Democrats & Liberals Archives

Freedom - Two Views

CPAC, the conservative group, recently had a meeting where its stars - Rush Limbaugh, Wayne La Pierre and others - proclaimed that conservatives are wild about freedom, while liberals are against freedom. Conservatives insist that they are the keepers of the constitution while liberals want to destroy the constitution. The truth is we are all for freedom, but conservatives and liberals mean different things by the word “freedom.”

From watching some of the CPAC speeches, I learned what they mean by "freedom." Rush Limbaugh felt free to spew bile and hatred for liberals and the president, who he wanted to fail. Wayne La Pierre, executive vice president of NRA, said "The men with the guns make the rights," and that without guns there can be no freedom. And here is what Republican Jim DeMint said:

A nation that raises its children in government schools cannot expect its people to stand for the principles of freedom.

So, if you are a liberal, or you are for gun control, or you like public schools you are against freedom! In plain language, if you disagree with the conservative philosophy you are against freedom! Get it?

To conservatives, freedom means that any individual is free to do as he wishes, regardless of how it affects others. If you are rich, you are free to reduce benefits enacted for the poor. If you are a businessperson, you are free to make money by taking advantage of workers and consumers. If you are a banker, you are free to swindle home buyers.

Conservatives believe in rugged individualism, that the more meritorious people will succeed, and that these elite deserve special attention. Some call this Social Darwinism.

Liberals believe in freedom. But their definition of "freedom" is very different from the definition of conservatives. To liberals, freedom applies to everyone: conservatives and liberals, rich and poor, powerful and powerless, businesspeople and workers, bankers and home buyers, religious and non-religious, male and female and in-between. Everybody.

FDR said it best with his four freedoms:

  1. Freedom of speech and expression - for everyone
  2. Freedom of religion - for everyone
  3. Freedom from want - for everyone
  4. Freedom from fear - for everyone
Everyone. Not only the rich and the powerful. Liberals believe freedom is for everyone.

Freedom to conservatives means that you depend on your own efforts to achieve your goals; never mind other people. Freedom to liberals means that you are part of a community whose members work together to enable you and other members to accomplish individual goals. To conservatives, freedom is self-centered and competitive. To liberals, freedom comes from community and cooperation.

What a difference! I'll take warm liberal freedom any time, not cold conservative freedom.


Posted by Paul Siegel at March 4, 2009 7:47 PM
Comments
Comment #276820

Paul
You can say the same thing about the far left liberals, that you are saying about the far right conservatives. Most conservatives believe in the same freedoms that FDR spoke about. You CANNOT base all conservatives because of a few blow hards like Rush, the same way conservatives can’t base all liberals on the few blow hards they have spreading their BS.

Posted by: KAP at March 4, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment #276822

Paul and all

Lets get this over from the get go. Not all liberals are for excessive gun control or against the second amendment. La Pierre no longer represents the second amendment but rather he is a bought and paid for Republican stooge, dedicated to convinceing working Americans to vote against their own best interest by useing fear tactics. Its high time the NRA dumped him and the like and gets back to their real and vital primary purpose, insuring that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms and teaching gun safety.

Posted by: bills at March 4, 2009 9:11 PM
Comment #276826

bills,
Exactly !

Posted by: jane doe at March 4, 2009 10:24 PM
Comment #276829

KAP I agree with you. I just wish the real conservatives could curb the talk radio conservatives and their liberty for some beliefs. Well…and while you are at it the far right evangelical conservatives that seek to limit others liberties because of their personal religious beliefs. Myself I will fight to help preserve our 2nd amendment rights should those on the left seek to further reduce them.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 4, 2009 11:19 PM
Comment #276841

Yep, two different meanings. GOP means free from taxation and government snooping over business’ shoulders for unethical or illegal behavior. Democrats mean free from being taken advantage of by anyone other than politicians.

Same word, two different meanings. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2009 8:52 AM
Comment #276847

Paul,
Why Freedom has more than two views I do understand what you are saying. However, if we take away the extreme Left and Right of Society voice I do believe that the majority of the Denocratic, Independent, and Republican Citizens can see a third way to deal with the Big Boys of Main Street hidding behind the President and Congress. And that is American Grit.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 5, 2009 9:43 AM
Comment #276854

Liberals believe in freedom only as long as they are the ones defining it. Those who dare speak against this, are ignored, silenced, called selfish and told they are acting against their own best interest.

Liberals believe in freedom based on forced acceptance of what they determine to be a worthy freedom, and getting their permission to exercise that freedom.

Posted by: kctim at March 5, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #276858

Jeez kctim that is pretty harsh. How could you possibly think that your definition of liberal thinking on the subject of freedom is inclusive of all liberals and comprehensive in scope? What you are espousing is talk radio conservative thinking. What you fail to mention is not only liberals but all people believe in freedom as long as they are the ones to define freedom.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2009 11:43 AM
Comment #276862

j2t2

“Myself I will fight to help preserve our 2nd amendment rights should those on the left seek to further reduce them.”

glad to hear it. sounds like we have something in common after all.

Posted by: dbs at March 5, 2009 11:53 AM
Comment #276863

That “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear” ideas are the problems though.

Fear is an emotion. The government cannot address an emotion even if it can address an emotion’s cause. This is why I think the phrase “war on terror” is so stupid by the way. It’s a politically correct euphemism that keeps us from naming the enemy. Or in other words, from facing reality.

Seeing “fear from want” as a freedom is the “freedom” that pretty much always gives rise to totalitarian states. It’s downright scary to hear people saying that that is a freedom.

The Germans wanted lebensraum and an end to inflation. The Soviets wanted economic equality where nobody had resources that others didn’t. What this all led to is not freedom at all.

On a smaller scale though it’s why people live beyond their means and borrow money they can’t afford to pay back. They think it’s their right to live free of wanting things that others have. And when things go bad, it’s why the government thinks they have to step in with these bail outs.

Posted by: Liam at March 5, 2009 11:54 AM
Comment #276868

J2
Pauls topic was inclusive and so is your statement of all conservative talk-radio thinking. Whats wrong with those on the right over generalizing the same way?

It may be all people who believe in freedom as they define, but the lefts line of thinking takes the act of forcing compliance way past what those on the right does. Paul’s post even states as such when he rants about the evils of being responsible for oneself.

The kind of crap espoused in Paul’s topic shows that he does not understand the opposite point of view or that he ever wishes to. It is also why this country is so divided and why it will take much more for us to ever be whole again.

Posted by: kctim at March 5, 2009 12:33 PM
Comment #276872

Viva la Revolution! Che Guevara rides again! Oops! I think Che was the OTHER side of the revolutionary coin…but who cares, let’s just go shoot somebody…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 5, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment #276876

Freedom is impossible to define if you start from it’s strictest definition: the ability to do anything you want. Any functional government limits that. So any functional government, theoretically speaking, is against freedom!

So lets start by defining freedom practically. That, of course, starts through civil liberties, because these are rights and restrictions on government that give people the space not only to live free from government interference (something you could theoretically see in a totalitarian government if you’re a member of the right group) but also to turn around and affect government policy.

We could start with rights that protect us from arbitrary imprisonment and punishment in both degree and kind. Any government that can disappear you, torture you, brand you a criminal without trial, or without a fair one has the absolute ability to take your freedom away. The second amendment falls at the fringe of these kinds of rights, though it cannot be absolute in any nation that hopes to keep the peace and maintain order. The protections of the fourth Amendment part are part of these, critical to defining a person’s physical freedom.

We can then extend that definition to include rights that essentially allow people to decide for themselves how they will be governed, how they will lead their lives. First Amendment liberties form the core here. Freedom of the body means nothing without freedom of the mind and soul. This is America’s safety valve. We don’t outlaw parties. We don’t throw people in jail for subscribing to a point of view, and that point of view can be passed on to others who might join them in freely assembling and freely petitioning the government for change.

Voting rights are also a critical part of this. Without them, all the other rights mean nothing.

Then, finally, there’s the right to do as you please, and keep your affairs to yourself.

To a certain degree, these other laws guarantee you something along those lines. But to another degree, all governments must set limits on these freedoms. The freedom to speak your mind is not the freedom of somebody else to come across with his friends and beat you up for what you believe.

Republicans, over the last few years, supported policy that has eaten away at the most basic of freedoms, while making big deals out of other freedoms, or taking them to great extremes. They’ve been simply terrible about voting rights, using unscrupulous techniques to remove the other party’s supporters from the rolls.

The concern is, government under Bush very nearly became powerful enough to essentially destroy the system, incinerate whatever real freedoms we had.

I define my liberalism by the belief that our civil liberties are necessities, not luxuries of our system. Beyond that, Americans choose what kind of freedom they have through legislation, social consensus of proper behavior, and the conditions of market economics.

The Republicans keep on trying to define freedoms by making their political positions matters of constitutional importance, when most of the time, they are well within the range of legislative choice. But of course, framing it in constitutional language moves the argument towards being compulsory for others, rather than optional. The trouble is, the courts haven’t accepted many of their interpretations for decades now, and seem very unlikely to move in their direction any time soon.

Republicans must acknowledge that people have the freedom to reject them, and that they must shape their political and policy to suit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 5, 2009 1:43 PM
Comment #276878

Freedom to liberals means that you are part of a community whose members work together to enable you and other members to accomplish individual goals

But do I have the freedom to decide if I want to be a part of this community or not? Or am I compeled by law and regulation (force of government) to participate much in the same way as a closed shop?

Posted by: George at March 5, 2009 1:59 PM
Comment #276887

Mr. Remer wrote; “Yep, two different meanings. GOP means free from taxation and government snooping over business’ shoulders for unethical or illegal behavior. Democrats mean free from being taken advantage of by anyone other than politicians.

Thanks…I enjoyed that.

Posted by: Jim M at March 5, 2009 3:21 PM
Comment #276895

Jim M-
Let me ask you a serious question here: how can a party claim to be serious about American’s freedom when it opposes waiting period on guns, but advocates for depriving Americans accused of Terrorism of their habeas corpus rights?

A person can get all the guns they will ever need with the waiting period, but if you’re accused of being in league with the terrorists, just how do you ever see the light of day if they make a mistake?

Under the Republicans, folks are free to drive our economy into the ground with unregulated derivatives and hedge funds, but not free to protest within sight of the president. That’s their sense of freedom: you’re free so long as you sit in your nice, well-defined space of not troubling your betters about what they’re doing with your government. Oh, you get to shoot off guns, and if you’re Christian, the government should do all kinds of things for you, and you certainly can rag on whatever minority you choose, but God help you if you oppose the administration because they can tap your phone, look at your library records and put surveillance on your meatings without so much as a by-your-leave from the courts asking what actual crime you committed.

The Republican’s version of freedom, at least as the extremists in charge have defined it, consists of people being able to indulge their vices as they please, while the government that can take their freedom from them is given the power to do what they please with them.

That’s the freedom of cattle: grow fat dumb and happy, and don’t worry about anything else until they put you down the chute.

Republicans like to define the government as something separate from the people nowadays. As a Liberal, I disagree. This is a self governing nation. We rule ourselves. Americans are the government, and those who run it are just proxies for us. Freedom for me means that we’re ruled, and we rule in turn, moderating the excesses of our government, and being moderated in turn by a constitution which leaves room for everybody to have their voice and their liberty under the law.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 5, 2009 5:46 PM
Comment #276898

Jim M

just heard on the news that the aflcio refused to allow cameras into the room where biden was speaking to them. so much for transparent gov’t.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/05/cameras-barred-bidens-speech-afl-cio/

Posted by: dbs at March 5, 2009 6:24 PM
Comment #276899

Paul:

Freedom is the most precious thing to mankind. IMHO life without freedom is a vile existence. I am sure that the vast majority of people would agree with this sentiment. But that is the easy part, the broad brush of which to paint. Getting to the nuts and bolts of things is where the water gets murky.

“Rush Limbaugh felt free to spew bile and hatred for liberals and the president, who he wanted to fail.”. Rush IS free to say whatever he wishes. Peroid! Just as is the folks at Moveon.org, Ann Coulter, Jessee Jackson, former Klansman Senator Byrd and former Dixicrat Strom Thurmon(deceased, but named for balance). The point is that freedoms must apply equally to those that are diametrically opposed to your views as you are willing to apply to yourself.

“So, if you are a liberal, or you are for gun control, or you like public schools you are against freedom! In plain language, if you disagree with the conservative philosophy you are against freedom! Get it?” That is exactly true if one is by nature a conservative. I would suppose that a liberal would think that anyone opposed to abortion and gun control is against freedom.

“To conservatives, freedom means that any individual is free to do as he wishes, regardless of how it affects others.” Speaking for my conservative self only, you have deeply misrepresented my beliefs. My rights end where yours begin. As so long as I am not violating your rights, I can do as I wish. If I choose to purchace and/or use a legal product, how it effects you is not my concern.

“Conservatives believe in rugged individualism, that the more meritorious people will succeed, and that these elite deserve special attention.” Again, speaking for myself, I believe in individualism. However, IMHO the only peoples that deserve special attention are those that are impaired to the point that they cannot fend for themselves. Please note that I said CANNOT, those that can and either choose otherwise should be on their own.

As for President Roosevelt’s freedoms:
“Freedom of speech and expression”- no question
“Freedom of religion”-no question
“Freedom from want”-Big problem with this one. Who reading this does not want something? How much material goods or money would it take for not to want? This may be a tennet of liberalism, but is not a right. What if he had said freedom of need? There are three basic needs: food, clothing and housing. What if someone is able to work to obtain these things, but chooses otherwise? Should he/she then be able to force others to provide these needs for them? I argue no.

“Freedom from fear”- The only way that one can be free from fear is to forgo all of their rights and freedoms for security. This person can ever achieve either.

“Everyone. Not only the rich and the powerful. Liberals believe freedom is for everyone.

“Freedom to conservatives means that you depend on your own efforts to achieve your goals; never mind other people. Freedom to liberals means that you are part of a community whose members work together to enable you and other members to accomplish individual goals. To conservatives, freedom is self-centered and competitive. To liberals, freedom comes from community and cooperation. What a difference! I’ll take warm liberal freedom any time, not cold conservative freedom.” You can not have success unless you are willing to risk failure. Therefore you cannot limit failure unless you put limits on success. You cannot have individual freedom and individual success if you are dependent on a collective that will determine what you can achieve. Personally, I am willing to take the chance and let my work, determination and freedom take me to my destination.


Posted by: submarinesforever at March 5, 2009 6:33 PM
Comment #276902

The AFLCIO is not part of the government. Did anyone ask the VEEP if he was aware the union had asked the press not to attend? Was there enough room in the hall for all the attendees as well as the press? Was part of the meeting something the press had no business being aware of or being in on?

Someone presents a strawman and expects everyone else to fall in line…we ain’t all Republicans, and those of us that ain’t can ask more probing questions.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 5, 2009 7:14 PM
Comment #276903

Freedom is the right to confiscate automobiles when the license isn’t current. Freedom is the right to arrest someone when they walk home from the bar. Freedom is the right to charge a fee for owning a pet. Freedom is the right to insist cosmetic improvements are made to one’s home. Freedom is the right to mow someone’s grass and charge outragous fees when it gets too long. Freedom is the right to insist every business in town conform to a described appearance. ie. awnings above sidewalks must be removed, flashing lighted signs must be removed. Freedom is the right to arrest someone sleeping in the back seat of their car because they have an “opportunity to do wrong”. Freedom is the right to charge a court’s processing fee when people are found innocent. Freedom is the right to insist cosmetic improvements to property be done before the next reassessment. Freedom is the right to use taxpayer money to build recreational facilities in jails because it’s against the law to make prisoners work to get exercise. Freedom is the right to search someone’s house because the windows are covered. Freedom is the right to deny pet shops a right to sell exotic animals. Freedom is the right to define what an exotic animal is. Freedom is the right to confiscate property and keep it for decades while it rots in place. Freedom is the right to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer monies for cosmetic improvements of no value, ie. cherry trees, stone walls built on purchased property for a “gateway”/entrance into town. Freedom is the right to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars moving buildings and bridges to accent the gateway/entrance into town. Freedom is the right to charge taxpayers to build a recreational facility. Freedom is the right to use said facility free of charge while expecting/forcing everyone else to pay. Freedom is the right to use taxpayer money to create a job for your brother-in-law. Freedom is the right to fire employees because a different party was elected. Freedom is the right to ignore illegal conduct by elected officials. Freedom is the right to use a police force to satisfy personal vindettas.

We have lots of freedom.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 5, 2009 7:26 PM
Comment #276909

Freedom is the right to inspect every rentor’s home. Freedom is the right to pay for the removal of a hill instead of paying for a 4-way stop sign. Freedom is the right to let a landowner hang out to dry because he inadvertently bought a dormant landfill. Freedom is a right to force this landowner to bear the cost of this abandoned landfill. Freedom is the right to ignore this landfill problem until the land was purchased. Freedom is the right to force the landowner into agreements only freedom grants. Get it? Freedom is the right to stand by and watch an innocent landowner bear the cost of a previously acceptable solution to a community’s problem.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 5, 2009 8:17 PM
Comment #276910

Freedom is the right to sit here and bitch. Thank You, David R. Remer, Paul, and Watchblog.

Sappy tears and hugs. I love you all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 5, 2009 8:36 PM
Comment #276913


“The AFLCIO is not part of the government. Did anyone ask the VEEP if he was aware the union had asked the press not to attend? Was there enough room in the hall for all the attendees as well as the press? Was part of the meeting something the press had no business being aware of or being in on?”

if bush met with all the banking institutions at some high dollar hotel would you still question whether it was the presses business? those are some pretty big dots, if you can’t connect em, there’s probably no one that can help you. ” you dance with the one who brung ya ” gee mr biden what does that mean? LOL!!!!!

Posted by: dbs at March 5, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment #276920

Same ole, same ole…if you can’t say something intelligent, act superior and say something stupid, perhaps no one will notice…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 5, 2009 10:23 PM
Comment #276926

ditto, Marysdude!
Thank you for that intelligent, superior and stupid remark! Perhaps no one will notice your same ol’ same ol’ something to say for the sake of saying it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 5, 2009 11:08 PM
Comment #276927

Paul,

You’re general theory here about the two philosophy’s view of freedom being different is correct. But you misunderstand the conservative view of freedom.

The conservative (and libertarian) view of freedom is negative. Negative in the sense that it is not about entitlements to something but freedom from being coerced. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not an entitlement to an outcome. This is a subtlety that can easily be missed.

It sounds cold and hard in the abstract but it does not preclude charity and altruism. It is a starting point. A principle. A rule of law and not of men.

The four freedoms are a classic example of a recipe for pure tyranny.

“Freedom from want.” What does that entitle one to? In practice it entitles you to the labor and survival skills of your fellow man. A right to someone else’s labor is exactly what it sounds like. Servitude. Slavery is a system of unequal rights to the labor of someone else.

Ultimately, the difference is that in the end the concept of “positive rights” is antithetical to freedom and free choice. Because in the end a state operatus will take from you what you “owe” your fellow man. This is freedom?

The problem with the liberal concept of freedom is that it is greatly variable about what is owed to whom and how it is to be paid.

The bill of rights is a negative rights document precluding the government from taking away the opportunity to speak (for instance), not a positive rights document entitling one to free printing presses and radio stations to fulfill your right to free speech.

This is the difference.

It doesn’t mean that only the rich can speak or that this is what is intended. It doesn’t mean that conservatives do not believe in helping others, giving to charity, or working together. Quite the opposite. What rights do you have if you don’t have the right not to share? Or not to give? Not to help?

What rights do you have if you cannot rely on your own judgement about who to give to and how much? What causes are worthy and what are not?

When we cede our rights and judgement to committees and congressman, and even (god forbid) collective councils to decide these questions we are less than free we are under a tyranny without mercy or interest in our opinions or well-being.

Posted by: eric simonson at March 5, 2009 11:10 PM
Comment #276929

Freedom is the right to drive down Main Street, drunk, doing 60 in a 25 mph zone and smash into a parked car, and have your manditory, community supported insurance pay for it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 5, 2009 11:31 PM
Comment #276930

Freedom is the right to have that same community supported insurance replace the teeth you lost in the accident.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 5, 2009 11:33 PM
Comment #276931

Freedom is the right to buy absolution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 5, 2009 11:36 PM
Comment #276933

” You can not have success unless you are willing to risk failure. Therefore you cannot limit failure unless you put limits on success. You cannot have individual freedom and individual success if you are dependent on a collective that will determine what you can achieve.Personally, I am willing to take the chance and let my work, determination and freedom take me to my destination.”

Submariner are you also willing to have the financial system fail completely through no fault of your own and wipe out your business, job and those of your neighbors? After all the financial institutions have the same freedom to take a chance and let their work be their reward don’t they?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2009 11:48 PM
Comment #276934

j2t2, are you willing to let people use debt to create their own wealth? Yes! You are! You did!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2009 12:10 AM
Comment #276935

Freedom is the right to let other people ruin your life for you.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2009 12:20 AM
Comment #276937

Did any of you bother to look up the Panic of 1907 and it’s causes? Were any one of you able to draw a parallel with then and now? Wasn’t the Federal Reserve created to cure the cause of the Panic of 1907? Aren’t the causes of this fiasco and the 1907 fiasco the same? Where is the federal reserve and it’s mandate now?

Freedom is the right to accept a cure that doesn’t cure. Freedom is the right to convince ourselves that what is, is. Freedom is our right to accept what fate we are given. Freedom is our right to repeat the mistakes that allow our government to reinforce it’s control over us.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2009 12:45 AM
Comment #276943

j2t2:

“Submariner are you also willing to have the financial system fail completely through no fault of your own and wipe out your business, job and those of your neighbors? After all the financial institutions have the same freedom to take a chance and let their work be their reward don’t they?”. Tough question. As we have been told, allowing the financial sector to collapse would do enormous harm to the …well world. They did make horrible decisions? Most did. Do we have the money to bail them out? Not really. The consequences of creating the kind of money out of thin air to cover for the failed speculators may be as bad or worse than letting them collapse now and emerge stronger. IMHO it is almost a no win scenario. I have to say that it is 6:5 and pick ‘em.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 6, 2009 5:29 AM
Comment #276944

Pretty blasse attitude when one considers the results of each…allow the collapse, and watch the homeless increase by twenty-fold…do what you can to keep your finger in the dike wall until the water recedes, and hope you printed good money, while that twenty-fold grasps for a new lease on life…hmmm…

If it is either/or, and the either kills, and the or might save…how can that be called a choice?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 6, 2009 7:51 AM
Comment #276945

Freedom is the right to not let your grass get so long that the city has to mow it. Freedom is the right not to drive drunk and hit a car and lose your teeth. Then you also have the freedom to not have your teeth replaced. I suspect said person that would buy a previous landfill site did so because he thought he was getting a deal. You want to take away people’s right to get a deal. You sir, have no point.

Posted by: ray at March 6, 2009 7:52 AM
Comment #276955

willie

“Did any of you bother to look up the Panic of 1907 and it’s causes? Were any one of you able to draw a parallel with then and now?”

here’s a link i posted in another thread. i think this is what you’re refering to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml?source=search_story

Posted by: dbs at March 6, 2009 10:47 AM
Comment #276963

Weary Willie, your humor aside, freedom really means being free to bitch to your representatives without fear of going to jail or disappearing, (well, provided GW Bush is not president - he reserved the right to tag anyone a terrorist and make them disappear for any reason of his own choosing - but, hey, he’s gone, thank Buddha, and fortunately he did not exercise that unconstitutional power except in one case, that I know of.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2009 12:40 PM
Comment #277012

Marysdude:
Perhaps my attitude is a little blasse. But IMHO printing money and spending it in the manner that we have chosen will eventually lead to problems of a far larger scale than what we face now.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 7, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment #277021

Eric,
Your Freedom from Want cuaght my eye. For why it is true that I will never surrender to Mr. and Mrs. Corporation I also most respect that as a Servent they are indeed My Master. For if Labor and Management could just get along without fighting each other over what they do not have or want than may be I could enjoy a day when I would not have to serve as an Adult to the Better World built by My Parents and Yours.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 7, 2009 10:38 AM
Comment #277051

>Perhaps my attitude is a little blasse. But IMHO printing money and spending it in the manner that we have chosen will eventually lead to problems of a far larger scale than what we face now.
Posted by: submarinesforever at March 7, 2009 08:58 AM

submarinesforever,

Perhaps that is the greatest difference between Republicans and Democrats??? You are concerned that the money spent MAY lead to economic problems, even though history pretty much disproves that theory…while I am more concerned about the growing numbers of PEOPLE who are landing in the all fire zone, and are becoming a serious current problem. History has also proven that healthy, working people are the truest salve for a wounded economy. Republicans = Dollars…Democrats = People…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 7, 2009 6:45 PM
Comment #277056

I forgot, I could have referred you to my previous post on this topic. It’s really rather good if I say so myself. Timeless and relevant even after all these years: Counterfeit freedoms

Posted by: eric at March 7, 2009 8:07 PM
Comment #277067

“As we have been told, allowing the financial sector to collapse would do enormous harm to the …well world. They did make horrible decisions? Most did. Do we have the money to bail them out? Not really. The consequences of creating the kind of money out of thin air to cover for the failed speculators may be as bad or worse than letting them collapse now and emerge stronger. IMHO it is almost a no win scenario. I have to say that it is 6:5 and pick ‘em.”

I agree submariner it is a no win situation this administration has been left with. My point though is the people and corporations that leveraged us into disaster would have the same rights as you to succeed or fail. They did so on a scope that would cause many millions of people to fail through no fault of their own. Do they have the same rights as you or not?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2009 11:24 PM
Comment #277068

I’m going to tell you a story about my father. I’m going to tell you what’s happened to him, and then I’m going to ask you to help me hold those responsible for his delema accountable.

My father was born in 1933. His early years were during the depression. He said his mother always predicted the depression would happen again, but he didn’t believe it.

My father never had to look for work. It was always there for him and he took advantage of it. I remember him working at one full time job until retirement, one part-time job to purchase and double the size of the home I currently live in, and a part time job/hobby at a number of local radio stations. A work ethic that facilitated a goal to leave each of his 5 children “1/4 of a million dollars”! A goal he would not have told me of if it were not a reality.

Recently, my father told me about his investments. The investments he lives on are losing value. His pension was sold to another company and he is worried about it’s future. Everything he put his work ethic into is being taken from him and it is out of his control.

Why? Why should a man’s life evaporate like water spilt on a hot skillet? Why is this man’s life’s work skimmed off like cream. Who is responsible and shouldn’t they be held accountable? If you or your parents have experienced this culling shouldn’t you also hold those responsible to account?


This is a good starting point.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml?source=search_story

Posted by: dbs at March 6, 2009 10:47 AM

Let’s work together to answer the basic questions.
WHAT changes were made to the law?
Paint the picture everyone will understand. Make it known, without ambiguity, what happened before and after the law was changed.

WHO voted for the change in this law?
Make a unified effort to identify every elected official who voted for this change. Use the WHAT and the WHO to identify every congressman and senator that voted on this change and put them out of business at once.
We should also concentrate on the benefactors of the change in this law. Make their profit visible to the world and make them fight a life long battle to return it to the people they took it from.

Freedom is the right to identify the problem.
Freedom is the right to identify the solution.
Freedom is the right to implement the solution.
Let’s make an effort to stratically make it work to our benefit, in the name of our Father, and our Son.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 7, 2009 11:36 PM
Comment #277079

Marysdude:

“Perhaps that is the greatest difference between Republicans and Democrats??? You are concerned that the money spent MAY lead to economic problems, even though history pretty much disproves that theory…while I am more concerned about the growing numbers of PEOPLE who are landing in the all fire zone, and are becoming a serious current problem. History has also proven that healthy, working people are the truest salve for a wounded economy. Republicans = Dollars…Democrats = People…”

Then we have a solution. We can just keep printing money and let everyone work for the government.

j2t2:

FWIW, I would have been fine had the government allowed these corporations to fail. We all would have suffered, but emerged stronger. Again, I think that conjuring money out of thin air is going to do as much harm, probably more, than facing our current crisis in a more reserved manner.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 8, 2009 6:42 AM
Comment #277085

Eric,
Your right about the article; however, I have only one question for you. Do You have the Right to be Human?

Or can we (society) based on just Pure Ignorance decide who and who is not worthy of such a title. For I do believe that All Freedom begins with having the Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge that you are not a Carbon Unit.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 8, 2009 9:03 AM
Comment #277104

“FWIW, I would have been fine had the government allowed these corporations to fail. We all would have suffered, but emerged stronger.”

I understand your position on letting the guilty parties fail. It is the same opinion that many conservatives have probably do to their belief in unregulated free markets. However because of their size these companies would have also taken out many millions of people’s life savings and left they unemployed should the financial collapsed.
My question does not have to do with the aftermath of the financial meltdown and the subsequent attempts to correct the problem. My question is do you think these companies have the right to engage in the actions that caused the financial meltdown. They were just acting in their own interests to be successful. If as you say we have no positive right to regulate activities of individuals and entities that engage in activities that could so drasticaslly effect the lives of others then I don’t understand the logic.

IMHO when you espouse
” You can not have success unless you are willing to risk failure. Therefore you cannot limit failure unless you put limits on success. You cannot have individual freedom and individual success if you are dependent on a collective that will determine what you can achieve. Personally, I am willing to take the chance and let my work, determination and freedom take me to my destination.”
then each and every other person and entity that has the same rights as a person under the constitution has the same right to do so as you do. Yet without laws restricting these rights when some exercise these rights as you see them they leave others in dire straits while they walk away enriched through their efforts.



Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2009 5:08 PM
Comment #277111

j2t2:

“I understand your position on letting the guilty parties fail. It is the same opinion that many conservatives have probably do to their belief in unregulated free markets. However because of their size these companies would have also taken out many millions of people’s life savings and left they unemployed should the financial collapsed.” First, I have not argued for an unregulated free market. IMHO regulations serve many useful purposes. The balance of regulation vs strangulation may be a point of contention. Trying to associate me or any conservative as anti regulation is setting up a strawman. I am just stating that the short term “solution” to our economic situation as being approached by the federal government is probably counterproductive in the long term. I wish that the balanced budget admendment passed by the House would have been adapted by the Senate about twenty years ago. How many problems could we have avoided(problems as defined by both the Left and Right) had the Senate Democrats not stopped this leglislation?

“then each and every other person and entity that has the same rights as a person under the constitution has the same right to do so as you do. Yet without laws restricting these rights when some exercise these rights as you see them they leave others in dire straits while they walk away enriched through their efforts.”. Please correct me if I am misreading your post, as the syntax is horrible. But yes, everyone has the same rights. Anyone can act as I can within the limits of the law. I believe I understand what you are trying to convey, but I would like some clarification of your question/point before I respond. But I will say that if I exercise my rights and profit from them, and I act within the law, then yes, if that leaves you in dire straits it is of no concern to me. Rights do not abate responsibility.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 8, 2009 6:46 PM
Comment #277119

Henry,

Eric, Your right about the article; however, I have only one question for you. Do You have the Right to be Human?

Or can we (society) based on just Pure Ignorance decide who and who is not worthy of such a title. For I do believe that All Freedom begins with having the Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge that you are not a Carbon Unit.

I have no idea if you’re just making some kind of joke or something here. What does this mean?

Posted by: eric simonson at March 8, 2009 8:26 PM
Comment #277120

David,

provided GW Bush is not president - he reserved the right to tag anyone a terrorist and make them disappear for any reason of his own choosing

I’m leaning towards satire on your part. Did you know that Obama has claimed the same right…

Posted by: eric simonson at March 8, 2009 8:31 PM
Comment #277137

submariner, to my knowledge no laws were broken by AIG,the Hedge funds and financial institutions that dealt in the unregulated securities that have left the balance sheets of these financial companies in such bad shape. They broke no laws when they merged into institutions of such size that they were deemed to big to fail after Gramm undid the Glass Steagall act (strangulagtion or regulation?) in the late ‘90’s. Because these entities have the same rights as you under the constitution they were allowed to bring the Country to financial crisis that has caused many people their jobs and incomes. Why do you think these entities had the right to destroy so much at the expense of others yet do not bare the responsibility for doing so?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 9, 2009 12:23 AM
Comment #277142

>Did you know that Obama has claimed the same right…
Posted by: eric simonson at March 8, 2009 08:31 PM

eric,

Cite and compare, please…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 9, 2009 5:43 AM
Comment #277398

The Constitution is for all. Freedom means tolerating each other differences. Not forcing ones issue over the other. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WE ARE ALL UNITED. I beleive both partys are at fault for this mess and I don’t vote for either I VOTE Consitution. Maybe if we forced the Government to follow it none of this would have ever happened in the first place.

Posted by: letfreedomring at March 11, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment #277546

>Maybe if we forced the Government to follow it none of this would have ever happened in the first place.
Posted by: letfreedomring at March 11, 2009 12:48 PM

letfreedomring,

Under the Constitution, we ARE the government…that’d take some pretty serious force.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 12, 2009 11:48 PM
Post a comment