Frank Merton Posted February 23, 2015 #76 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The argument about nanny government trying to limit the size of the soft drink you can have is funny. If I want to I can walk into a hospital or pharmacy and buy almost any drug you can think of just by paying for it (at a tenth the cost of the same thing in the States). That is genuine freedom -- not controlled by the selfish interests of the drug companies and the medical profession. If what I am buying has dangers, the pharmacist will come out and we will have a conversation, but that is it. There are of course a few drugs (mainly suicidal things) that are genuinely difficult to get and require several such consultations, but nothing is completely illegal. I can say much the same thing about the education my child receives, or doesn't receive. No laws on the subject. Most people of course go to free state schools, but not always and there is nothing mandatory, and one can go to any school that will have you regardless of neighborhood or township or whatever. A similar pattern is present in item after item about my life -- where I work, where I live, who I marry, getting divorced, having an abortion, building buildings and starting businesses and so on. Where am I, then, living in Vietnam, then living in a non-free country? I can think of two possible answers, neither of which mean much in the end. One is that elections here are a ceremony with pre-decided outcomes (the party candidate wins). Well, in the States the party candidates win too. The difference is only in the number of parties, and neither party is free. One is controlled by trial lawyers and unions and welfare organizations, the other by corporate lawyers and corporations and religious conservatives and businesses. In both cases mainly lawyers (take a count of any state legislature and how many of the members are in the legal profession). The other is that here if I slander people I can go to jail. You can say true things about corruption in high places and those in the high places get removed, but if you can't prove it, you will be arrested. Of course this little detail is skipped by the western press. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Br Cornelius Posted February 23, 2015 #77 Share Posted February 23, 2015 We all look out from our gilded cages and never really see the bars. Its more than ironic that many people are so lacking in self awareness to not be able to see the prescribed limits to their imagined freedoms but they are quite capable of spotting other peoples constraints Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted February 23, 2015 #78 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) You are still putting words in my mouth, MW. Others here are able to read what I write and glean from those words my meaning, but you apparently can't. Or maybe you can but simply want to argue, so you represent the argument to be something I never stated. Regardless, I am done debating with you. You either cannot, or will not, understand what I say - and this is not a 'one-off' but has been reoccurring throughout years of membership here on UM. On occasion it has been pleasant conversing with you, and on occasion it has been entertaining, but mostly it has simply been frustrating - but thanks for the conversations anyway. NP I don't get frustrated, but I can understand the condition. My opinion is that when two peoples' world views are so divergent, they simply CANNOT understand the thought processes in the other's head or see how they come to a certain conclusion. I have read your words carefully. For me there is an inherent and irreconcilable problem in measuring the state of freedom objectively. We can tell objectively if some thing is a square because we can measure it, and a square is strictly defined But we cannot measure the state or condition of freedom because freedom has no defined and universally accepted parameters to compare with /against. non freedom All such parameters are subjective ones and may differ from one subject to another.. One man may be free while locked in a prison cell, while another is imprisoned and unfree despite having no obvious limits on his behaviour. Thus there IS no, and never can be, an objective state of freedom for anyone only subjective freedom. I just cant see, logically, how anyone could argue otherwise. Nonetheless this does not contradict another strongly held philosophical view of mine, that every human has free will because they can imagine any action and chose to act on that imagination without any physical constraint being able to prevent them In this regard every human is free But only as free as their imagination, knowledge, awareness and courage allows them to be As physical beings no one is free in the sense of being able to successfully achieve everything he can imagine and aim for. I am not free to live for ever, or more realistically to jump off a cliff without consequence, or not eat and stay healthy. And I I am not free in any one aspect/regard, then I am not free at all. Edited February 23, 2015 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Br Cornelius Posted February 23, 2015 #79 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Freedom in the absolute means no legal or moral constraints on your actions. That is the objective definition of Freedom. All forms of real freedom are constrained by laws and social moors. As has been pointed out there is no example of human society which allows absolute objective freedom, and its a good thing that there isn't as chaos would ensue. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted February 23, 2015 #80 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Freedom in the absolute means no legal or moral constraints on your actions. That is the objective definition of Freedom. All forms of real freedom are constrained by laws and social moors. As has been pointed out there is no example of human society which allows absolute objective freedom, and its a good thing that there isn't as chaos would ensue. Br Cornelius Pardon me but that is so clearly a subjective definition of freedom, and also a limited one. How does one assess objectively if a person has any constraints on their actions?. One cannot, because such constraints are subjective in nature. and if an entity cannot be objectively measured and assessed, then it, is not objective in nature. The condition of being free can no more be objective than the condition of being happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 23, 2015 #81 Share Posted February 23, 2015 My issue with what RavenHawk said was this... There is no system of government in which can be found "true freedom". Any system of government will introduce rules and limitations on behaviour, which cannot be said to be "true freedom". I agree with you when you speculated about having a "sense of freedom", but believing yourself to be free is not necessarily the same as actually being free. RavenHawk was trying to argue against certain forms of government - and in the context of what he said with respect to the US, 'big government'. But there is no evidence that society under 'big government' is any less 'free' than society under 'little government', because "true freedom" is an all-or-nothing proposition. Hence why I asked whether 'limited freedom' is really freedom. Leonardo , I didn't know what the debate was really about , till just now . I think the freedom was in the people .I think we were not suppose to have big corporations and bankers controlling our government , mainly because of their corruption. I would think that was evident in itself , of why it doesn't work out Then when I read some quotes from Jefferson I think that maybe they knew what was better for us , even then, especially then .I don't know of any other thing that would effect our freedom and liberty. "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." Thomas Jefferson "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Br Cornelius Posted February 23, 2015 #82 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Pardon me but that is so clearly a subjective definition of freedom, and also a limited one. How does one assess objectively if a person has any constraints on their actions?. One cannot, because such constraints are subjective in nature. and if an entity cannot be objectively measured and assessed, then it, is not objective in nature. The condition of being free can no more be objective than the condition of being happy. You didn't read what i said, which seems to be your problem. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted February 23, 2015 #83 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Leonardo , I didn't know what the debate was really about , till just now . I think the freedom was in the people .I think we were not suppose to have big corporations and bankers controlling our government , mainly because of their corruption. I would think that was evident in itself , of why it doesn't work out Then when I read some quotes from Jefferson I think that maybe they knew what was better for us , even then, especially then .I don't know of any other thing that would effect our freedom and liberty. "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." Thomas Jefferson "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson Jefferson and his fellow 'Founders' were idealists. Maybe they understood the reality of human society, but did they ever accept it? That truth is the majority of people are not "Thomas Jeffersons", but wish only to live an uncomplicated life protected from harm. You can only have the much obsessed about "small government" if the majority of people are "Thomas Jeffersons", who have the ethical discipline to live by their own principles, so the natural state of society is for "big government". While individuals might squeal and object to this, collectively they will follow whatever path leads them to "big government". That is reality. You might argue that people can be educated to become so disciplined that "small government" can be achieved. The contradiction of that is it would require "big government" to impress that education upon the population, and it would have to continue to do so as the demographic of a population is never static. "Small government" is a dream. A pleasant dream, perhaps, but it is only a dream that will never be reality except as a transitional state of an evolving society. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted February 23, 2015 #84 Share Posted February 23, 2015 We all look out from our gilded cages and never really see the bars. Its more than ironic that many people are so lacking in self awareness to not be able to see the prescribed limits to their imagined freedoms but they are quite capable of spotting other peoples constraints Br Cornelius What you say is no doubt very true. The implication you leave is that I don't see the constraints on my liberty, so I would appreciate you telling me about them. Not that there aren't limits on everyone's liberty, imposed by physics, morality, and the state, and my point was mainly that the States are not the bastion of liberty they think, even though they are relatively free. I just think where I am people are more free, mainly because lawyers are kept rare and without much work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbly_Dooright Posted February 23, 2015 #85 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I know what it was about , just thought it was hypercritical was all . Not that I want for people to be unhealthy, I don't .but that wasn't gonna fix them either . I wish everyone would eat and drink healthy . But knowing that the food industry is approved by the usda and what they actually approve , is extrememly hypercritical and in most cases knowingly unhealthy. I totally understand what you mean. That sometimes comes across to me too. I happen to see a statue of lady liberty today , was maybe about 6 or 7 ft. high ,I seen it after I poted about liberty which made me wonder, if maybe that was a little synchronistic . it made me reflect though ...you'de be surprised what people don't know about freedom and liberty , sheesh...it's sort of sad .And when people don't know , I think they are easily persuaded . That's what I think. I agree, and in my job, and I know you are fully aware, of the many different people I come across who should know the basics of everything, but don't...... and talk about it wrongly.................... with a straight face. Then they don't understand why I have a shocked face and I'm speechless. The argument about nanny government trying to limit the size of the soft drink you can have is funny. If I want to I can walk into a hospital or pharmacy and buy almost any drug you can think of just by paying for it (at a tenth the cost of the same thing in the States). That is genuine freedom -- not controlled by the selfish interests of the drug companies and the medical profession. If what I am buying has dangers, the pharmacist will come out and we will have a conversation, but that is it. There are of course a few drugs (mainly suicidal things) that are genuinely difficult to get and require several such consultations, but nothing is completely illegal. I can say much the same thing about the education my child receives, or doesn't receive. No laws on the subject. Most people of course go to free state schools, but not always and there is nothing mandatory, and one can go to any school that will have you regardless of neighborhood or township or whatever. A similar pattern is present in item after item about my life -- where I work, where I live, who I marry, getting divorced, having an abortion, building buildings and starting businesses and so on. Where am I, then, living in Vietnam, then living in a non-free country? I can think of two possible answers, neither of which mean much in the end. One is that elections here are a ceremony with pre-decided outcomes (the party candidate wins). Well, in the States the party candidates win too. The difference is only in the number of parties, and neither party is free. One is controlled by trial lawyers and unions and welfare organizations, the other by corporate lawyers and corporations and religious conservatives and businesses. In both cases mainly lawyers (take a count of any state legislature and how many of the members are in the legal profession). The other is that here if I slander people I can go to jail. You can say true things about corruption in high places and those in the high places get removed, but if you can't prove it, you will be arrested. Of course this little detail is skipped by the western press. Wow, I think this is very thought provoking for me. To coincide of your point in a pharmacy, there are city medicines I use to buy, by first pulling it off the shelf and then go to the registers to buy it. (I tend to have a problem with my sinuses.) Now, I have to go to the store's pharmacy to request it and then sign something and then buy it there. I still can get it, but have to do a little extra with what seems like getting 'permission' from someone else now. The reason is, that what I usually get, has ingredients that can be mixed into something more potent. For drug users. I'm thinking, 'are they protecting us, or nannying us?" (Yeah, I made up a word, thank you Stephen Colbert!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Br Cornelius Posted February 23, 2015 #86 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) What you say is no doubt very true. The implication you leave is that I don't see the constraints on my liberty, so I would appreciate you telling me about them. Not that there aren't limits on everyone's liberty, imposed by physics, morality, and the state, and my point was mainly that the States are not the bastion of liberty they think, even though they are relatively free. I just think where I am people are more free, mainly because lawyers are kept rare and without much work. I would not disagree with you. Freedom is defined and specific and most importantly relative. Is it better to be free to choose between a hundred models of cars and run the risk of dying from cancer for lack of affordable healthcare, or is it better to be assured that your health care will be handled because there is government support but at the cost of less consumer choice in general. Br Cornelius Edited February 23, 2015 by Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbly_Dooright Posted February 23, 2015 #87 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I would not disagree with you. Freedom is defined and specific and most importantly relative. Is it better to be free to choose between a hundred models of cars and run the risk of dying from cancer for lack of affordable healthcare, or is it better to be assured that your health care will be handled because there is government support but at the cost of less consumer choice in general. Br Cornelius This might show my inability to understand this, and I apologize, but so freedom in this thread is objective and it doesn't matter how you choose, your freedom to choose is better than what is provided for you no matter how wonderful it is? In the end, an individual's outlook on their own freedom is irrelevant, because freedom in the real world definition is still freedom. If not, I'll go get another cup of coffee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Br Cornelius Posted February 23, 2015 #88 Share Posted February 23, 2015 This might show my inability to understand this, and I apologize, but so freedom in this thread is objective and it doesn't matter how you choose, your freedom to choose is better than what is provided for you no matter how wonderful it is? In the end, an individual's outlook on their own freedom is irrelevant, because freedom in the real world definition is still freedom. If not, I'll go get another cup of coffee! I don't know how to explain this better. Freedom has an objective definition in its most absolute form - ie not constrained by any formal or informal rules. The only place where that happens is in nature where rules cannot be formalized. In human society there are always rules and therefore you cannot be said to be truly free in the absolute and objective sense. Freedom as expressed in any human society is a set of rules defined by the participants to allow for certain outcomes for the group. Every part of that social contract is specific to that particular social group and could not be said to be universal. Every society specific set of rules is a set of compromises between what is good for the society as a whole vs what is good for the individual. It is always going to be a matter of debate how well a societies definition of freedom matches the notion of objective freedom, and that debate is irresolvable to a definitive answer. Freedom is in the same category as God and Heaven, ideas which have no real substance. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbly_Dooright Posted February 23, 2015 #89 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I don't know how to explain this better. Soooooooooooooo, you are saying I do need another cup of coffee?? Freedom has an objective definition in its most absolute form - ie not constrained by any formal or informal rules. The only place where that happens is in nature where rules cannot be formalized. In human society there are always rules and therefore you cannot be said to be truly free in the absolute and objective sense. Well, I thought that is what I said. (This is the part where I say, it's not you Br Cornelius, it's me...... ) I feel like you and I are saying the same thing. I do have problems with full front understanding concepts at first. I have to reread and re-evaluate. I guess what I was trying to say, is that I see the difference in the black and white freedom and the not so black and white freedom that is often brought up. (Ohhh, I'm sorry. I just like to break down and reflect on things like this. Yeah, I'm having fun with the different ideas. *shrugs* ) Freedom as expressed in any human society is a set of rules defined by the participants to allow for certain outcomes for the group. Every part of that social contract is specific to that particular social group and could not be said to be universal. Every society specific set of rules is a set of compromises between what is good for the society as a whole vs what is good for the individual. I just wonder, if I can extrapolate freedom to what it is we're talking about. *sounds of the coffee maker in the background* (fancy a cup?)It is always going to be a matter of debate how well a societies definition of freedom matches the notion of objective freedom, and that debate is irresolvable to a definitive answer. Agreed. I know, I do have my own versions of freedom, and sometimes I try to look at it at different perspectives. Just for me though. I just find the different posts on this reflective. Freedom is in the same category as God and Heaven, ideas which have no real substance.Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted February 23, 2015 #90 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) In July 1747 a ship named the "Gildart" docked in Maryland with a load of 89 slaves. One of those slaves, a man named Alexander Stewart, bound in chains, was sold at auction at Wecomica, St. Maries County, Maryland. Two brothers, Doctor and William Stewart from Annapolis, Maryland were attending the auction. They paid the owner, nine pounds six shillings, becoming Alexander's new owners. They promptly set him free. You see, he was their brother. After the battle of Culloden, the victorious Duke of Cumberland, nephew of King George, sold Scottish prisoners of war into slavery. Several loads of Scots became slaves in America. Two ship loads were sold as slaves in Jamaica. People sold as slaves (or as "indentured servants") had a seven-year life expectancy as a result of the harsh treatment of slaves. This is what Patrick Henry had in mind when he wrote "Is life so sweet, is peace so dear, as to be bought at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what coarse others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." The founders of America knew what loss of their freedom would mean, if they managed to evade the gallows. I submit that that realization has faded in America. We praise "freedom" without even knowing what the lack of it would mean. Doug Edited February 23, 2015 by Doug1029 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 23, 2015 #91 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) In July 1747 a ship named the "Gildart" docked in Maryland with a load of 89 slaves. One of those slaves, a man named Alexander Stewart, bound in chains, was sold at auction at Wecomica, St. Maries County, Maryland. Two brothers, Doctor and William Stewart from Annapolis, Maryland were attending the auction. They paid the owner, nine pounds six shillings, becoming Alexander's new owners. They promptly set him free. You see, he was their brother. After the battle of Culloden, the victorious Duke of Cumberland, nephew of King George, sold Scottish prisoners of war into slavery. Several loads of Scots became slaves in America. Two ship loads were sold as slaves in Jamaica. People sold as slaves (or as "indentured servants") had a seven-year life expectancy as a result of the harsh treatment of slaves. This is what Patrick Henry had in mind when he wrote "Is life so sweet, is peace so dear, as to be bought at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what coarse others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." The founders of America knew what loss of their freedom would mean, if they managed to evade the gallows. I submit that that realization has faded in America. We praise "freedom" without even knowing what the lack of it would mean. Doug I think about that , those things . It's very sad very disturbing . Weighs heavily on the heart . also I don't think many people realize the Irish and Sctottish were slaves in America too, I think they were the first slaves , not sure . Will you please futher explain something ? I find what you've shared so endearing.. What does this really mean: "The founders of America knew what loss of their freedom would mean, if they managed to evade the gallows. I submit that that realization has faded in America. " Edited February 23, 2015 by Ellapennella 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 23, 2015 #92 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Jefferson and his fellow 'Founders' were idealists. Maybe they understood the reality of human society, but did they ever accept it? That truth is the majority of people are not "Thomas Jeffersons", but wish only to live an uncomplicated life protected from harm. You can only have the much obsessed about "small government" if the majority of people are "Thomas Jeffersons", who have the ethical discipline to live by their own principles, so the natural state of society is for "big government". While individuals might squeal and object to this, collectively they will follow whatever path leads them to "big government". That is reality. You might argue that people can be educated to become so disciplined that "small government" can be achieved. The contradiction of that is it would require "big government" to impress that education upon the population, and it would have to continue to do so as the demographic of a population is never static. "Small government" is a dream. A pleasant dream, perhaps, but it is only a dream that will never be reality except as a transitional state of an evolving society. They were great thinkers weren't they , yeah. I absolutely believe they understood , why do you suppose they had such intuitive insight ? The truth is that I don't know who the majority of the people are that you're referring to . I say this because there are way too many coporations and bankers that are in play and in the way where as the majority of the people are not being heard as it was intended to be as in "We The People Are The Government." We're to keep government honest and just true to the cause. But we no longer have a democracy . I don't understand the last two senteneces though Leonardo that you posted . I'm wondering though , why haven't you addressed what was done to the country by coporations and banks ,and the Federal Reserve Act ? 'Cause that's the big governemnt that the majority does not want, never did want. The majority never wanted obama care either. Oh Democracy where are you , We have none absolutely no democracy to be found in her . We have no democracy because it was stolen from us by big governemnt . after the" F.R.A . took office , I think my country lost it's democracy . I don't exactly know when but i suspect that was a big part of it. The constitution was broken let's just admit it . Thanks Woodrow ... that's my understanding of why we have a big government and nothing anyone can ever say will ever make me believe it's all for the better of us all and for the good of us all. Edited February 23, 2015 by Ellapennella 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted February 23, 2015 #93 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) I'm wondering though , why haven't you addressed what was done to the country by coporations and banks ,and the Federal Reserve Act ? 'Cause that's the big governemnt that the majority does not want, never did want. Corporations, banks and private companies are not "big government", but if they have grown as powerful in society as you suggest then you need "big government" to keep them in check. Otherwise the corporations, etc, will have more control over society than government does. In other words, you won't be 'ruled' by those you elect to rule you and your so-called democracy will be a sham. Edited February 23, 2015 by Leonardo 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted February 23, 2015 #94 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) I have studied Jefferson and the other founding fathers. Jefferson (I don't think any of them did really) didn't live by his principles. "All men created equal" didn't apply to black people, women or Native Americans. We were never democracy, we are a republic. We send representatives to vote in our place, who are bought and payed for by our good captains industry. If you look at the history of industry and Unions in the US you find all that big government is in place, because people will take advantage of those who's station is less than theirs. When they talk about big government they are really talking about regulations to protect the public from robber barons and snake oil salesmen. Those are the kind of folks who scraped the muck off the meat factory floor and canned it up as canned ham. You think the pharmaceuticals are bad now, look up what they sold in the 1900's for medication. All this big government talk is a scam by big money folks. Who don't care as long as it is lining their pockets long enough to buy a big house on the beach and retire early. Here is Florida Gov Rick Scott's beach house. He made is money scamming medicare, now he is an elected official scamming everybody in the state. I guess he wants a beach house for summer in the north, too. Makes me think Frank is right. . Edited February 23, 2015 by GreenmansGod 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted February 23, 2015 #95 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) They were great thinkers weren't they , yeah. I absolutely believe they understood , why do you suppose they had such intuitive insight ? The truth is that I don't know who the majority of the people are that you're referring to . I say this because there are way too many coporations and bankers that are in play and in the way where as the majority of the people are not being heard as it was intended to be as in "We The People Are The Government." We're to keep government honest and just true to the cause. But we no longer have a democracy . I don't understand the last two senteneces though Leonardo that you posted . I'm wondering though , why haven't you addressed what was done to the country by coporations and banks ,and the Federal Reserve Act ? 'Cause that's the big governemnt that the majority does not want, never did want. The majority never wanted obama care either. Oh Democracy where are you , We have none absolutely no democracy to be found in her . We have no democracy because it was stolen from us by big governemnt . after the" F.R.A . took office , I think my country lost it's democracy . I don't exactly know when but i suspect that was a big part of it. The constitution was broken let's just admit it . Thanks Woodrow ... that's my understanding of why we have a big government and nothing anyone can ever say will ever make me believe it's all for the better of us all and for the good of us all. Hi Ellapenella, according to the Preamble our government has to provide for the common welfare for all. Which means at times decisions have to be made that include routes and avenues for just this. Health care is an example of this. If one has never been without health care or the ability to get it, and really needed it, it is hard to wrap ones mind around what this is like. I have experiemed this and I for one would of benefitted from some kind of mandated health care, that was affordable. There was a time in my life that to have health care just for myself and my kids it was priced beyond my means. Well, not having health care doesn't preclude one from ever needing it, unfortunately. So guess what happens when one still needs it, well they go to the emergency room anyways and who pays those costs? Taxpayers, so while I don't think Obamacare is perfect, I do think it tries to consider as many things as possible and addresses what it can considering there is a lot to gray in the world. With this many people and so many personal preferences we have to have boundaries and guidelines. The preamble tells us what the governments role/duty is. This is not unlike the fact that as a mother I have obligations to my children, to provide the things they have a right too. My teens have wanted to drink as much soda as they want too, and not go to the doctor, but as the adult I see the bigger picture so in my government my job is to help them see the big picture too. And, it is a gray area because on a personal note I see no viable reason to ever drink soda, yet I have a teenager who argues that they are not living in a democracy then, (and let me tell you a teen will come up with all kinds of arguements that reflect their level of awareness and understanding on matters). Because between you and me few really argue to not have medical care or to only ever drink soda, other then one who is not accounting for the bigger picture too. So as the parent I adapt/compromise ( respect theri right to free choice) and say soda is okay on occassion, but my kids must include healthy choices (water) too. Until at which time my teen matures and I no longer need to excercise/demonstrate/offer good sense as the best alternative to consider. Edited February 23, 2015 by Sherapy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted February 23, 2015 #96 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I find what you've shared so endearing.. What does this really mean: "The founders of America knew what loss of their freedom would mean, if they managed to evade the gallows. I submit that that realization has faded in America. " The Declaration of Independence was signed only 29 years after the Battle of Culloden. Most of the signatories were old enough to remember that battle and knew what would happen to people who backed the rebellion if they lost. We hear constant appeals from supporters of our military-industrial complex to support bigger budgets to "defend freedom" and to worship returning soldiers as heroes while ignoring the very-real needs of our vets. The people making the most noise have never been threatened with slavery and have no real understanding of what freedom really is. There's more to that story: After the battle, Prince Charlie fled, seeking refuge on South Wist Island. After hiding out for several weeks with a local family, things were getting too dangerous. So the family arranged to sneak him to the Isle of Skye. He was disguised as a skullery maid. A young woman volunteered to row the boat across under cover of a storm. That young woman's name was Flora MacDonald. She was the wife of Allan MacDonald. Though the English didn't find out about her part in spiriting the prince away, they were known Scottish sympathizers. They were arrested and offered the choice of being hung as traitors, or taking an oath of loyalty and being deported to America. They chose America and were transported to North Carolina. They remained in the Cape Fear area for some 28 years. Anti-British sentiment was running high just before the Revolution, but the MacDonalds had taken a loyalty oath and remained loyal to the crown. Allan even joined a company of loyalists. Because patriot fever was so intense, loyalists were to be evacuated to safer locations near the coast. Allan's company with others was assigned to protect the Moore's Creek Bridge, but when they arrived, the North Carolina Militia was already there. Expecting only token resistance, with a cry of "King George and Broadswords" the loyalists charged across the bridge into a hail of musket fire. Allan was among the dead. The first battle of the American Revolution was at Moore's Bridge, not Lexington and Concord. After the Revolution, Flora returned to South Wist Island and lived out her days there. There have been five Highland Regiments that have served in America. The first was the 42nd Royal Highlanders, the famous Black Watch. They came to Halifax during the French and Indian War and stayed for the American Revolution. They led the attack on Montcalm at Fort Ticonderoga. Of something like 60 regimental pipers, only five survived the first day. They also attempted to fight Washington on long Island and Manhattan during the Revolution, but the commanders couldn't get them in a position where they could be effective. The 78th "Fraser" Highlanders also came for the French and Indian War and stayed for the Revolution. Their commander during the Revolution was Simon Fraser, as in Simon Fraser University. He met his end from a sniper's bullet. One shot that changed the coarse of history. The third unit was the 79th "Montgomery" Highlanders. They had the misfortune of being chosen for the attack on Pittsburg (George Washington commanded a regiment of Virginia Militia during this battle.). Of the 1435 men who started, 900 died of disease. Only six ever returned home to Scotland. The regiment was gone, but not forgotten. The 84th Highland Regiment was made up of loyalists during the American Revolution. Many of its members were veterans of the French and Indian War who stayed in America after the war. They never reached full strength - one of their recruiters accidentally spilled the beans to the Americans who rounded him up and were able to keep the regiment from reaching full strength. Some of their members were on shipboard, about to land in Boston, during the Battle of Bunker Hill - they reported hearing the gunfire. The whole shipload was drafted. And then there's the 79th New York Highland Cavalry. After the Revolution many Scots immigrated to America. They formed Scottish clubs, wore kilts, used dress swords and celebrated the lifestyle now outlawed at home and called themselves the 79th New York Highlanders. When the Civil War began, they decided that there wasn't much point in calling themselves a regiment if they had never been in battle. The entire club enlisted en masse on the condition they could keep their number and use highland dress. Their conditions were accepted and thus was born the 79th New York Highland Cavalry - the only American Highland regiment. And the only American regiment to wear kilts. "For King George and Broadswords." Doug 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted February 23, 2015 #97 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Leonardo , come on, you know it has . You know your statement here is debatable . I know you know . I see your conversations. I'm sort of surprised you said this.is all. Ellapenella, how is Leo's statement debatable? It sounds as if you are admonishing him as if he is a child as opposed to offering reasons to consider that show how Christianity has evolved in your opinion. Edited February 23, 2015 by Sherapy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 23, 2015 #98 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Corporations, banks and private companies are not "big government", but if they have grown as powerful in society as you suggest then you need "big government" to keep them in check. Otherwise the corporations, etc, will have more control over society than government does. In other words, you won't be 'ruled' by those you elect to rule you and your so-called democracy will be a sham. Leonardo , we have no democracy ." We have No Democracy ." You fail to take notice of that among other things where as the F.R.A is concerned. Corporations and such ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 23, 2015 #99 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The Declaration of Independence was signed only 29 years after the Battle of Culloden. Most of the signatories were old enough to remember that battle and knew what would happen to people who backed the rebellion if they lost. We hear constant appeals from supporters of our military-industrial complex to support bigger budgets to "defend freedom" and to worship returning soldiers as heroes while ignoring the very-real needs of our vets. The people making the most noise have never been threatened with slavery and have no real understanding of what freedom really is. There's more to that story: After the battle, Prince Charlie fled, seeking refuge on South Wist Island. After hiding out for several weeks with a local family, things were getting too dangerous. So the family arranged to sneak him to the Isle of Skye. He was disguised as a skullery maid. A young woman volunteered to row the boat across under cover of a storm. That young woman's name was Flora MacDonald. She was the wife of Allan MacDonald. Though the English didn't find out about her part in spiriting the prince away, they were known Scottish sympathizers. They were arrested and offered the choice of being hung as traitors, or taking an oath of loyalty and being deported to America. They chose America and were transported to North Carolina. They remained in the Cape Fear area for some 28 years. Anti-British sentiment was running high just before the Revolution, but the MacDonalds had taken a loyalty oath and remained loyal to the crown. Allan even joined a company of loyalists. Because patriot fever was so intense, loyalists were to be evacuated to safer locations near the coast. Allan's company with others was assigned to protect the Moore's Creek Bridge, but when they arrived, the North Carolina Militia was already there. Expecting only token resistance, with a cry of "King George and Broadswords" the loyalists charged across the bridge into a hail of musket fire. Allan was among the dead. The first battle of the American Revolution was at Moore's Bridge, not Lexington and Concord. After the Revolution, Flora returned to South Wist Island and lived out her days there. There have been five Highland Regiments that have served in America. The first was the 42nd Royal Highlanders, the famous Black Watch. They came to Halifax during the French and Indian War and stayed for the American Revolution. They led the attack on Montcalm at Fort Ticonderoga. Of something like 60 regimental pipers, only five survived the first day. They also attempted to fight Washington on long Island and Manhattan during the Revolution, but the commanders couldn't get them in a position where they could be effective. The 78th "Fraser" Highlanders also came for the French and Indian War and stayed for the Revolution. Their commander during the Revolution was Simon Fraser, as in Simon Fraser University. He met his end from a sniper's bullet. One shot that changed the coarse of history. The third unit was the 79th "Montgomery" Highlanders. They had the misfortune of being chosen for the attack on Pittsburg (George Washington commanded a regiment of Virginia Militia during this battle.). Of the 1435 men who started, 900 died of disease. Only six ever returned home to Scotland. The regiment was gone, but not forgotten. The 84th Highland Regiment was made up of loyalists during the American Revolution. Many of its members were veterans of the French and Indian War who stayed in America after the war. They never reached full strength - one of their recruiters accidentally spilled the beans to the Americans who rounded him up and were able to keep the regiment from reaching full strength. Some of their members were on shipboard, about to land in Boston, during the Battle of Bunker Hill - they reported hearing the gunfire. The whole shipload was drafted. And then there's the 79th New York Highland Cavalry. After the Revolution many Scots immigrated to America. They formed Scottish clubs, wore kilts, used dress swords and celebrated the lifestyle now outlawed at home and called themselves the 79th New York Highlanders. When the Civil War began, they decided that there wasn't much point in calling themselves a regiment if they had never been in battle. The entire club enlisted en masse on the condition they could keep their number and use highland dress. Their conditions were accepted and thus was born the 79th New York Highland Cavalry - the only American Highland regiment. And the only American regiment to wear kilts. "For King George and Broadswords." Doug That was refreshing to read . I will read and re-read it over and over again several more times , while it's here. Some of the most revealing circumstances of our history are found within the impacting segments you shared . I just have to say thank you , ty for taking time out of you day to share this it's very much appreciated and meant a lot because of all it means in value of why we are, a nation. We hardly see those reflections of our past our beginning here on the forum amidst the many debates . I just want to stick with the constitution and what it pertains to concerning the health our Country, is all . No second guessing about it . It's pretty clear to me what it means. It was meant to be clear. It seems those men and the fight for liberty can easily become forgotten from the hearts of generations if people stop sharing in the stories . I always hold those things near and dear in my heart, even more so when I view the country and the shape of it , and how it became such a Mother like to the world . Just don't want the real purpose of it to fall away . Did you know that George Washington refused to eat in private quarters during one of the battles , it was one of the toughest battles . I think there was next to no food for the arm men and he just couldn't , he couldn't sit in his private quarters and eat a balanced meal. Instead he went into the - what's it called ? the place where they ate and he sat with them as one of them , and he ate the same as they had for nourishment . I love George Washington, I just do. He didn't want to be president either, but he did it . He stepped down , he felt it was fair to let someone other have it . He also opposed separate parties , you know why. He was right about that too. When I think of all they've gone through to do it , I just can't imagine. I just can't. They had it hardest of all. I know they did. Who was it that wrote of how slavery was wrong, was it Thomas Jefferson ?Though it was happening in that time in history . I would think that had to leave such an impact on people those who felt the gut wrenching wrong each time they seen it happening and those that suffered from being held as slave. It's also why i sort of have an outlook of things today. Like some families may have heard stories from great greater greatest grandparents past down. It must leave a scare deep in ones heart. You know you're so right about the Military and them not having investing into it completely . We are a nation that has plenty and i never could understand that. A town , actually my home town in S.I N.Y there was a home depot and a Vet had been in there and while he was leaving i think , his wheelchair broke. The employees refused to let him leave until they fixed his wheelchair for him . When he thanked them , they said no , we thank you for letting fix your chair it was their honor to fix it they told the vet... No sooner after that the news was area and the VA he belonged to was slammed in that area for it's issues of neglect I think they are better now though. After the fact that he suffered for years and years . I'm wondering , why is that even happening with the VA I wonder if they're privatized or was it always that way . Some vets receive great care with the VA and some really bad . either way it should be the best service provided no doubt about that. You were saying something about people that make the most noise. I think that the people making the most noise , as you said , are the people that want the government to give them everything, to do everything for them . I think they're the ones that are always complaining and wanting free stuff all of the time. I don't see the other wanting anything from the government except the right to be left alone , and the right to not get forced into paying for things they don't want such as Obama care .Things like that is when they try to be heard it seems. If only we had democracy there wouldn't be an Obama care issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted February 24, 2015 #100 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I would not disagree with you. Freedom is defined and specific and most importantly relative. Is it better to be free to choose between a hundred models of cars and run the risk of dying from cancer for lack of affordable healthcare, or is it better to be assured that your health care will be handled because there is government support but at the cost of less consumer choice in general. Br Cornelius In Vietnam if you don't pay for most medical treatments, you don't get them. Sounds harsh but this has some benefits. First the system is not abused by hypochondriacs and such, nor by people trying to extend their lives a few weeks by spending vast state sums. It also means doctors and hospitals do not have a bad debt problem and sick people actually shop around for cheaper service, creating at least some competition.These things keep the cost lower, as does severely restricting malpractice actions (they don't really exist -- one complains of malpractice and doctors can and do lose their license, although more often it just goes into the record in case more such things happen). The state does not pay for health care but it sure does subsidize (builds hospitals, pays for medical training, imports medical equipment and drugs at a loss, sends doctors overseas for special training, maintains ambulance service, and so on. The net effect is that no one really goes without treatment, as in dire situations charities are organized in neighborhoods and of course the extended family system works as a wonderful social safety net. One can even buy insurance, although few see a real need for it. What has this to do with freedom? One of course is the freedom to switch around pharmacies and doctors and clinics and hospitals without interference on treatment decisions by insurance companies and government agencies. My complain about the US and many other countries is that in the name of protecting the public people hear the siren song of the special interests and wrap services with all sorts of legal limits and controls, which all mainly only serves to line the pockets of the few who are already in place or who have the necessary entry capital. In a society dominated by lawyers, passing laws is always the first and generally the only solution that is even tried. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now