to them at interest. | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 9:27:43 AM |
I say North America because that is the culture I know. Feel free to say what you have to say...
I remember a friend saying to me once “there is free and then there is libertine.” In a way I kind of agree with him because this freedom seems to be causing a lot of problems. I somehow tend to link substance abuse and lack of productivity with too much freedom but that is just me.
What do you think? Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
You do not have rights or freedoms you have privileges and those privileges can be taken away at a moments notice.
George Carlin said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8
4:27 - 9:30
NSFW Language. | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 9:53:47 AM |
which couple of countries would those be?
Well, you might want to check out the new Venezuelan constitution; it makes interesting reading and IMHO is approximately as good as the American one, (which I consider excellent BTW). Please do so (if you haven't already) and (it would be nice if you would) give me your critique comparing them. You sound like a pretty studied and worldly man and I respect your opinion. Maybe between us, we can see what is missing in them that allows things to go wrong that lets a bunch of easily bribed, power-seeking, unprincipled liars (that wouldn't know the truth if it was pasted to their nose so they couldn't miss it) somehow take charge of a great nation. (Not specifically levelled at the US -- They are almost all like that).
My contention is that things start out with the best of intentions and go sour when a bunch of rich, psychopathic, grasping ba$tards take control of an economy in an ingenious con game that siphons the wealth of a nation out of the hands of its people and into their pockets, to be used to further their hold on power for their own (nefarious?) ends.
My "purpose" is to find a better way that will prevent that from ever happening again and I believe I've found one, but everyone is mired in the propaganda that they see as some sot of axiom: "This isn't perfect, but it's the best we can do, so quit complaining and saying I don't live in a great country." In the first place, that's a distortion of perception with respect to my views, and it's based on the people's assumption that the founding fathers were great, knew what they were doing and gave us a great constitution to protect our rights. Well the founding fathers WERE great and they gave you a great constitution, but they weren't perfect (what is?) and they left a few loopholes that allowed the unscupulous to take power and hold it and it was done in such a way that hardly anyone even noticed that they had been taken in and conned into signing contracts that allowed the legalese fine print to make them slaves to a corrupted system such that they had inadvertantly sold themselves into voluntarily signing away their life's labour and property rights in exchange for a pittance in "benefits" (in the US case, it was FDR's "New Deal" -- You guys all got royally screwed on that one!). I'm related to FDR, an he was a nice guy in some ways (not so nice in others - he believed in "the greater good", so if people had to die to achieve it, well...) but he saw himself as the shepherd and the people of the nation as his "flock" who had to be guided, for their own good. That was a flaw that we should probably interpret as something of a well-intentioned(?) act of parenting on his part. The insult was that he considered the people (thinking rational adults - his equal in every way) as children who had to be guided...and controlled. I don't believe in my heart that he was a truly evil man, but he did som truly evil things, not the least of which was technically declaring war on the people and confiscating some of their private property in 1933, to help offset the huge balance owing to (the shareholders of) the FED, which had taken that great nation from prosperity to bankruptcy in the space of only twenty years.
I could go on (and on and on...) but I think I've said enough at this point to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.  | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 32 | |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:16:32 AM |
In those periods when it didn't have one of the central banks printing the money for them and loaning it to them at interest.
so we were financially independent before the fed? which periods before the fed was this country financially independent? are you saying that there was a time when we had no national debt????? when was that?????? | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:22:52 AM | If you think anyone is truly free then you are delusional. We have laws that govern our behaviours on fear of punishment, governments that make decisions for us that we may or may not agree with, etc.....
Too much freedom? I'm not sure there is such a thing but I do believe that until we have evolved as a species to a higher spiritual understanding, we need those laws to protect us from ourselves. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 34 | |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:34:50 AM |
Well, you might want to check out the new Venezuelan constitution; it makes interesting reading and IMHO is approximately as good as the American one, (which I consider excellent BTW). Please do so (if you haven't already) and (it would be nice if you would) give me your critique comparing them.
i'll do that. not familiar with venezuala. we are talking about the venezuela that is run by the dictator chavez are we not? not sure whatever the constitutions would say would lend much to freedom in the country. i do agree that many constitutions are every bit as good as ours. the latest i've found was the dominican republic. almost looks like a copy.
My contention is that things start out with the best of intentions and go sour when a bunch of rich, psychopathic, grasping ba$tards take control of an economy in an ingenious con game that siphons the wealth of a nation out of the hands of its people and into their pockets, to be used to further their hold on power for their own (nefarious?) ends.
i understand your point but our constitution is far fairer and offers more freedom now than when it was written. remember, the founders wrote originally that blacks were but 3/5 human and that women were too dumb to vote. i can't comment on the bunch you speak of. rich **stards is just to broad a term. lol. but i don't see how the economy affects your personal freedom. people are flocking to this country because we've grown into a country where fortunes can be made by anybody. and the proof is in their actually doing it. those rich **stards were not always rich **stards. ie, bill gates, sam walton, warren buffet.
I could go on (and on and on...) but I think I've said enough at this point to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
i do get where you're coming from. most americans feel exactly like you do and i understand that. what i don't get is why that is. we are more free in this country than we've ever been. there is no segregation in the south, slavery is illegal, everybody is guaranteed equal liberties by the forteenth amendment, i could go on. | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:57:18 AM |
but i'll be damned if i can find anywhere a line that reads "freedom of religion". my guess would be that you refer to the first amendment which is the only place the word "religion" can be found either in the body of articles or the amendments. here it is so you don't have to look it up.
I don't have to look it up, I've been studying this document for over 20 years as a business law professor. You're right, you won't find "freedom of religion" written explicitly in the Constitution, you will run across it many times in the heavy mass of documents establishing "Stare Decisis" in the area of court decisions dealing with religious freedom. Judicial Law, as opposed to statutory law, is an extension of the "wording" of the constitution, since we have to abide by their translation of the document.
we already have "freedom from religion". as an example. i believe in no religious doctrine. can't imagine being any more free from religion than that.
This might be purely due to semantics; however, I think that some folks might be confused by that statement -- a statement about religious freedom at the individual level. I'm glad that the writers of the constitution used the phrasing that they did because non-believers were protected as well as believers. They created an "empty field" of sorts by saying that Congress is to be hands-off when it comes to any citizens wanting to establish a religion or wising to worship in any way. The "empty field" can be built upon, by those wishing to exercise their right to do so, or it can remain sans activity if everyone chooses to be a nob-believer. Elegant logical thinking on the part of the authors.
Freedom from religion at the INDIVIDUAL level is not the same as "freedom from religion" at the SOCIETAL level. Had the Founding Fathers intended the latter, the wording would have been very different, as one might imagine. So to say that we already have "freedom from religion" is only partially correct.
OK, I said the foregoing to say the following. By allowing "freedom of religion," and by extension of its practice to the various spheres of everyday life, Non-Believers are not "Free from Religion" at all!! Religion creeps into every-day life ubiquitously! What are the Easter and Christmas and others Holidays all about? Why are American Citizens subjected to religious credos on U. S. Currency? Why the eradication of Native American "heathens" in the early years of U. S. History, in the name of "ministry."
Early U.S. capitalist thought, captured succinctly in the works of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, for example), explicitly captured the message that individual rational and normative thought, and not religious doctrine, was at the core of free market society, and true democracy. Religion was acknowledged as an individual freedom; however, following the normative logic of capitalist thought, it was not a societal mandate to worship nor a responsibility of the government to sustain it. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 36 | |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 11:16:45 AM |
but i'll be damned if i can find anywhere a line that reads "freedom of religion". my guess would be that you refer to the first amendment which is the only place the word "religion" can be found either in the body of articles or the amendments. here it is so you don't have to look it up.
I don't have to look it up, I've been studying this document for over 20 years as a business law professor. You're right, you won't find "freedom of religion" written explicitly in the Constitution, you will run across it many times in the heavy mass of documents establishing "Stare Decisis" in the area of court decisions dealing with religious freedom. Judicial Law, as opposed to statutory law, is an extension of the "wording" of the constitution, since we have to abide by their translation of the document.
we already have "freedom from religion". as an example. i believe in no religious doctrine. can't imagine being any more free from religion than that.
This might be purely due to semantics; however, I think that some folks might be confused by that statement -- a statement about religious freedom at the individual level. I'm glad that the writers of the constitution used the phrasing that they did because non-believers were protected as well as believers. They created an "empty field" of sorts by saying that Congress is to be hands-off when it comes to any citizens wanting to establish a religion or wising to worship in any way. The "empty field" can be built upon, by those wishing to exercise their right to do so, or it can remain sans activity if everyone chooses to be a nob-believer. Elegant logical thinking on the part of the authors.
Freedom from religion at the INDIVIDUAL level is not the same as "freedom from religion" at the SOCIETAL level. Had the Founding Fathers intended the latter, the wording would have been very different, as one might imagine. So to say that we already have "freedom from religion" is only partially correct.
OK, I said the foregoing to say the following. By allowing "freedom of religion," and by extension of its practice to the various spheres of everyday life, Non-Believers are not "Free from Religion" at all!! Religion creeps into every-day life ubiquitously! What are the Easter and Christmas and others Holidays all about? Why are American Citizens subjected to religious credos on U. S. Currency? Why the eradication of Native American "heathens" in the early years of U. S. History, in the name of "ministry."
Early U.S. capitalist thought, captured succinctly in the works of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, for example), explicitly captured the message that individual rational and normative thought, and not religious doctrine, was at the core of free market society, and true democracy. Religion was acknowledged as an individual freedom; however, following the normative logic of capitalist thought, it was not a societal mandate to worship nor a responsibility of the government to sustain it.
don't disagree at all with any of it. i referred to a phrase that does not exist in the constitution. were we talking about starre decisis my reply would have been entirely different. | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:11:08 PM | we need those laws to protect us from ourselves.
Correction - We need laws that protect people from other people, so in that sense, we need laws to protect us "from ourselves.
We also need laws to protect us from the lawmakers, to ensure that unscrupulous people can't distort government into their own private piggybank at our expense.
What we don't need is to be treated like children when we are fully grown adults; we are free moral agents capable of making decisions for ourselves as to just what is "for our own good." We think everybody else is stupid and needs laws to keep them from hurting themselves and therefore deny to ourselves the choice to do as we please in order to achieve "the greater good", but in doing so we have made ourselves the children others assume us to be because we have now lost the right to make our own decisions. Now we have to ask "Daddy" if we can have our allowance (benefits) that he doles out from our paper route, so we can go to HIS store to buy a popsicle and then go play.
"Daddy is pretty good. He protects us from ourselves and manages our paper route money for us so we don't squander it and he's nice enough to give us a bit of it back so we can spend it in his store. I sure love Daddy...Don't you?...I love him so much that I don't b¡tch about the fact that he keeps most of the money from my paper route and uses it to expand his business and always seems to be broke when I want to buy something neat in a store he doesn't own. Daddy's a businessman and will someday own all those stores. When he does, I'm sure he'll lend me the money to go & buy something expensive & neat in one of them if I really want it. So why don't you love Daddy?"
Well kid, I can't explain it to you in a way you'd understand until you grow up and that obviously won't be for a long time, but don't worry about it, you have a lot of time for stuff like that, after all you're only 40 years old and have a lot of growing up to do yet.  | |
|
| |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:51:37 PM | In some ways, we are not free enough. In particular, we are not free to do whatever we please in our own homes if that includes harmless drugs such as pot, and in many states we are not free to marry whomever we please.
In other ways, we are too free. In particular, we are free to drive in ways that endanger the lives of others with minimal consequences (eg driving 100 MPH in a 45 MPH zone and only getting a ticket. Such a driver should not only lose their licence, but also do jail time.)
As for the "lack of productivity" mentioned by the OP, productivity is overrated. The purpose of lfe is to enjoy life, productivity is merely one of many means to that end.
(The "Protestant Work Ethic" is the most bogus philosophy ever invented!) | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 1:05:06 PM |
have a lot of beliefs but beliefs are like the winds, they can change direction in a heartbeat.
We never would have discovered the world was round until we first noticed that it wasn't as flat as we thought.
Never stop questioning things; that's the only way we really learn anything at all. | |
|
| |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/3/2009 9:39:28 PM | I wrote this amusing bit a few years ago...enjoy.
FREEDOM OF INSPIRATION
It may seem on the surface level that I'm referring to a freedom associated with stimulating the mind to a high level of mental activity. In fact, the title of this page has an unwanted psychological effect. Inspiration, among other meanings, means the act of drawing in air, or simply - breathing. Those of you that have taken some Latin already know this simple fact. Those of you that don't believe me can refer to a standard English language dictionary.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees U.S. citizens freedom of speech. It may appear that freedom of inspiration and freedom of speech are not related, but they are almost precisely the same thing. All people, everywhere, are allowed to breathe freely. There are no restrictions on the amount and type of breathing that one may engage in. If, for instance, one wishes to breathe underwater (without any type of SCUBA - self contained underwater breathing apparatus), one may do so. However, there is a penalty for breathing in certain places, such as underwater. Just like one may breathe anywhere, one may talk anywhere.
Freedom of speech is precisely that. We all have complete freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Just like there is a penalty for breathing in certain places, there is a penalty for talking in certain places and times, and saying certain things. The freedom can not be violated and anyone that thinks otherwise needs to remember their place in things. Freedom of speech not only applies to YOU, but to everyone else. If someone decides they don't like what you are saying on TV and cuts you off, your freedom of speech has not been violated. Remember - we all have freedom
of speech. Even the censors. If someone censors your words, they are merely exercising their freedom of speech.
So, there are 2 main types of freedom of speech...
1. Freedom, but with penalty.
2. Freedom - with no penalty.
The first type of freedom is the one that we, along with the rest of life, experience. It is the same in every country. Whether one lives in North Korea, Cambodia, Russia, or the United States, the freedom of speech is precisely the same - the kind that has a penalty. To explicitly state that Americans have freedom of speech is no different than stating that we have freedom of breathing. This type of freedom is not an illusion, as one may suspect, although it is deceptively contradictive. The second type of freedom, actually, is the illusion.
In order to realize the second type of freedom, humans would need to form a single mind or live in isolation, singly. Neither situation is palatable nor allows life to flourish; thus, freedom must carry a penalty.
The seemingly contradictory nature of freedom is so problematic that the definition ought to be heavily modified. But this is reality, not an illusion. | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:15:05 AM | De Sade was a libertine. He was a truly demented and gifted man. In a way he was a man of his time...the extreme of the enlightenment. "Know they self" Delphi commands us and de Sade knew that the self is bound only bound to what it seeks. What de Sade did not understand was that the very idea of responsibility is rooted in the self and is also something that is sought...the desire of meaning and the pretension that it is rooted in our relations. Thus we have the social animal. This bundle of contradictory desires and motives that seeks balance and fulfillment but nonetheless finds a fault. A crack in the mirror if you will. Even de Sade loved his wife.
I begin my post as such to highlight some of the issues that are tied to the relations of the self and the relations of society.
A libertine is one who is rich and believes they have the right to what they will. I say rich because the poor cannot do so. They are tied to the stigmatisms of society and are not able to do what they will. De Sade believed that it was 'his right' to whip and beat prostitutes because they were 'only street-walkers'. The term carries to this day. The poor do what they see as a necessity; the rich do has they see fit. That is libertine.
If we are to restrict 'freedoms' in society I suggest we begin with the upper-class and move down. The upper-class is far more detrimental to society than the poor. I would rather see a lazy dope addict (who cannot be lazy because they are 'working always for their next fix') than some board member who is running a cost-benefit analysis to see if a correction in their product that will harm human society is worth the money. The real threat is not the drug pushers but the people who do not want to clean up toxic waste for example. THE REAL THREAT TO FREEDOM IS NOT PEOPLE SITTING AT HOME DOING NOTHING BUT THOSE THAT MUST MAKE DECISIONS THAT PUTS HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AT RISK. One harms thei rself and maybe their loved ones while the others potentially harms whole communities. How much damage can a dope head do compared to say members of Enron and the board of Wal-Mart? To be a libertine or to be free is not a question of the American people, but a question of a select few.
This is not to say their (the rich) every move should be monitered however. I believe in human capability to reason even though history has yet to prove that assertion true. Most people I find though are good people and when they make bad decisions they do so honestly and out of ignorance no matter what level of education they have.
In any case wealth flows upwards and very little trickles downwards. McDonald's is the pefrect example. They make pennies from each order from their dollar menu but they are a billion dollar company. Those that work for them make very little of that billions of dollars. The poor have a choice of working for poverty or illegally doing things to make them middle-class. Sometimes it pays for their schooling, getting an education...for them which is the better choice. A way out or stuck in their feeble struggling existence that is always strampled on by people who believe they are the cause of society's ways rather than the product of society's ways.
In this diatribe of mine please understand I am not a communist, socialist, anarachist, or a capitalist. I am none of those things. I simply want to qualify the posts. The subject of freedom is a touchy subject. Heideger once defined freedom has not freedom from but freedom to. My only question to this post, and I think it is most important to ask, what of this freedom to. Is it truly different compared to freedom from? Which has the world in general and Western Society chose? Is libertine freedom to while freedom from is Montesquieu? At what point should I no longer make my decisions? Should I die in a hospital or chose to die at home yet deemed mentally unfit to make that decision? Can I smoke dope? Does it matter or should it matter? If corporations are treated legally as a person should they not carry the same penalities, (the death peanlty for the taking of innocent lives)? Should fundraisers for politicians be not allowed alchol because some of the attendees will drive home drunk? Should not the politicians be held responsible if someone is maimed or killed by an attendee of their fundraiser just like a bar? Of course maybe Frank Sinara had it right when he sung 'My Way;
I did what I had to do
And saw it through
without exemption
...
For what is a man
What has he got
If not himself
Then he has naught | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/4/2009 1:51:33 PM | In this diatribe of mine please understand I am not a communist, socialist, anarachist, or a capitalist. I am none of those things.
No you aren't...You are a thinking, rational and compassionate man wondering how things that might have been so right have gone so terribly wrong for so many thousands of years. You are hearing the voice in your heart and listening to it.
Right now, you are but a lowly powerless neutron banging your head against atoms. But with every little bang you send out more of you; maybe only a couple, but more.
I ask you what will be the inevitable result?
If you have the courage to keep banging your head, just remember what Gandhi said and the world will be just fine in a flash:
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
You may just be a lowly little neutron right now, but I'll tell you the truth; there is no power on Earth that can stand in your way.
Have a couple on me & relax; with people like you in the world, it's gonna be just fine!  | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 45 | |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/4/2009 8:29:50 PM |
well Ducky, all I do know for a fact is that the older I get, the less I know and the more I have to learn about everything.....
now that is the definition of true, deep intelligence. amuzing how few "educated" people understand that. well said. | |
|
| |
| |
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/5/2009 8:10:11 PM | the only difference the drugs are around now and they were not widely available then or people would have been doing them
False assumption. In point of fact drugs were far more plentiful then. Weed, peyote, opium, morning glory seeds...the list goes on. And it wasn't just the odd guy doing them; opium was a major problem in england that had to "dealt with" because too much of the upper & upper middle class was doing it. Morphine addiction was rampant after the first world war and provided a very lucrative business for some people who didn't mind profiting from the suffering of others.
So I'd say drugs are not the issue except to note that they were made illegal for no other reason than the profit differential between freely available, legal drugs and "forbidden drugs" whose markup is in the stratosphere. That is the essential difference between drugs then and now. It didn't hurt Dupont to have Hemp taken off the market either - hence "Reefer Madness" (check it out - pretty funny) which was released about the time marijuana was made horribly illegal almost coincidentally with Dupont's release of nylon.
I don't think you can look to drug use as a major difference. In point of fact, until the 1930s you were free to grow "grass" in your yard; until about 1913? heroine was sold in drugstores as a "remedy" for head & other aches, and Coca Cola really was the pause that refreshed because it contained cocaine. In terms of drugs, you had an order of magnitude more freedom then than now. | |
|
| Do you believe that our world here in North America is too free?
Posted: 8/5/2009 8:22:27 PM |
In terms of drugs, you had an order of magnitude more freedom then than now.
Damn!! Just one more reason for me to wish I had lived a hundred years or more earlier. It's too bad backwards time travel is impossible because if it weren't I would head back there somewhere and never look back....or forward.  | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
