• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do We Live in a Free Country?

Do we live in a free country?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 42.4%
  • Nope

    Votes: 32 37.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Total voters
    85
We are told we live in a free country. "Land of the free" yada yada yada. Simple question: "Do we live in a free country"?

No. Virtue is actively discouraged by our society. And immorality abounds in it.
 
Yes.

We just need more social rights for secularists. I do feel however that as religious Hispanics populate the US our secular freedoms will slowly be destroyed. I've never encountered a secular Hispanic who truly believed in science.
 

We are told we live in a free country. "Land of the free" yada yada yada. Simple question: "Do we live in a free country"?

We probably have more freedom than most but those freedoms are being eroded away by:

1. An income tax: An income tax means that we no longer have the right to earn an income and that the government determines how much of the fruit of our labor we may keep.

2. Property taxes: Property taxes means that we no longer have the right to own private property. Don’t pay your property tax and you’ll find out very quickly who does own it.

3. Government surveillance: The FBI has admitted to using drones to spy on Americans. I wonder, by what right does this government have the right to spy on private citizens. They are collecting information on Americans and storing it in large warehouses such as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center in Utah.

4. Minimum wage: The government has given itself the right to dictate to private employers the minimum wage it has to pay individuals thus ensuring higher than needed unemployment.

5. Obamacare: Even Hitler knew that to control the populace you had to ration healthcare.

There are more examples. This is only scratching the surface and, no, I don’t care to live anywhere else. This only demonstrates that we need to be ever vigilant to protect our freedom and liberties.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

 
Relatively speaking, absolutely we're free.

But we're definitely parented. And often times we deserve to be.

Regardless of any Constitution or what any founding father might have said, the fundamental purpose of "government" is to maintain a stable society. You can try to control what the government does in the pursuit of that stability, but at the end of the day stability will win. Why? Because the common person would rather compromise a piece of paper and centuries old ideas than watch society collapse around them, losing all the protections it offers them and their loved ones.

So practicality and stability dictates that when members of the society do things that jeopardize--either by single action or precedent--the overall stability, government will step in with regulations. Government grows. The Nanny State grows.

Racism has lead to Nanny State. Bad business practices have lead to Nanny State. Damaging the environment has lead to Nanny State. Bad eating has lead to Nanny State. Irresponsible drug and alcohol use have lead to Nanny State. Even school bullying has lead to Nanny State.

Just like we place restrictions on children who prove irresponsible, government assumes the same role for the same reason: safety and stability.
 
Relatively speaking, absolutely we're free.

But we're definitely parented. And often times we deserve to be.

Regardless of any Constitution or what any founding father might have said, the fundamental purpose of "government" is to maintain a stable society. You can try to control what the government does in the pursuit of that stability, but at the end of the day stability will win. Why? Because the common person would rather compromise a piece of paper and centuries old ideas than watch society collapse around them, losing all the protections it offers them and their loved ones.

So practicality and stability dictates that when members of the society do things that jeopardize--either by single action or precedent--the overall stability, government will step in with regulations. Government grows. The Nanny State grows.

Racism has lead to Nanny State. Bad business practices have lead to Nanny State. Damaging the environment has lead to Nanny State. Bad eating has lead to Nanny State. Irresponsible drug and alcohol use have lead to Nanny State. Even school bullying has lead to Nanny State.

Just like we place restrictions on children who prove irresponsible, government assumes the same role for the same reason: safety and stability.


Your ideas are completely wrong, dangerous, anti-freedom, un-American, and most unfortunately popular among liberals. You are destroying America.
 
Your ideas are completely wrong, dangerous, anti-freedom, un-American, and most unfortunately popular among liberals. You are destroying America.

They're not my "ideas".

What I stated is the current state of reality. Regulations are reactionary. Bullying becomes a problem, so there's rules created to protect from it. Banks misbehave and regulations are created to limit them. Corporations act irresponsibly and you get all manner of regulations to control and monitor them.

It even applies to government. If government acts irresponsibly then you get congressional hearings and investigations.

You really can't deny this. It's evident everywhere, at all levels of government and society. Even in the workplace.

As to your insinuation that this is something I support, well- you're right and you're wrong. I absolutely despise the growth of the Nanny State. It's anti-freedom and very anti-liberal, despite your apparent ignorance over what liberalism means. I hate that my elementary school now has a fence around it. I hate that my child might be punished for words he might say. I hate to see our children increasingly sheltered as it hurts their eventual entry into adult society.

But what I hate the most is that the American people have become so irresponsible that such things have become often necessary to maintain social stability. It's that irresponsibility that's lead to the growth of the Nanny State. And worse, we don't learn. If we de-regulate something, people hop right back into the same destructive practices no matter the consequences.

This is why the government always seems to grow- we keep finding new ways to exploit the system to the detriment of others. And so more and more regulations have to be created to keep our actions in check.

They say that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Most people take that to mean that they must remain ever-watchful of a government becoming oppressive. But that's not the source of the problem. What we must remain vigilante of is that we use our freedom wisely; that we don't abuse and exploit it to the harm of others. Because that will inevitably lead to freedoms lost. Eventually the people will demand it.
 
The 10th amendment states, the executive branch and congress only have the powers specifically given to them in the Constitution.
our rights aren't spelled out because it's not granting our rights. The government power IS spelled out and restricted from exceeding.

The final part of the 10th says all other powers are reserved. Not given. Reserved. To the states and/or THE PEOPLE.

When officials exceed there Constitutional powers, they ROB us of rights not named. And it is unconstitutional and illegal for officials to do that.




However, they do it anyway.
 
I do not have the right to keep and bear arms, I do not have the right to privacy, I do not have the right to organize and peacefully protest (see whats happening RIGHT NOW in Ferguson)

No, I'm not free.

Evidently you haven't lost the right to post hyperbolic blather.
 
Nah, some FICA dude and his gang of ruffians take money from my paycheck each month. I assume that's who I'm paying to live here. Seems like they take more the more I make too.
 
The 10th amendment states, the executive branch and congress only have the powers specifically given to them in the Constitution.
our rights aren't spelled out because it's not granting our rights. The government power IS spelled out and restricted from exceeding.

The final part of the 10th says all other powers are reserved. Not given. Reserved. To the states and/or THE PEOPLE.

When officials exceed there Constitutional powers, they ROB us of rights not named. And it is unconstitutional and illegal for officials to do that.




However, they do it anyway.
 
They're not my "ideas".

What I stated is the current state of reality. Regulations are reactionary. Bullying becomes a problem, so there's rules created to protect from it. Banks misbehave and regulations are created to limit them. Corporations act irresponsibly and you get all manner of regulations to control and monitor them.

It even applies to government. If government acts irresponsibly then you get congressional hearings and investigations.

You really can't deny this. It's evident everywhere, at all levels of government and society. Even in the workplace.'ll

As to your insinuation that this is something I support, well- you're right and you're wrong. I absolutely despise the growth of the Nanny State. It's anti-freedom and very anti-liberal, despite your apparent ignorance over what liberalism means. I hate that my elementary school now has a fence around it. I hate that my child might be punished for words he might say. I hate to see our children increasingly sheltered as it hurts their eventual entry into adult society.

But what I hate the most is that the American people have become so irresponsible that such things have become often necessary to maintain social stability. It's that irresponsibility that's lead to the growth of the Nanny State. And worse, we don't learn. If we de-regulate something, people hop right back into the same destructive practices no matter the consequences.

This is why the government always seems to grow- we keep finding new ways to exploit the system to the detriment of others. And so more and more regulations have to be created to keep our actions in check.

They say that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Most people take that to mean that they must remain ever-watchful of a government becoming oppressive. But that's not the source of the problem. What we must remain vigilante of is that we use our freedom wisely; that we don't abuse and exploit it to the harm of others. Because that will inevitably lead to freedoms lost. Eventually the people will demand it.

I actually think you have it backwards. Its the growth of the Nanny state that has made people irresponsible, not the other way around. But I do agree with 99% of your post.
 
I actually think you have it backwards. Its the growth of the Nanny state that has made people irresponsible, not the other way around. But I do agree with 99% of your post.

Do you have an example of a regulation that's preceded the problem it was designed to prevent?

The one I have the most direct experience with is the Sarbanes–Oxley Act that proceeded the whole Enron thing. Enron and others conducted business practices that resulted in investors losing billions of dollars and shook confidence in the securities market. In reaction the feds passed SOX to be applied to all publicly traded companies.

The company I worked for from 2003-2013 went public in 2006/2007 and, being the software engineer behind a critical billing application, I was sucked into the world that SOX mandates. It forced a lot of changes to our roles, our auditing practices, review processes, etc. We all hated it. But then the weird thing happened: I began to realize how good the practices were that it mandated.

Now I'm the VP of Technology with a small start-up and though we may never go public, I help plan the company's direction with those practices in mind.
 
Care to explain how my inability to bear arms is mere hyperbole rather than fact? Or do you only have insults to offer?

Your post was whiny hyperbole.

Move somewhere else.
 
Care to explain how my inability to bear arms is mere hyperbole rather than fact? Or do you only have insults to offer?

"Inability to bear arms" lol. You're kidding yourself if you don't acknowledge that the U.S. is one of the most gun friendly first world nations there is.
 
There are no such things as free countries.
 
However, they do it anyway.
If that remark is referenced to "Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
"Evidently you haven't lost the right to post hyperbolic blather. "Quote"

Then your ignorance is out of the closet. Put it back.
If instead you are agreeing the government is illegal and by ignoring the 10th amendment has embarked on tyranny as feared by founders, then you are astute.

Bill of Rights

"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights."

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Article the eleventh(ratified as 9th)... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Article the twelfth (ratified as 10th)... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Last edited:
Reserving something is holding on to what is already yours. It's not asking permission. It's stating clearly "This is MINE. It was mine before we began our business together. It is going to remain mine. You can not have it. You have no claim or right to this, because I own it exclusively. It's reserved to me."
 
Last edited:
If that remark is referenced to "Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
"Evidently you haven't lost the right to post hyperbolic blather. "Quote"

Then your ignorance is out of the closet. Put it back.
If instead you are agreeing the government is illegal and by ignoring the 10th amendment has embarked on tyranny as feared by founders, then you are astute.

Bill of Rights

"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights."

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Article the eleventh(ratified as 9th)... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Article the twelfth (ratified as 10th)... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



What? My response was to your comment "When officials exceed their constitutional powers, they rob us rights not named. And it is unconstitutional and illegal for officials to do so.".
 
What? My response was to your comment "When officials exceed their constitutional powers, they rob us rights not named. And it is unconstitutional and illegal for officials to do so.".

Thanks, so I thought.
 
Thanks, so I thought.



I also remarked that they do it anyway...Everyone is always harping on the Federal Government. It is local and State governments that exceed their authority and trample on our constitutional rights on a daily basis.
 
I also remarked that they do it anyway...Everyone is always harping on the Federal Government. It is local and State governments that exceed their authority and trample on our constitutional rights on a daily basis.

Under the Constitution the state governments have more powers than the federal government. The states are not provinces. When the colonies declared independence, the name STATE was deliberately chosen by founders and has a specific meaning. Best explanatory example is European states are France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, ect.
We are UNITED STATES. It was never intended for the central government to have most of the power. The government nearest you, knows best the local problems and your vote counts the most when it's not diluted by the popular votes in 49 other states.
All that being said, state governments, and ALL government, tends to grab more authority, never less, never willingly relinquishes power.
That's why ULTIMATE power resides in the people. We can curtail government excesses if we have the will to exercise our power together.
Parties were created to exercise joint will. Voting blocks more or less do the same.
Apparently the parties and blocks have no interest in reigning in run away government.
Maybe we need to forget parties and blocks based on ethnicity or financial status, or religion, or philosophy, just long enough to regain control of rabid government.
Whoever is controlling this country, it isn't the people, I think. The elites have us at each other's throats so we don't get after them.

I'd like to see, not a new political party, but some organization of AMERICAN PATRIOTS to consolidate efforts to return us to government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The tea party was a grass roots movement with that aim in the beginning, but got subverted.
 
Last edited:
Most patriotic names are already in use and tarnished.
Any suggestions?

Maybe "Not Sheep" movement
 
Back
Top Bottom