Saturday, March 27, 2010


I first saw this on Social Sense. I recommend it to you.

We are loosing our freedoms.

One by one they are being taken away, always "for the good of society as a whole."

That is exactly the same reason Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussilini, Joseph Stalin, Hugo Chavez and dozens of other despots gave for ridding their citizens of their freedoms.

At no time in history has taking away a freedom resulted in a good to society.

"What freedoms have we lost?" you ask.

They are in the hundreds, so I will not list them all, but here are a few:

You cannot drive without a seatbelt. ("But wearing seatbelts saves lives. It is for the good of society as a whole! " Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless it is a freedom you have lost.)

You cannot call people certain things. ("But it is hurtful to call people names." Maybe, maybe not. [Whatever hapened to 'sticks and stones...?"] Nevertheless, except for besmirching Christians and conservatives, that is a freedom you have lost.)

You cannot hug a child who is not yours on school grounds (indeed, not in most places). ("But there are so many perverts out there! This is for the good of society as a whole." Newsflash! One of the reasons many kids have developed anti-social behavior is because they have NOT been hugged. Kids NEED hugging. Society has NOT been served by the loss of this freedom.)

You cannot spank your child. ("But spanking children teaches them violence. This is for the good of society as a whole!" BULLHONKEY! The reason we have so many maladapted kids is exactly because we have become permissive by peer pressure, if not by law.)

You have lost the freedom of association. You may now be the subject of a government investigation simply because of the political, activist, or advocacy groups you are involved in, or the statements you make within these groups. ("But we can't have people hanging around groups that may advocate the overthrow of the government. This is for the good of the whole." How on earth do you think this country came into being? Did you think it was from some benign academics who sat around trying to come up with some viable govenment that could properly control the people? We held a WAR, for pity's sake! A WAR enabled us to come into being!)

So tell me. Can you:

Know that if you are extradited to another country, this is done only after due legal process?

Get on an airplane with a can of Coca Cola, or with some contact lens solution?

Buy a car using cash? (I tried that a few years of the most difficult things I have ever done.)

Know that your communications are secret, unless a judge explicitly allows them to be intercepted?

Get an on airplane anonymously?

Walk along the street unobserved by the authorities?

Sell your house and take out all my cash?

Carry a Swiss Army Knife everywhere?

Buy an LP, and play it on as many record players as you like. Forever?

Know that your communications will not be kept on file for years?

Buy an LP, and make a tape copy of it?

Own a gun without having it registered?

Voice your opinion in support of some freedom fighter group or other, without the risk of going to prison for “glorifying terrorism”?

Know that anyone who is forced to provide the authorities information against you can tell you about this without fear of prison?

Open a bank account without identifying yourself?

Smoke in your own office?

Bring your toolkit on an airplane?

Rent an airplane in 5 minutes, by just paying a pilot the hourly fee. In cash?

Phone people without the number being tracked?

Travel from, say, Dallas to Amsterdam without your details being tracked, and kept on file for up to 40 years, by at least one government (without me having the right to check the data and correct errors)?

Choose whether or not to carry health insurance?

All for the good of society as a whole.



Krystal said...

I understand what you're saying. We do need to protect our freedoms. The only time a person's freedoms should be restricted is when their freedoms infringe upon the freedom of another person.

Passing someone in the store and calling them a derrogatory name, while childish, is one thing. A person has the right to be a complete moron. It's another to follow them around the store calling them names and/or threatening them? This is harrassment. A person should be able to shop in peace.

Wanna smoke? I'll defend your right to do so until the day I die. However, I have the right to go into a public place and not choke on your smoke. Nevermind the whole "second hand smoke causes cancer" thing, smoke in the air makes it difficult to breath. Indisputable fact. I NEED to breath. Smokers don't NEED to smoke (smoked for YEARS and never smoked in a public place).

Wanna get stupid drunk? Fine. But don't drive. It infringes on the rights of others to live.

Wanna smoke pot? Hey, I'm all for the legalization of it. Just do it in your own home and don't drive or operate machinery while stone.

There are some restrictions that are needed for the general safety of everyone else (hey, you might like driving 70 ... but not while school's letting out). But the government has gone from common sense to plain stupidity! We also pay cash. Why should we have to explain to the government where it came from? If we choose to save it in a safe in our house, that's our business. People don't have to put every dime in the bank.

Joe said...

Krystal: I understand what you are saying, but consider whether or not it is a good idea for the FEDERAL government to handle these issues. Should there be a FEDERAL smoking ban? Should there be a FEDERAL seat belt law? Should there be a FEDERAL drunk driving law?

If so, why?

Tapline said...

Joe, you are so right on in your assessment of what should the government be regualting...I'll say Nothing that is personal with me and individual....Leave my individual rights alone andd stay out of my house.....It's my house and my money is my money,,,I worked for it leave it alone...I don't want to give it to my neighbor it's mine..If I wanted Too I would do it....I don't want the government to do it in my name......stay well....

Krystal said...

Joe, yes, I do believe that are some bans that should be federal. For example, following someone around saying, "Hey, nigger boy! You're no good!" should be federal as should following someone around saying, "Hey, white girl, I would so like to stick my ..." you get the point. But those are extreme cases. Everything else I listed should be determined by the states.

But we're thinking like responsible people. There should be some federal limits as to what you can do because of stupid people. I mean, just because you own the land, should you be able to dispose of hazzardous waste on site thereby contaminating everyone else's property and causing them harm? Should you be allowed to build a lab in your living room and work with chemicals that could not only blow up your house, but the houses around you?

Resonable people wouldn't do these things, and we are resonable people. But we do have to use laws to limit the selfish, inconsiderate, and the moronic for the safety and well being of those around them.

Or we could just shoot the selfish, inconsiderate and moronic. I'd be good with that plan of action as well.

Tom's Place said...

Too bad our Congresscritters have not read nor uphold the Constitution that they have sworn to abide to. If they had, a lot of this BS would never have been considered.

Joe said...

Krystal: There are two rules, which if followed, would preclude poluting other's land, etc.:

1) Do all you have agreed to do.

2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

Those should be no more than the correct way civilized human beings relate to each other. Sadly, too many people do neither.

David Wyatt said...

Good insight bro. Joe. Tapline, now that "healthcare" has passed, your "stay well" is even more timely!

Joe said...

Krystal: "Hey, nigger boy! You're no good!"

What qualifies that as a FEDERAL issue?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote this back in 1996:

1. Assert that their is a great danger to all of society

2. Assert an urgent need to action to avert the impending catastrophe

3. Posit the need for government to curtail dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.

4. Disdainfully dismiss arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.

ablur said...

If the responsible actually controlled the government then we wouldn't need 90% of the laws written.
Our founding fathers understood the need for moral and responsible people in order to keep this nation.
We as a voting people have failed to provide the key elements that all proper government should be made of. For too many years we seem to have sent the village idiot or town drunk to do our bidding in DC. It appears we got the government one would expect from such as these.

Stopthepresses2 said...

In case anyone doubts Obama’s push for socialism, we have compiled an ever growing list of his socialist action.