"Those who would give up essential Liberty..."

[Tipsy]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."

This, of course, is the incredibly overused quote of Benjamin Franklin that has been used quite a few times in our history whenever the government takes away a freedom. The question I pose to you is, for you, what exactly would you consider your 'essential Liberty.' Gun control? Warrantless wiretapping? Welfare (taxes supporting financial security of others), National Health Care? The list goes on.

I myself have been moving towards support of smaller and smaller government with what I have studying and through conversations/debates with people in college with me over the last year. Of those listed I listed, I'm pretty much against (or wanting massive reforms of) of the ones I listed with the exception of some very minor limitations on gun control. I'll probably explain my reasoning in coming posts, but I'd like to know what your stances are on your 'essential Liberties.'

 

[B~E]

My essential liberties? Freedom of expression, thoughts and belief. That is, the freedom to question and criticize you goal, culture and society, in order to be able to accuratly chose your own finality and design.
I'm also expecting the State to support me just enough for me to be able to achieve whatever educational level my own abilities will allow me. In other word, I want a welfare state strong enough for me to achieve a place in society according to my talents and skills, whatever my original social condition was. I want an upward, mobile society, a true meritocracy, and it is the State's job to provide and assure that.

As for the rest, gun control and wiretaping, I'm not feeling involved enough to care. But for discussion's sake, I'll say that the government can involve in the people's life as long as it doesn't interfere with their decisions. And wiretaping and gun control is not supposed to prevent you from criticizing and questioning your own society. Because we have enough institutions that can be used to change things aroung, such as free press, the Internet, universities, mass protests and all sort of riots, peaceful or otherwise. So we dont need armed militia composed of crazed, ignorant lunatics, nor shady, coward conspirators gathering is secrecy.

 

[KCspdracer]

re

All of the above. Gun control for one. State constitutions also give rights of the people to own guns. Gun control just means that law abiding citizens are punished. Gun control does not mean fewer guns on the street or less killings with them.

Income tax, the 16th amendment was never officialy ratified. It is a 90 year old lie.

Driving is a privilage not a right. The Constitution and state constitutions give the people the "right of travel" or "freedom of movement." The Supreme Court has upheld that on several occasions.

Sobriety checkpoints. What happened to the 4th ammendment where you need probably cause?

Warrantless wiretapping. See above. And it's not just suspected terrorists by the way. It's everybody! You make a call to overseas they tap in.

Protests. You dont need a permit to protest. It is your right to "peaceably assemble and a redress of grievences against the government."

Free speech zones. This whole country is a free speech zone.

Patriot Act. DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THAT!

 

[AZN_FLEA]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."

This, of course, is the incredibly overused quote of Benjamin Franklin that has been used quite a few times in our history whenever the government takes away a freedom. The question I pose to you is, for you, what exactly would you consider your 'essential Liberty.' Gun control? Warrantless wiretapping? Welfare (taxes supporting financial security of others), National Health Care? The list goes on.

I myself have been moving towards support of smaller and smaller government with what I have studying and through conversations/debates with people in college with me over the last year. Of those listed I listed, I'm pretty much against (or wanting massive reforms of) of the ones I listed with the exception of some very minor limitations on gun control. I'll probably explain my reasoning in coming posts, but I'd like to know what your stances are on your 'essential Liberties.'

wtf...the quote has been used whenever the government takes away freedom?? have the people considered the second part of the quote? the temporary security bit. government has the right to take away liberties as long as they dont infringe upon the citizen's rights to defend themselves.

i consider essential liberties as: the power to defend oneself and communicate. gun control etc is an example of 'taking away essential liberty'. people have the right to defend themselves and gun control just means that people wont be able to defend themselves against criminals, who get guns regardless of gun control.

a smaller government would be much better than a bigger government. the government is essentially for the people. not people for the government. also, a smaller government wont be able to take away rights or freedom as freely so there would be less controversy.

 

[Laharl]

Gun control does not mean fewer guns on the street or less killings with them.

Actually, almost every country that has proper gun registry/control have less murders per capita (Per thousand people) than those which do not. If a citizen is truely 'law abiding' would they not mind a little bit more work to get that fire arm? Besides, why would anyone really need one anyways?

 

[KCspdracer]

re

Why does anyone need to drive a BMW instead of a Chevy? Gun control may work in those bleeding heart liberal countries but in this country. It has shown not to work.

 

[Laharl]

Oh, so now it's bad for a country to pass laws which are, quite honestly, common sense in order to protect it's citisens? In a country with proper and ENFORCED law registry/control, how is a law abiding citisen harmed? And why would one want a gun anyways? They're meant to kill, and that's about it.

 

[Lights]

It's a tough balance. If the government does things a little shady, in the name of security, and people find out about it, they freak out and begin shouting about liberty and privacy. But then when an attack actually happens, those same people are marching down the streets waving signs and crying about how the government fails to protect them.

It's virtually impossible for everyone to be happy. Does the government do anything it can to save lives or does it do the minimum and put lives at greater risk? But, if we begin giving away all our rights and freedoms in the name of security, where does that even lead us? At what point do we stop being free?


In my opinion, I believe in the unalienable rights and that the government's job is to protect them. And I believe Life is the single most important - the right to Life supersedes the others, and the government's ultimate goal is to ensure the safety of its citizens. While I cannot condone illegal wiretapping or 'secret' prisons, at the same time, how harsh can you criticize such acts if they have the ability to stop another 9/11 from occuring?

In this day and age, there are things that must be done to ensure safety. I do not advocate giving the government a free pass to do whatever they want, but at the same time you have to keep in mind the things they do are genuinely for the greater good (supposedly, at least). I won't sit here and try to draw the lines of what I think should or should not be allowed, but there are concessions that we might not be entirely comfortable with (see: "omg 3 hour wait at the airport!") needing to be made to make sure we aren't at risk.


Anyway, I know I didn't answer the question and pretty much stated the obvious, but people need to understand this isn't an open and shut kind of thing. It's really situational, almost. But two things I can say without question to be "essential" would be Life and Freedom of Speech. If you lose either of those (and there are some others), you cannot call yourself a free man.

I for one do not like big government at all, but I hate seeing people die when they could have been saved even more.

 

[Tipsy]

Oh, so now it's bad for a country to pass laws which are, quite honestly, common sense in order to protect it's citisens? In a country with proper and ENFORCED law registry/control, how is a law abiding citisen harmed? And why would one want a gun anyways? They're meant to kill, and that's about it.

Freedom.

I hate guns. I don't like shooting them, I don't like being around them, I don't even like being around police officers that carry guns. That being said, law abiding citizens are harmed by having one of their individual liberties removed.

As for what does gun control do?

Because we have enough institutions that can be used to change things aroung, such as free press, the Internet, universities, mass protests and all sort of riots, peaceful or otherwise. So we dont need armed militia composed of crazed, ignorant lunatics, nor shady, coward conspirators gathering is secrecy.

Perhaps in an idealistic world, but the situation around you can be changed forever in an instant. As always brought up with terrorists though, one man's lunatic is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Dw-Riot]

Why does anyone need to drive a BMW instead of a Chevy? Gun control may work in those bleeding heart liberal countries but in this country. It has shown not to work.

People have misunderstood gun control for years. The idea of gun control is to track as many weapons as possible. If we could have %100 effective gun control, then we could just as easily monitor all of the drug use and trafficking across and within our borders. When you take a look at gang violence, those guns are not registered and not traceable. There are literally millions of guns in the US that have no serial number, or that are not owned by the original registree. But if we had no gun control, then it would be impossible to tell who owned what and whether or not this guy in my pawn shop who wants a Glock 19 is a convicted criminal of armed robbery. Gun control is effective because it slows down the process of legally obtaining a firearm and can aid in the restriction of firearms of citizens undeserving of them.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

I don't beleive in essentail liberties. I beleive in the stability of a country who uses liberties to placate and otherwise unruly mob of people who beleive themselves to be worth more than they actualy are. The idea that anyone has rights is only a political move to bring people to it's support. The United States has only used the terms of liberty and rights so that it's people would rally to it's side, something which essentialy was abused in it's revolution against the British, simply so the rich in power didn't have to pay taxes.
What rights you have is given to you, and quite frankly, can be taken away if it is necissary. Do not be so quick to think everything will stay the way it is forever. Eventualy somethign will and may happen to throw the wester culture upside down, and we see everyhting which we beleived to be lost in the struggle for power and survival. Mankind in it's inner most ideals is nothing but a viscious beast, and needs to be lead by those who are enlightened.
I beleive that any rights given to you should be cherished, and over extension of these "rights" have been abused. Even the mass of people search for more power in the forms of "rights" and "liberties" in which they may exploit the government into supporting.

 

[Tipsy]

I don't beleive in essentail liberties. I beleive in the stability of a country who uses liberties to placate and otherwise unruly mob of people who beleive themselves to be worth more than they actualy are. The idea that anyone has rights is only a political move to bring people to it's support. The United States has only used the terms of liberty and rights so that it's people would rally to it's side, something which essentialy was abused in it's revolution against the British, simply so the rich in power didn't have to pay taxes.

It's actually quite a lot more than that. The actual greviances against the British were spelled out and it was a lot more than economic reasons:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

...

The rest can be seen here.

There are many reasons that were specifically stated in the Declaration of Independance and those that the colonists petitioned about over years before that. Money is nowhere close to as important as you make it seem to be our rebellion.

What rights you have is given to you, and quite frankly, can be taken away if it is necissary. Do not be so quick to think everything will stay the way it is forever. Eventualy somethign will and may happen to throw the wester culture upside down, and we see everyhting which we beleived to be lost in the struggle for power and survival. Mankind in it's inner most ideals is nothing but a viscious beast, and needs to be lead by those who are enlightened.

In the case of the United States, our 'rights' are rights - they cannot be taken away:

Gun control is effective because it slows down the process of legally obtaining a firearm and can aid in the restriction of firearms of citizens undeserving of them.

That's gun registry rather than control. Control is making something like, as an example, a ban on automatic weapons.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

You obviously over see the fact that your refering to your essential rights as being given on a piece of paper. It's all well and good when things are stable. things go down the shitter, shit starts flying, paper isn't sturdy. Your "rights" are given to you, that is all. As soon as the American empire collapses, you'll find that 200+ year old declarations of rights and freedom don't necissarily hold up.

 

[Tipsy]

You obviously over see the fact that your refering to your essential rights as being given on a piece of paper. It's all well and good when things are stable. things go down the shitter, shit starts flying, paper isn't sturdy. Your "rights" are given to you, that is all. As soon as the American empire collapses, you'll find that 200+ year old declarations of rights and freedom don't necissarily hold up.

If you want to go deeper than that, sure. As pointed out in the preamble of the Bill of Rights I just gave, it does not give a single right, it acknowledges their existence. Paper can burn, people can die, but ideas will live on.

They may not necessarily hold up in securing our rights, but it does hold up in terms of us having rights. I responded to B~E earlier with this: "Perhaps in an idealistic world, but the situation around you can be changed forever in an instant. As always brought up with terrorists though, one man's lunatic is another man's freedom fighter." Tomorrow it could be criminal to exercise my rights; yet those criminal acts are still my rights. Among these I believe is my right to rebel against an illegitimate government, one which does not allow me to exercise my rights, a right which it is my civic duty to exercise.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

How very American to beleive that ideas will live on

 

[Tempest Storm]

So we dont need armed militia composed of crazed, ignorant lunatics,

You take the guns from the populas, you leave them wide open to oppression.

Taking away our guns, in and of itself is oppression and a fundamental loss of rights. And if you trust the government enough to let them be the only ones with guns, then I just don't know what I can tell you.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Oh, so now it's bad for a country to pass laws which are, quite honestly, common sense in order to protect it's citisens? In a country with proper and ENFORCED law registry/control,

Registering guns is a step away from seizing them. It lets the government know who the little old ladies are with .38 revolvers in their purses to keep from being mugged, and people like me who they will want to use on people like me.

Plus, it is our right to own guns. By forcing registry of all guns, they criminalize guns owned outside of the registry which in unconstitutional. We get to own guns, period, not on the government's terms.

 

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

republican, democrat, conservative, liberal. it basically stands for the opposite of wut our country is supposed to be. your supposed to vote for who you think would be best fit to run this country, not whos in your favorite party. and as for all that wire tapping, its the CIA they can do wut they want, according to them they were only wire tapping suspected terrorists. its not like your talking to grandma and the government is listening. unless your last name is bin laden, u own a construction bussiness in saudi arabia, migrated to the US from afgahnistan and make frequent calls to the same person tlaking about bombs. i dont think theyre gonna listen to your conversations. if just one of their laws prevents another 9/11 then im all for it, which it already has stopped a plot to bomb (i forget, some bridge, theres to many to keep track of).

 

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

Registering guns is a step away from seizing them. It lets the government know who the little old ladies are with .38 revolvers in their purses to keep from being mugged, and people like me who they will want to use on people like me.

Plus, it is our right to own guns. By forcing registry of all guns, they criminalize guns owned outside of the registry which in unconstitutional. We get to own guns, period, not on the government's terms.

no we have the right to bear arms. theyre not saying you cant do it u just need to liscense it. and if ur denied the right to liscense it, they have a good reason, would you like another jeffery dommer running around with a gun.

 

[TheJanitor]

You take the guns from the populas, you leave them wide open to oppression.

Oppression from what?

Taking away our guns, in and of itself is oppression and a fundamental loss of rights. And if you trust the government enough to let them be the only ones with guns, then I just don't know what I can tell you.

because you're going to have a civil war with the government? The politicians are going to come after you with Uzis and kill you?