Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Jeremiah65

Why are you not really free?

39 posts in this topic

Well here we go

Why are you not free? Is it because you are willing to give away freedom to have security? Is it because someone tells you that you must behave a certain way? Is it because of government regulations?….Regulations that…apparently at times…are written just for something to do to justify a political position?

I am tired of not being free. I am not going to hurt anyone but I want to be free. I want to know that if I choose to do so…I can drink a pint and relish endless streams of porn. If I choose, I can smoke something and play X-box till midnight. If I choose, I can import rare woods and hand carve trinkets and utilitarian items.

It’s called freedom. I do not understand what some folks consider as freedom. They have became so programmed they think the socially acdeptable rhetoric = freedom…and that is NOT true.

All I want is freedom…I promise I won’t hurt anyone. Just let me…be me. Stop setting the “socially acceptable” bar….I do not care what my neighbor thinks.

I can see an absolute tirade about what is socially acceptable...blah-blah-blah. I am not an enemy of the state...or an enemy of society. I want nothing more than what our founding documents says I should have...but we have violations of those all the time...and people just ignore it....why are you not free? Maybe...look in the nirror....that is why we are not free....because of you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can never be free, it was just a dream reality is setting in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we not really free? Because we don't know any better. Socialism has crept into our society so slowly over the last century or so that we can't comprehend how our Founding Fathers lived.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at your profile to see if you had put your age there. I was astonished to see that you are 47. 47 and you still don't know why using up rare wood/trees and supporting the porn industry are not good ideas?

What are your thoughts on encroaching upon other peoples' freedom if it gets in the way of your freedom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't free. We engage in a social contract with our government that strips away some freedom for security purposes. And we all like it this way. I don't kill people. My neighbors should not kill people. The military and police protect us. Schools let us all live in an educated world. We pay taxes for all these luxuries. They punish those who wrong. This is the foundation of almost all government.

People like you forget how much the government gives you. Those are luxuries. Not requirements.

The problem is when the government does things that limit our freedom and say its for security. And its really just unhealthy paranoia.

Another problem lies when officials treat governments as businesses and see the citizens as customers.

We don't want freedom. You don't want real freedom. You want to sit around at night and smoke pot and play video games. You can. No one is stopping you. I mean be prepared to deal with the legal repercussions if your smoking illegally. But you can.

This is more of a rant of social conventions then about the government.

Edited by Kazoo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We engage in a social contract with our government that strips away some freedom for security purposes.

Hmm... I never signed a contract...

Edited by tapirmusic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... I never signed a contract...

Thats because you are already protected when you are born. As the price of protecting you from the evils of the world and a hospital to come into existence safely on you are forced into the contract.

I'm so sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we not really free? Because we don't know any better. Socialism has crept into our society so slowly over the last century or so that we can't comprehend how our Founding Fathers lived.

Well how the Founding Fathers lived was with slaves and genocide. So your form of socialism, which doesn't match how the rest of the world views it, isn't that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well how the Founding Fathers lived was with slaves and genocide. So your form of socialism, which doesn't match how the rest of the world views it, isn't that bad.

A gilded cage is still a cage no matter how benevolent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All forms of government are cages. It's the nature of the beast. Socialism is no different from any other political theory in that regard. Well except for anarchy of course. And I'll take a glided cage over Somalia any day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All forms of government are cages. It's the nature of the beast. Socialism is no different from any other political theory in that regard. Well except for anarchy of course. And I'll take a glided cage over Somalia any day.

I'll take the Constitution any day. The point of the Constitution is to blow the door off of the cage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take the Constitution any day. The point of the Constitution is to blow the door off of the cage.

We need to blow the door off the cage!

Now what rules and regulations can we use to accomplish this task........

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the Constitution is to blow the door off of the cage.

No, the point of the Constitution is the provide the framework for government.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom to me can be broken into three principles:

1. freedom to vote

2. freedom to speak, write or express ones self

3. freedom to engage in a free market (as long as it doesn't interfere in the physical or personal property of another individual)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take the Constitution any day. The point of the Constitution is to blow the door off of the cage.

Hahahaha...no. It replaced a British monarchy with an American republic. One system of government for another one. A glided cage for a glided cage as you say.

And as we've discussed in other threads the Constitution had no comment at all about socialism...because socialism as a political viewpoint was brand new and wasn't in practice. If you had asked the Founding Fathers their thoughts on socialism they would have just given you odd looks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the point of the Constitution is the provide the framework for government.

And that framework blows the door off the cage of socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahaha...no. It replaced a British monarchy with an American republic. One system of government for another one. A glided cage for a glided cage as you say.

Not exactly. A Republic prevents enslavement in that gilded cage. It is still a government but we can freely move in and out of that cage door. We can’t do that under Socialism or it becomes harder to do. Socialism is an illusion of freedom.

In India, they train young elephants to not wander off by chaining them up for weeks wrestling with trying to break free until they accept their enslavement. The trainer can then control the elephant by leaving a chain anklet on its leg. A gilded cage accomplished the same thing. Humans are more intelligent than that.

And as we've discussed in other threads the Constitution had no comment at all about socialism...because socialism as a political viewpoint was brand new and wasn't in practice. If you had asked the Founding Fathers their thoughts on socialism they would have just given you odd looks.

Yes we have. You haven’t learned then and you haven’t learned now. If you are expecting the Constitution to specifically comment about Socialism, you’ll never find it. But what you will also not see is it commenting on Democracy. Democracy is a form of Socialism. Yes, the term “Socialism” was new but it was just a new version of the old concept of Oligarchy. You have to consider the body of work from the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, and even the individual letters of the Founding Fathers to understand that our Republic is the opposite of Socialism. Granted, most people today don’t understand what a Republic is because we’ve always have lived with Socialism to one degree or another. It takes courage or even just imagination to step above Socialism to live the way our Founding Fathers intended us to live, free from government infringement.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't free. We engage in a social contract with our government that strips away some freedom for security purposes. And we all like it this way. I don't kill people. My neighbors should not kill people. The military and police protect us. Schools let us all live in an educated world. We pay taxes for all these luxuries. They punish those who wrong. This is the foundation of almost all government.

People like you forget how much the government gives you. Those are luxuries. Not requirements.

The problem is when the government does things that limit our freedom and say its for security. And its really just unhealthy paranoia.

Another problem lies when officials treat governments as businesses and see the citizens as customers.

We don't want freedom. You don't want real freedom. You want to sit around at night and smoke pot and play video games. You can. No one is stopping you. I mean be prepared to deal with the legal repercussions if your smoking illegally. But you can.

This is more of a rant of social conventions then about the government.

Speak for yourself. Freedom is the only thing I want from the federal government.

The government doesnt give me anything. All they do is take, take and take some more. Then they waste what they take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. A Republic prevents enslavement in that gilded cage. It is still a government but we can freely move in and out of that cage door. We can’t do that under Socialism or it becomes harder to do. Socialism is an illusion of freedom.

In India, they train young elephants to not wander off by chaining them up for weeks wrestling with trying to break free until they accept their enslavement. The trainer can then control the elephant by leaving a chain anklet on its leg. A gilded cage accomplished the same thing. Humans are more intelligent than that.

Every Western government proves that statement to be false. You think that America democracy is freedom but Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Irish, British, and European democracy is slavery? No. Reality proves that this is not the case. Hell with your two party system Americans tend to have less freedom of choice than those "evil" socialist states.

Yes we have. You haven’t learned then and you haven’t learned now. If you are expecting the Constitution to specifically comment about Socialism, you’ll never find it. But what you will also not see is it commenting on Democracy. Democracy is a form of Socialism. Yes, the term “Socialism” was new but it was just a new version of the old concept of Oligarchy. You have to consider the body of work from the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, and even the individual letters of the Founding Fathers to understand that our Republic is the opposite of Socialism. Granted, most people today don’t understand what a Republic is because we’ve always have lived with Socialism to one degree or another. It takes courage or even just imagination to step above Socialism to live the way our Founding Fathers intended us to live, free from government infringement.

And likewise you flatly refuse to see that that your personal definition of socialism is wrong. Just taking a glace outside your own borders would show you this but you refuse to see functioning reality. Socialism does not equal oligarchy. They are two terms are not interchangeable. Yes a country can be an oligarchy and be socialist but so too can a country be an oligarchy and a republic. I mean just looking up the definitions of these words would show you that. What the Founding Fathers were stepping away from was monarchy, not socialism. They didn't give a damn about socialism one way or another. They just didn't want a foreign king telling them what to do, though they did toy with having an American king for a while. Repeating the myth you've creating will not make it true.

Hell the argument could be made that the Founding Fathers set up an oligarchy. After all only rich, white, protestant males had any real hope of holding any kind of power. The poor were too busy working, women were too busy in the kitchen, other religions couldn't be trusted, blacks were slaves, and the Natives were busy with the whole genocide thing. The first five presidents were all Founding Fathers. So you had a small group of people running the government, which fits in with the definition of oligarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, we are free. We can come and go as we please. We can do as we please.

We can eat and smoke as we please, but we may be in violation of the law as we do so.

We can possess photos and other things as we please, but we may be in violation of the law by doing so.

We can associate with whom we please, and we can say as we please, but we may be in violation of the law by doing so.

So, are we humans, or are we dancers? :tu:

Are we free, or just in violation of some illegitimate law? :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at your profile to see if you had put your age there. I was astonished to see that you are 47. 47 and you still don't know why using up rare wood/trees and supporting the porn industry are not good ideas?

What are your thoughts on encroaching upon other peoples' freedom if it gets in the way of your freedom?

I was making an extreme point. Somewhat rhetorical and sarcastic at the same time. I'm not actually interested in those specific things, but I was illustrating the difference between real freedom and an illusory freedom that is imposed upon by others who believe their freedom is more important than yours....and yet others who are participating in this system and don't even realize it.

I personally believe people should be free to live life on their terms as long as their freedom does not impose upon or restrict the freedoms of another. Personal responsibility...what a concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't free.

Only when the government becomes too oppressive. If you are making that statement, you probably already accept that this government is too oppressive. To me, I can’t accept that as the new norm. It’s time for a change.

We engage in a social contract with our government that strips away some freedom for security purposes.

That’s not exactly true. Even though the two are usually wrapped up together, there is a difference between the Law and the Military. The government Establishes Justice and it Provides for the Common Defense. In-between is Insuring the Domestic Tranquility. If our government is operating properly, it doesn’t exchange freedom for security. Things like the Patriot Act don’t strip freedoms. The government’s primary function is not to infringe on our Rights (or to protect our Rights). That is why the Bill of Rights is there. But the other half of Rights is Responsibility, personal Responsibility. The two work hand-in-hand. This is why we have the inalienable Rights to do whatever we damn well please, but it is our Responsibility that governs (not the government) to what extent we carry that out. It is your Responsibility that keeps you from killing your neighbor. But when you exceed your Rights and renege on your Responsibilities, you then transgress the Law. If you are arrested under the Patriot Act, it is probably because you have reneged on your Responsibilities of not cohorting with terrorists. Oh, there could be errors but really very few. You see, Socialism has mingled in our Republic for so long now, that we can only consider such errors as the new norm of a police state. We have the totalitarian in our common experience to compare that to. That’s not how a Republic works. We have nothing else in our lives to compare it to (we’re it). “Where there is greatness, great government or power, even great feeling or compassion, error also is great. We progress and mature by fault.” This is not the striping of our freedoms for security, it is just the outcome of an imperfect system.

What you have to look at is the difference between say, traffic laws and Obamacare. The government *imposing* traffic laws isn’t infringement. It’s common sense guidelines to insure everyone is safe. During hard times, these laws don’t change because of budget problems. The bottom line of traffic laws is not money. With Obamacare, you give up the Rights to your own body and put it into the hands of the government that can dictate to you how you take care of your body because it controls the money and in hard times, you are subject to recessions, which means rationing. Since WWII we have already had some 12 recessions. Have we not learned that this is the reason that a government should not get into the business of Entitlements?!

Obamacare has finally arrived at my work. Open enrollment is just around the corner and I just received information packets on our new healthcare benefits. At a glance, it appears that we have two choices. One increases our individual deductible to $1000 (I rarely spend that much on healthcare – so I’m already screwed). And it forces you to establish a $500 health savings account (HSA) coming from your pre tax income but it also allows the usual flexible spending account (FSA). Why I don’t know, just more government bureaucracy. The other choice is if you don’t want the HSA and just use the FSA, then your deductible jumps to $3000. At those costs, it’s cheaper for me to go without and pay the tax fine. I definitely feel more manipulated than with the old insurance company. I can’t wait for 2014. There are going to be tons of class action suits against the government on Obamacare violating the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

And we all like it this way.

We do? You sell your soul and your freedom too easily. You (and others) are so concerned about how the NDAA strips our freedom, but you don’t see how much more is being taken away with Entitlements.

I don't kill people. My neighbors should not kill people. The military and police protect us. Schools let us all live in an educated world. We pay taxes for all these luxuries. They punish those who wrong.

This is the foundation of almost all government.

Yes that is the foundation (more or less) of all governments. The key is to what degree of control over the people the government has. At 0% (no government) at one end and 100% on the other. Socialism (among others) naturally creeps toward the 100%. The Constitution was designed to prevent that. Our Constitution is in dire need of the People to come to its rescue from those politicians trying to force Socialism upon us. I’ll grant you that they may consider it has good intentions, but socialism is deliberate. There is nothing good about it.

People like you forget how much the government gives you. Those are luxuries. Not requirements.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Sorry, I don’t forget. I know how government giving things is just another means of enslavement. Our government should never put itself in the position to take from the People.

The problem is when the government does things that limit our freedom and say its for security. And its really just unhealthy paranoia.

It’s not for security, try “safety net”. That’s where most of our freedoms go.

Another problem lies when officials treat governments as businesses and see the citizens as customers.

That’s incorrect. It’s when politicians see citizens as children that need to be nannied and they feel that they are the ones to see to it. This is called Munchausen’s by Proxy.

We don't want freedom. You don't want real freedom. You want to sit around at night and smoke pot and play video games. You can. No one is stopping you. I mean be prepared to deal with the legal repercussions if your smoking illegally. But you can.

Hello! Yes, he wants real freedom. But you are already imposing limits to his freedoms. I’m not a fan of drug use, but what he does in his own home is his business. Not yours not mine, and not the Government’s. Now if it affects his work, then that is between him and his employer, not you or the government. Obamacare is just the beginning to imposing itself into the home to regulate what people do as being healthy or not. Yes, we have an ever increasing problem with obesity and as the sense of Entitlements increase, so will obesity. Regulation in the home is not the solution but a change in mindset. That change can only come by weaning people off of Entitlements.

This is more of a rant of social conventions then about the government.

And the government has no place in social conventions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Western government proves that statement to be false. You think that America democracy is freedom but Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Irish, British, and European democracy is slavery? No. Reality proves that this is not the case. Hell with your two party system Americans tend to have less freedom of choice than those "evil" socialist states.

Is it outlawed to wear the hijab in France? What are the gun laws in England? Do Canadians come to this country for healthcare? How many governments in the world are made up of multi-party Parliaments that form coalitions and once they do that, they no longer represent the people but the state? I’ve visited Europe a few times. The last time was 2006 in Italy. That year, the Italian people were following the World Cup and the General Election. Italy won the World Cup and Prodi won the General. So you could say the Italians were worked up. Italy (and Europe over all) is a great place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there. The people were great. When we went to Germany and England, it was a canned tour type thing. Italy, we planed by ourselves and we got off the beaten path many times. We would interact with the common Italian (as best as we could) and we made friends everywhere we went. We’d sit at a street side trattoria and watch the tour guides walk by holding their brightly colored umbrellas over their heads (so people in the tour would not get lost). Each tour had its own color of umbrella. You could tell who the Americans were. We had a good laugh. Most Italians thought we were either German or Australian; we just didn’t fit the Ugly American image. I’m digressing but yes, for the time being, there is more freedom here. We are slowly losing it, becoming more like Europe. There has always been and when we show Obama the door, we will always have more freedom that these Socialist Democracies can ever dream. It’s not a matter of having many choices as it is recognizing what the choices are and their implications. Choosing is not a popularity contest. Unfortunately our last Presidential election was based only on that.

And likewise you flatly refuse to see that that your personal definition of socialism is wrong.

No it’s not. You just don’t understand what I’m saying. My personal definition is precisely correct. As I’ve stated many times, I use Socialism as a generic term because people understand it better than Oligarchy. It is not the differences between the various flavors; it is the similarity in totalitarianism that concerns me. The following clip could also be called “Governments 101”. It is a very simple definition just so that anybody can understand (even you).

Just taking a glace outside your own borders would show you this but you refuse to see functioning reality.

Where do you think I look? I’m somewhat a fan of Italian film. If you want to know the mindset and soul of a nation, watch its films. Italy seems to have a high number of escapism type movies, very similar to what we had before WWII. There are surprisingly many very good films. I see Socialism just dripping off these works. It’s quaint but it’s not for me. I’ll go there any time for a visit, but that’s all.

Socialism does not equal oligarchy. They are two terms are not interchangeable.

You’re just trying to play with terms to divert the focus. Technically, you could be right but for all practical purposes, they are interchangeable. And that is what this post is about.

Yes a country can be an oligarchy and be socialist but so too can a country be an oligarchy and a republic.

No. That is incorrect. That has been the point all along. A Republic cannot be an Oligarchy. That is the difference between the rule of one man and the rule of law.

I mean just looking up the definitions of these words would show you that.

And as I said, we could spend some time discussing the academic differences in the terms of the various flavors, but that is not the concern here. It is how they are all similar.

What the Founding Fathers were stepping away from was monarchy, not socialism.

They were stepping away from Oligarchy, tyrants, and totalitarian style rule. Socialism is just Monarchy but with the King removed.

They didn't give a damn about socialism one way or another. They just didn't want a foreign king telling them what to do, though they did toy with having an American king for a while. Repeating the myth you've creating will not make it true.

They knew about Socialism, they just didn’t call it that. What myth? You haven’t even shown it to be a myth.

Hell the argument could be made that the Founding Fathers set up an oligarchy.

One could make the argument but that would be the myth here. As was established, an Oligarchy cannot be a Republic.

After all only rich, white, protestant males had any real hope of holding any kind of power. The poor were too busy working, women were too busy in the kitchen, other religions couldn't be trusted, blacks were slaves, and the Natives were busy with the whole genocide thing. The first five presidents were all Founding Fathers. So you had a small group of people running the government, which fits in with the definition of oligarchy.

Well, again you may be technically correct but at the time, there were only rich white men that were in a position to rule. Like you said, they were toying around with the idea of setting up a Monarchy but they rejected it. A Monarchy would perfectly suit such a band of men but they rejected it. These men were the first in the Age of Enlightenment. You’re attributing things to them that they were breaking away from. This was a time where the world still considered certain types of conquered people as subhuman. Many of the Founding Fathers knew this to be wrong and it took time for that mindset to change. And because they setup a Republic, that change occurred. Every race, color, or creed that came to these shores had to struggle to find their niche. Some had a harder path than others but we all made it under the rule of law, not the rule of man. No one man or group of men made it for them, they built it for themselves. Yes, a few men made it possible, they led the way but it wasn’t exclusive to only rich white men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Canadians come to this country for healthcare?

Do 1.6 million Americans seek healthcare abroad?

Doubt you can find that many Canadians doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to be free, give lands back ti Native Americans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.