Sometimes I wonder
May 27th, 2008 by David Anderson
When I reflected upon the price paid for our freedom yesterday, I wondered are we getting the value out of our sacrifice? Are we surrendering what people paid with their blood to preserve? My father was a WW2 Disabled American Veteran. We often talked about his concern that we were slowly but surely losing our freedom.
He distrusted the growing control of government over our daily lives when it wasn’t about protecting the innocent. Where in the Constitution did government gain the right to say what kind of toilet you had? What about what color you paint your house? Set up massive phone monitoring? Seize and keep your property without convicting you of a crime? Become the arbiter of art, religion, and science? Tell you how to deposit your money into your own accounts?
I admit that I am not happy that we have been operating under emergency rule. Our government has not declared war, but claims we are in one which may last generations. War has been the single biggest tool by government to abridge our civil liberties. I fear that this war may be no exception. I admit that I was hoping for the expiration of the Patriot Act (which I never favored) and a lot of other nonsense. We have secret courts by which we deport people. We send agents into religious services and can pour through phone records and library records without evidence of a crime or a warrant. We sweep people up in the middle of the night and don’t let them call counsel. We hold people far away from their families and don’t notify anyone of their arrest. It seems like the fourth amendment has been repealed and I didn’t even know we voted. I am not referring to people found on the battlefield, but people who live here. It is like the Alien and Sedition Acts were never repealed but expanded. The founding generation would have never tolerated this travesty.
This is not a partisan issue, unfortunately it is a bipartisan problem. We seem governed more by fear than inspired by freedom. We have forgotten that Liberty is a moral issue. It seems we must once again convince our fellow Americans of the moral superiority of Liberty and due process of law, even for immigrants. The laws said to be for non-citizens have been applied to Americans. We have no liberty if the government can imprison us at length without trial, question us without counsel, and seize our property without conviction. Even worse, it wants to be able to execute people without a jury trial.
Sometimes I wonder, why we squander our freedom away to fight those who are trying to destroy our freedom? Sometimes I wonder will my children ever know what it truly is to live in a free country? This Memorial Day, I not only remembered those who paid for our freedom, but I tried to remember what it was when we had more of it.
Well knock me over with a feather.
Well-written, David. Freedom and liberty should be in abundance for all U.S. citizens, and I can’t disagree that they have both been eroded by Bush’s war.
I share your concerns, David.
The Bush Administration has ruled with an absolutist approach, much of it in secrecy, which is not part of my perception of what America is all about.
Here is a piece I ran across this morning that expresses some of your concerns, and mine too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/what-would-buddha-do_b_103516.html
The underlying feature we are missing these last eight years is “fair and balanced”; and I’m not talking about the faux FNC version!
Thus, a “change” election year is in the offing, because that is what an overwhelming number of Americans say they want — I too!
It is an easy thing to do. We need security. We need our government to have enough power to act in our interest, but I do agree about balance. We need balance that balance is found in our Bill of Rights. We cut corners at our peril. I think in some ways we have gone too far. It is too easy to fall into a trap of feeling like we need to stay not just at a state of rediness but emergency. It is the wrong route. Putin took it to its logical conclusion. Russia is no longer free. America can’t go that route. Government exists to protect our rights.
Having the government make so many decisions for us will ultimately lead to the death of Freedom eventually, unless stopped. At some point we have to be willing to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions.
Is it truly in our best interest as a society to allow the Socialists to establish precendents at having the government force their views on others?
Some trite examples are the bike helmet laws, seatbelt laws, lightbulb laws, toilet/shower/water use laws, smoking bans outdoors, and the list goes on. Does society truly benefit from these precedents?
Does a minor reduction in electricity or water use truly warrant allowing the government to mandate the type of appliance you can purchase in your home? Does the government truly need to remove the individual’s freedom of choice to wear a bike helmet or seat belt?
I think the underlying issue that these questions raise is really the role of government. Is the role of the United States to ensure each and every citizen be protected in a thick blanket of bubble wrap (biodegradable, 100% post-consumer recycled, environmentally-friendly, bubble wrap of course)? Or is the role of the United States to stay out of it’s citizens’ way?
The American Experiment has allowed its citizens to be free of government tyranny. Because of this, America went from being a nonentity on the world stage to being the most prosperous, free, and peaceful, and powerful nation in human history — and she did it in less than 200 years (a record if you look at the history of other countries)! That was the track record of small, unintrusive government prior to the current pseudo-Socialist society.
My respect for Dave Anderson just grew more than the Grinch’s heart at Christmas.
I thought I was reading Delaware Libertarian for a minute.
I have many of the same concerns, along with one to be added to the mix:
What will happen if/when someone else that holds less moral authority takes over the White House and runs wild with the newly expanded powers?
That’s what I’m scared of.
Look at it this way. It is what it is. Freedom is not defined by what you are free to do as an individual, freedom is about the process used to create the law. If the democratic process says you have to wear a helmet, you have just experienced American freedom.
Advanced complex societies need advanced complex rules and regulations. Our founders set up a collective system of government aimed at ensuring those rules and regulations were of “the People” -note the plural. Our national motto E pluribus unum speaks to the collective not the individual And today, in keeping with the original vision, our laws are more people inspired than ever before.
These are the happiest of times for freedom lovers. It just seems complicated. This is post industrial America. Highly complex, highly regulated, still Free.
Don,
I respectfully disagree. Freedom is defined individually. The Bill of Rights was the central document and ideology that our government was founded on. It has been proven in court that it was meant to be interpreted as applying to us individually.
I don’t recall the name of the case, but it was a hate crime down in the south where some white guys beat up and killed a black guy. The white guys were tried at the state level and got off because of prejudice in the jury. The federal government stepped in and successfully tried them on infringing upon the black guys right to life, as provided in the Bill of Rights. Freedoms to therefore apply to us individually.
Our founding fathers set up the government so that we would have a de facto stalemate. Each branch of government has checks and balances on the other. Neither the popular assembly (House of Representatives), nor the aristocracy (Senate), nor the executive (President) can ride rough-shod over the other two. John Adams even wanted to go one step further by making the executive veto final, but the Massachusets assembly opted instead for a 2/3 majority. Something that has indeed haunted us many times since.
Please remember that we are not, never were, and never were intended to be a democracy. We are, and always have been, a republic. As John Adams called us a “nation of laws, not of men” because all men would become a tyrant if the situation allowed.
The founding fathers were as much scared of a tyranny of the masses as much as they were scared of a dictator.
I understand what you are saying, however the reality is that if the legislature passes a law that says we all have to stay inside after 9pm and chewing gum is illegal, the executive signs that law, and the court declares it constitutional, then that is the way it is. Individual freedom is defined by law. Law is established collectively. Not sure what we are debating here. Seems pretty clear the courts have upheld every little bit of every little law that people say decry as infringing upon individual freedom. We are not a free society. We are a highly governed society. I am not sure I object. I do object to those who worry so about freedom. The concept of individual freedom belongs to a bygone era.
The Bill of Rights was in place during slavery. No doubt freedom is in the eye of the beholder.
“Where in the Constitution did government gain the right to say what kind of toilet you had……..”
It didn’t, until pinhead leftist Socialist-Democrat judges determined that the ‘commerce clause’ gives Congress carte blanche to do anything they want (makes you wonder why the founders bothered with articulating the ‘clearly deliniated’ powers, i.e. Article I, Sec. 8).
“Where in the Constitution did government gain the right to say what kind of toilet you had……..”
When the Government started paying for water projects to let you live in the desert.
Why does specs for toilets bother anybody? Sounds like the spoiled kid that doesn’t like rules. We are all in this together. If you want a toilet that uses all of your neighbors water and dumps into the schoolyard, “we” tell you that kind of individual freedom is anti-social. Has nothing to do with leftist socialist, it’s about surviving together. E pluribus unum, the ultimate Americanism. It ain’t “the government” you are bitching about, it is your neighbors, your fellow citizens who decide all this. You don’t like what we got? You don’t like America.
Rick, you need to think through your comments before you make them. You’re not on the old WGMD forum anymore!
Don,
That we do not live in a free society is evident and the reason for my posts, as demands on our individual liberties are incessant and from all angles. The founding fathers wanted us to be free from tyranny and opression by the government and bureacracy and if you look at the first hundred years or so of the legislature and the types of laws they passed you will see the evidence of this. Our government was inteded to stay out of the lives of people.
Thomas Jefferson said that “The price of Liberty is eternal vigilence.”
You may call it whining and complaining, but I see it as being vigilent against any and all inroads upon our lives, and our freedoms as protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Christian, I do not consider it whining at all. It is a natural reaction to the complexity of modern life. Whether you look at the first hundred years of the last fifty years, the history of America is one of laws being enacted. Laws aimed at changing the way we do things. Anarchy is the absence of law. You can’t a civil society without law governing individual behavior. The more complex the society (as is ours) the more complex the law. The blessing of American freedom is that the majority gets to shape the law. As for “liberty” it is difficult to know what that means in today’s world. My view is, that other than the basics like freedom of speech and religion, American liberty is determined more by money than by anything else. How else do you explain a justice system where a poor man goes to jail for drug possession but a wealthy person does not? I think it is time to discard the myth of American freedom and justice, and talk about how modern America really operates. Again, I am pretty relaxed about this. I’m not complaining either, just observing the difference between the lapel pin view of America and the reality.
Don, you raise some good points, but I partially disagree with you. You are right that modern society is more complex. We are no longer 5 or 6 million people riding around on horses or walking everywhere. The world has changed so much that we have to have new rules to protect each other and the planet around us.
Yet, I would say that the modern nature of society makes it even more important that we stay in touch with our human birthright of liberty. Technology makes it possible for us to enjoy more individual sovereignty. We have more of a chance to find self actualization and fulfillment than any generation. Yet the same technology gives us the opportunity to spy, oppress, and control one another to a level never seen. We have to choose which road we take. I want us to choose a way which enhances our time honored freedoms.
Our basic needs haven’t changed and neither has our nature. That is why our traditions are so important. Without them we will lose our bearings and our liberty. The problem with coming technology is that if we let it take our freedom, the government will be so powerful that we may never get it back.
“Rick, you need to think through your comments before you make them. You’re not on the old WGMD forum anymore!”………Perry
The truth will still set you free, in any venue. Read Article I, Section 8., and then ask yourself; why did the Founders bother, if the intent was to allow Congress to do virtually anything?
For the answer, Google ‘Federalist Papers,’ then hit ‘powers of Congress.’ Hamilton’s ‘intent’ (contemporary to the time of the formulation of the Constitution) carries more weight with me than your opinion, or the opinion of some leftist judge (who, in the time of Hamilton, would surely be impeached).
Rick, here is where we differ: The Constitution is not the truth. It is a guide for governance and a set of rules therefor. The Amendments set about to define individual freedoms, protecting each of us from tyranny in the form of the “government”.
The “truth”, ultimately, is whatever the Supreme Court decides, using their current interpretation of the Constitution as a guide, using high level arguments to determine these various outcomes.
People like you, Rick, delude yourselves in thinking there is such a thing as absolute truth, whether you speak of the US Constitution, the Bible, the Koran, or the …. There simply is not such a thing, which is why maintaining the balance of powers, recently overturned by Bush & Co., is so critically important.
Therefore, just so we know, the response to your point boils down to: What is a leftist judge? A leftist judge (or better yet: a “pinhead leftist Socialist-Democrat judge”) is any judge whose opinion does not agree with Rick’s. That’s convincing?
Well said Perry.
The Supreme Court is far from an arbiter of “truth”. It applies the law to a given situation. The law is the standard. The Constitution is the supreme law. The court, executive, and legislative branches are bound under it. So are the states.
The one of biggest scam we have had perpetrated on us has been the three branches of government. The founders told us their were 5. The states, the senate, the house, the executive, and the courts. The court was the least powerful branch and the states the most powerful. The executive was not equal to the congress, but to the senate or the house. 2/3 of congress can run the government without the other courts and President. Remember the reconstruction period? The Congress can override a veto, restrict the Courts jurisdiction and remove judges, remove the President for high crimes and misdemeanors, propose amendments to the constitution to the states, control tax and trade policy, determine spending, coin the money, and fund the military and control who is promoted. The co-equal government is a myth. Even worse it has led to Presidential Imperialism. Congress and the States are supreme because they represent the people.
I do agree that the Constitution isn’t absolute truth. It is a document that the people can and do change when they have close to a consensus. It is our tool to focus the government into proper areas and protect ourselves from its meddling.