• 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
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."

Unless you willingly give it up.
That's the part you're missing.

The Constitution sets the baseline of the government structure and its chief operating mandates. But it also establishes a process through which laws can be created, changed, and repealed by representatives of the people. If we, through our representatives, decide it's in society's interest to give up some freedom, then laws can be created to take that right away. Later, through the same process, we can seek to have that right restored. The Constitution only dictates a few areas where lower laws cannot go without requiring amendments.

The government cannot unilaterally claim onto itself new powers and authority. That's what the 10th Amendment prevents. But states can form their own constitutions and lower laws, and Congress can create lower laws on behalf of all the nations' people, to be applied to the nation as a whole.

Or are you suggesting Congress only has the authority to perform those few specific duties specifically stated in the Constitution (treaties, war declarations, etc.)?
 
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.

Only three powers are prohibited to the states and otherwise state powers are not defined. Nowhere in the Constitution is power of the people limited.
The three powers denied to states are coining money, making war (unless invaded), and making treaties with foreign governments.

There are many restrictions by the Constitution upon the federal government including everything, all things, not delegated to the federal government.
 
Unless you willingly give it up.
That's the part you're missing.

The Constitution sets the baseline of the government structure and its chief operating mandates. But it also establishes a process through which laws can be created, changed, and repealed by representatives of the people. If we, through our representatives, decide it's in society's interest to give up some freedom, then laws can be created to take that right away. Later, through the same process, we can seek to have that right restored. The Constitution only dictates a few areas where lower laws cannot go without requiring amendments.

The government cannot unilaterally claim onto itself new powers and authority. That's what the 10th Amendment prevents. But states can form their own constitutions and lower laws, and Congress can create lower laws on behalf of all the nations' people, to be applied to the nation as a whole.

Or are you suggesting Congress only has the authority to perform those few specific duties specifically stated in the Constitution (treaties, war declarations, etc.)?[/QUOTE]
Yes, and the executive branch also.
Federal government can offer an amendment the Constitution . unless 3/4 ths of the states ratify, it's not an amendment.

Are there any "amendments" that don't meet this qualification?
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unratified_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution


The Child Labor Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution that would specifically authorize Congress to regulate "labor of persons under eighteen years of age". The amendment was proposed in 1924 following Supreme Court rulings in 1918 and 1922 that federal laws regulating and taxing goods produced by employees under the ages of 14 and 16 were unconstitutional.

The majority of the state governments ratified the amendment by the mid-1930s; however, it has not been ratified by the requisite 3⁄4 of the states according to Article V of the Constitution and none has ratified it after 1937. Interest in the amendment waned following the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which implemented federal regulation of child labor with the Supreme Court's approval in 1941.

As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. Currently, ratification by an additional ten states would be necessary for this amendment to come into force.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification.
The resolution in Congress that proposed the amendment set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Five states later rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline, though the validity of these rescissions is disputed. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment before the passing of the second deadline. Several feminist organizations, disputing the validity and/or the permanence of the ratification deadline, and also disputing the validity of the five rescissions, continue to work at the federal and state levels for the adoption of the ERA.



U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:
1. Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
2. In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
4. Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
5. The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
6. Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
7. Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
8. President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
9. Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
10. The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."


So the fed does what it wants regardless of the states? That's tyranny.
 
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"?



Depends on exactly what you mean by "free country". I used to think the concept of "freedom" was widely understood in a similar manner; I have come to find out it means very different things to different people... some of which don't really jibe with "freedom".
 
*snip for Great Brevity*
So the fed does what it wants regardless of the states? That's tyranny.
I am of the opinion that because of the immense amount of info available on the internet, nearly all of which can be easily/subtly modified in a multitude of ways and re-presented so as to support a given position, you need at least 3 grains of salt with anything you read.

I like Wikipedia in this area not because of the content of their information, but rather their provision of multiple links on most subjects, for further research.

I prefer news articles with multiple links to information too, although those can occasionally be total BS as well. The problem is that rarely can I be sure of anything, even if acknowledged experts say it's so.

For all I know they're not really acknowledged, only pretending.
Or they've been taken out of context. In this day and age context is one of if not THE most important bits of data about a piece of information. Maybe it has always been so, but lately it seems to be ignored so often I have to wonder.
Or they don't even exist at all, and someone is just claiming that "experts" support whatever bull**** they're peddling. Frankly anyone can call themselves an expert, in the end. Proving they are is another question.
 
Depends on exactly what you mean by "free country". I used to think the concept of "freedom" was widely understood in a similar manner; I have come to find out it means very different things to different people... some of which don't really jibe with "freedom".



Example?
 


Some people literally think "free" means "someone else pays for what I want". I mean I've literally heard people express this.


More subtly, some people value certain freedoms but not others, and think our society is "free" if their own preferred freedoms are available, but are uncaring if freedoms OTHERS value are restricted or nonexistent. This is the more common variance of defining freedom.
 
Some people literally think "free" means "someone else pays for what I want". I mean I've literally heard people express this.


More subtly, some people value certain freedoms but not others, and think our society is "free" if their own preferred freedoms are available, but are uncaring if freedoms OTHERS value are restricted or nonexistent. This is the more common variance of defining freedom.



I don't agree with that, but we will leave that for another day. Freedom is the ability to live your life free of oppression, false allegations, the pursuit of happiness, to have a family without the worry that it will be taken from you. Do you agree? If so, do you think that we have these freedoms in this country?
 
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"?

Not living in the land of the home and free of the brave, I don't navel-gaze on the subject. Yeah, I live in a free country.
 
I don't agree with that, but we will leave that for another day. Freedom is the ability to live your life free of oppression, false allegations, the pursuit of happiness, to have a family without the worry that it will be taken from you. Do you agree? If so, do you think that we have these freedoms in this country?


1. That is YOUR definition of freedom. Someone else's definition may be different.
2. Define oppression. If I can't own an AR15 am I being oppressed? I think so; some don't. If a 20yo and a 16yo can't have an intimate relationship are they being oppressed? They probably think so, but many would disagree. If gay people can't marry, are they being oppressed? Some think so, some think not.
3. Some people don't worry their family will be taken from them (they may not have or want one), but may worry something else they value more will be.

Consider those three points and tell me again if you think "freedom" doesn't vary in different person's perspective.
 
1. That is YOUR definition of freedom. Someone else's definition may be different.
2. Define oppression. If I can't own an AR15 am I being oppressed? I think so; some don't. If a 20yo and a 16yo can't have an intimate relationship are they being oppressed? They probably think so, but many would disagree. If gay people can't marry, are they being oppressed? Some think so, some think not.
3. Some people don't worry their family will be taken from them (they may not have or want one), but may worry something else they value more will be.

Consider those three points and tell me again if you think "freedom" doesn't vary in different person's perspective.



You are trying to anticipate my point before I even make it! I am talking about our BASIC freedoms--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Do you think that we have these freedoms or not?
 
You are trying to anticipate my point before I even make it! I am talking about our BASIC freedoms--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Do you think that we have these freedoms or not?

Liberty is a basic freedom? Liberty IS freedom. It implies everything Goshin is talking about.
 
You are trying to anticipate my point before I even make it! I am talking about our BASIC freedoms--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Do you think that we have these freedoms or not?



Forgive me, I am not trying to be obtuse, or excessively clever, or anything of the sort... and I am sorry if it comes across that way.

Life: that's a simple one.... but pro-life and pro-choice would argue wouldn't they...
Pursuit of happiness: more complicated but essentially are you free to pursue what makes you happy, as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

Liberty.... ah, liberty. Now that is a bit more complex. We really can't say whether we have LIBERTY unless we know what it IS, right?

But is my definition the same as yours? If so, is our definition the same as Some Random Dude we find in a coffee shop?


When you say BASIC freedoms, are you asking me to accept some minimalist laundry list of what constitutes freedom? If so, what if my FAVORITE freedom isn't on that list? Is it then not legitimate that I feel I am NOT free if my favorite freedom is not respected?


And will these definitions not meet variance between different individuals coming from different perspectives?


Way back when the great minds were debating things like natural law, the proper place of government, democracy and rights, the days of Locke and Hobbes and so forth, one of those worthy wits asked this question: "Why should the common people care about political liberty when their children are starving? What use is franchise to the desperately poor?" He was pointing out how a theoretical political equality was of limited use when people were subject to incredible disparity of material prosperity, you see.... and this highlights the point I'm making about different viewpoints of freedom.
 
Forgive me, I am not trying to be obtuse, or excessively clever, or anything of the sort... and I am sorry if it comes across that way.

Life: that's a simple one.... but pro-life and pro-choice would argue wouldn't they...
Pursuit of happiness: more complicated but essentially are you free to pursue what makes you happy, as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

Liberty.... ah, liberty. Now that is a bit more complex. We really can't say whether we have LIBERTY unless we know what it IS, right?

But is my definition the same as yours? If so, is our definition the same as Some Random Dude we find in a coffee shop?


When you say BASIC freedoms, are you asking me to accept some minimalist laundry list of what constitutes freedom? If so, what if my FAVORITE freedom isn't on that list? Is it then not legitimate that I feel I am NOT free if my favorite freedom is not respected?


And will these definitions not meet variance between different individuals coming from different perspectives?


Way back when the great minds were debating things like natural law, the proper place of government, democracy and rights, the days of Locke and Hobbes and so forth, one of those worthy wits asked this question: "Why should the common people care about political liberty when their children are starving? What use is franchise to the desperately poor?" He was pointing out how a theoretical political equality was of limited use when people were subject to incredible disparity of material prosperity, you see.... and this highlights the point I'm making about different viewpoints of freedom.

I generally go with the big three:

Life
Speech
Defense

Those rights are self evident natural social objects.
 
I generally go with the big three:

Life
Speech
Defense

Those rights are self evident natural social objects.


Just to cover the basics of human needs, though, I'd think you'd have to add an opportunity to try to make a living, and the right to seek an opportunity to mate/reproduce.


That covers "eat" and "reproduce" under the ol' Hierarchy of Needs.


Most Americans would add a right to Property, though I realize that issue is subject to some dispute as to particulars.... mainly whether it is just "fruit of one's labors" or whether it includes "rent seeking behaviors".
 
We have remnants of those but less than we use to have. I don't mean ancient days, I mean in my lifetime.
Is LIFE better or worse now than in previous decades? We have more gadgets but less leisure time together as families. What happened to the 40 hour work week?
Not your mother's motherhood: Moms by the numbers, through the decades - Parents - TODAY.com
Growing up in the 50s, most mom's stayed home. Weekends were family trips to grandma's for get-togethers . Dad put in 8 hour days 5 day weeks. Overtime was rare.
LIBERTY is not just being out of jail. The liberty to walk around without fear of being molested. My 4th birthday wish was to go to the movies by myself. I was a "big" boy now. My parents let me. Drive by shootings unheard of. Child molesters existed but not very many I suspect.
PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. To me, that is making plans and working toward their goals, a better future. That requires a stable currency not steadily eroded by inflation. Steady employment so savings are not gobbled up by layoff periods. And faith that government and police and courts are just.

We had it better in the 50s

Before anyone says not everybody had those advantages, in efforts to make all equal, all are brought down to the bottom rung it seems.
 
Last edited:
Just to cover the basics of human needs, though, I'd think you'd have to add an opportunity to try to make a living, and the right to seek an opportunity to mate/reproduce.


That covers "eat" and "reproduce" under the ol' Hierarchy of Needs.


Most Americans would add a right to Property, though I realize that issue is subject to some dispute as to particulars.... mainly whether it is just "fruit of one's labors" or whether it includes "rent seeking behaviors".

Hmm... Eco's Hierarchy of Rights (I've done this before):


Environmental rights
Then comes civil rights: voting
The next level I think would be labor rights: property
Next up is human rights: opportunity for a living... food and association
At the bottom of the pyramid, I'd put natural rights: life, speech and defense​


I might invert labor and civil rights, I'm not sure which naturally precedes the other.
 
It's important to differentiate "freedom" from "free country".
And then the options to the question presume a black/white response, where really it's a scale.

Absolute freedom is the end of the spectrum that's physically and practically impossible to obtain.

Then there are different aspects of our environment that apply different restrictions to our freedom.
Nature applies restrictions.
Society applies restrictions.
An extension of society, government applies restrictions.

And when you begin to ask questions that are dependent on man made social structures, the answer is best derived through comparison. Do the people of one society retain more of their freedom than people in another society? Or religion. Or under governments.

So when I'm asked if I think I live in a free country, I compare our freedoms to those in other countries, and I say "yes".
But we're far from absolute freedom. We aren't free to take others' belongings. We aren't free to kill. Our freedoms are limited for what's determined to be the good of the environment we live in. Religions excommunicate people who violate their rules. Governments imprison or exile. Companies can fire you. Service providers can take you to court for violating terms of use. Society can make you an outcast if you act in abnormal ways.

Every group you're forced or choose to belong to is going to influence your actions and restrict your freedoms.
 
Forgive me, I am not trying to be obtuse, or excessively clever, or anything of the sort... and I am sorry if it comes across that way.

Life: that's a simple one.... but pro-life and pro-choice would argue wouldn't they...
Pursuit of happiness: more complicated but essentially are you free to pursue what makes you happy, as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

Liberty.... ah, liberty. Now that is a bit more complex. We really can't say whether we have LIBERTY unless we know what it IS, right?

But is my definition the same as yours? If so, is our definition the same as Some Random Dude we find in a coffee shop?


When you say BASIC freedoms, are you asking me to accept some minimalist laundry list of what constitutes freedom? If so, what if my FAVORITE freedom isn't on that list? Is it then not legitimate that I feel I am NOT free if my favorite freedom is not respected?


And will these definitions not meet variance between different individuals coming from different perspectives?


Way back when the great minds were debating things like natural law, the proper place of government, democracy and rights, the days of Locke and Hobbes and so forth, one of those worthy wits asked this question: "Why should the common people care about political liberty when their children are starving? What use is franchise to the desperately poor?" He was pointing out how a theoretical political equality was of limited use when people were subject to incredible disparity of material prosperity, you see.... and this highlights the point I'm making about different viewpoints of freedom.



OK, my point is that not everyone in this country have these freedoms. First, we have the police with whom you have no freedom of speech, no freedom to assemble-- just STFU and put your hands behind your back.... But even worse is the justice system and state agencies such as CPS, also known as DHS or DCFS, etc. who have even more power than the Police. Then you have a totally corrupt judicial system, especially in small towns and cities. How do you fight these agencies? How do you prove the corruption? The system is biased against you. Have you experienced any of this?
 
OK, my point is that not everyone in this country have these freedoms. First, we have the police with whom you have no freedom of speech, no freedom to assemble-- just STFU and put your hands behind your back.... But even worse is the justice system and state agencies such as CPS, also known as DHS or DCFS, etc. who have even more power than the Police. Then you have a totally corrupt judicial system, especially in small towns and cities. How do you fight these agencies? How do you prove the corruption? The system is biased against you. Have you experienced any of this?

But they're supposed to have those freedoms.

You've cited examples of law enforcement abuse as though they're examples of us not having a right to these freedoms. But those kinds of abuses should be challenged and those responsible for unjustly taking your freedoms should be punished. The exceptions don't prove the rule. And by large, most police officers and government law enforcement personnel are decent people, often doing a thankless job at mediocre pay and higher risk.
 
But they're supposed to have those freedoms.

You've cited examples of law enforcement abuse as though they're examples of us not having a right to these freedoms. But those kinds of abuses should be challenged and those responsible for unjustly taking your freedoms should be punished. The exceptions don't prove the rule. And by large, most police officers and government law enforcement personnel are decent people, often doing a thankless job at mediocre pay and higher risk.



I used to say that. Problem is, it isn't entirely true, and even if it were it doesn't matter; some of the abuse has become embedded in the system and enshrined under the umbrella of "necessity".


Background: I am an ex-cop. Been out a long while, but I still remember well. Heh, still have nightmares actually.

I was sworn in with the fire of passion in my soul, "To Protect And Serve" engraved on my brain, and a strong if idealistic motivation to protect The Good Folks from The Bad Guys.... strengthened by my recent loss of a good friend in a robbery at his place of business, btw.

Well, there are problems there. For one, as SCOTUS has noted, the police are not liable for your protection; they're there to enforce the law. As much as Rookie Goshin WANTED to protect people.... there wasn't really a lot of opportunity to do so. Throughout my time behind the badge, there were only a few such moments and I cherish each one.

Most cops spend most of their time writing reports AFTER the fact, and handing out fines and tickets, and dealing with drunks and druggies... and after a while you start to view ALL non-cops as presumed-scum-until-proven-otherwise. It's a pandemic among cops who have been in more than a few years. You get a very negative view of humanity, dealing with the dregs and scum and even regular peeps not-at-their-best.

That's one problem.

Bad cops are another... and there's more of them than most of us want to admit. I'd say close to a third of those I worked with had no business wearing a badge. They were either too enamored of their own authority, bullies or eager to dish out violence to anyone who gave them half an excuse.... or else they had grown indifferent and uncaring, hardened and callous and lacking in compassion from seeing too much.... or they were By-The-Book-Nazis with all the human kindness of an automated hydraulic press.

We need to get better at weeding those out. They are serious problems and give law enforcement a bad name.... but the Thin Blue Line tends to close ranks and protect its own.

That leads to two more problems, more recent in vintage: Officer Safety as THE priority, and the militarization of the police force.

In my day, we knew when we joined up that it was dangerous, that you'd probably get hurt sometime, that you might get killed. Sure, we tried to be careful but it was a risky job and if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined. Today though, Officer Safety has become paramount to an insane degree... departments are so frazzled about liability and workmans comp and lost time and so on they've literally starting saying Officer Safety Is Priority One.


Oh hell no. It is NOT priority one.


MANY things come BEFORE officer safety. Protect and Serve the public comes first. The Constitution comes first. The Law comes first. Right and Justice come first, or should.

But no.... we've gotten so obsessive about Officer Safety that we're Tasering 12yo's and 90yo's, and we're using SWAT teams for what used to be a two-uniform job.... hell I saw THREE county cops in black body armor conducting a routine traffic stop on an old man, for speeding.

Officer Safety does NOT come first.... if you can't deal with that, don't join. In my day it was OUR JOB to be the ones who TOOK the risk, not the ones who avoided risk at the expense of the citizenry.


BTW.... being a cop is dangerous but not THAT dangerous... being an Electrical Lineman is statistically FAR more dangerous. Fact. Look it up. Plenty of jobs are dangerous.


Militarization... that was starting about the time I got out, and I didn't like it. If you arm, equip and dress cops like Paramilitary Storm Troopers.... they're going to start ACTING like them and being PERCIEVED by the public as such! When you get all that cool war-fighting gear from the DOD the Sheriff feels the need to justify it by using it... and it makes policing feel like being an occupying soldier in enemy country.


Final problem: the so-called War On Some Drugs has gone WAY WAY out of hand. Police powers to search, seize and confiscate have gotten insanely broad and commonplace. It reinforces the para-military attitude as well. Just like Prohibition in the 1920s it EMPOWERS the criminal element by giving them a high-profit cash business, making them powerful and making it easy to CORRUPT our government officials with bribes and threats. It's gotten to the point that good people with chronic illness who NEED pain management meds are treated like presumed druggies, because apparently getting pain relief to people is LESS IMPORTANT than trying to make sure, heaven forbid, than someone somewhere isn't getting high.

We really got to have a lot of reform, before these problems result in even more severe backlash.
 
Last edited:
But they're supposed to have those freedoms.

You've cited examples of law enforcement abuse as though they're examples of us not having a right to these freedoms. But those kinds of abuses should be challenged and those responsible for unjustly taking your freedoms should be punished. The exceptions don't prove the rule. And by large, most police officers and government law enforcement personnel are decent people, often doing a thankless job at mediocre pay and higher risk.

Most police like power. They think of themselves as "the LAW". It's only natural people who think like this, seek this job. Only if the recruitment interviews and training officers deliberately look for and filter them out, will they NOT get the job. If the trainers and interviewers are already of this mind, they WON'T filter out people who think as they do.
 
Back
Top Bottom