When was America most free as a nation?

[Glen Contrarian]

Was it before the Civil War, or before WWI, or before the Civil Rights Act, or today?

And why do you think so?

 

[voyager1]

Today.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Definitely today, despite recent attacks on the Bill of Rights. Tomorrow? I'm not so sure.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The US, as a nation, free from what?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The US, as a nation, free from what?

As in the rights, the personal freedoms of the people. I should have been clearer on that. Thanks.

 

[Goshin]

Was it before the Civil War, or before WWI, or before the Civil Rights Act, or today?

And why do you think so?

Matter of perspective.


It would be easy for a white male to choose almost any of the options in question, IF he didn't stop and think about all those not-white-males who were quite un-free in previous eras.


If you overlook that fact, or hypothesized equal rights for all from the beginning, the 19th century looks a lot more free and unregulated than modern times.


However, the late 19th/early 20th century was also a time when there was great corruption in gov't, industrial barons ruled the economy, working conditions in factories were appalling, and you were free to starve if you couldn't find work.


So it is hard to say. Every era has its problems... in modern times we suffer from loss of privacy (NSA spying), excessive Executive power (EOs), unelected agencies regulating with the power of law (EPA, etc), infringements on many Bill of Rights items in the name of the War on Drugs/Terror/etc... but if we can address these issues we could still have a free future.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As in the rights, the personal freedoms of the people. I should have been clearer on that. Thanks.

That is a good question. Obviously some freedoms have been expanded, such as ending slavery and expanding the vote, but others have been reduced, such as keeping more of your income, commerce without a license and untaxed/unlicensed traveling on public roadways and waterways. I would say that, on balance, more people now enjoy less freedom - does that make sense?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Was it before the Civil War, or before WWI, or before the Civil Rights Act, or today?

And why do you think so?

I didn't mark a poll option because you didn't give me my option which would be between the end of the Revolutionary War to roughly the Teddy Roosevelt Administration that started the ball rolling back into the people being subjects to their government instead of the other way around. It then took some decades after the TR Administration for government to make the transition from a government of the people, by the people, for the people to a massive and growing ever more totalitarian entity that mostly serves itself and assigns the rights that the people are allowed to have. That transition started off very slowly but has been gaining mass and momentum ever since.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

That is a good question. Obviously some freedoms have been expanded, such as ending slavery and expanding the vote, but others have been reduced, such as keeping more of your income, commerce without a license and untaxed/unlicensed traveling on public roadways and waterways. I would say that, on balance, more people now enjoy less freedom - does that make sense?

I understand what you are saying...but I would reply that the lack of freedoms to which you refer are largely concerning business and money, whereas personal freedoms are significantly greater now than before.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I didn't mark a poll option because you didn't give me my option which would be between the end of the Revolutionary War to roughly the Teddy Roosevelt Administration that started the ball rolling back into the people being subjects to their government instead of the other way around. It then took some decades after the TR Administration for government to make the transition from a government of the people, by the people, for the people to a massive and growing ever more totalitarian entity that mostly serves itself and assigns the rights that the people are allowed to have. That transition started off very slowly but has been gaining mass and momentum ever since.

Really? You do realize, of course, that included in the time you show are slavery for the first 89 or so years of our country's existence, and Jim Crow for all nonwhites afterwards...and women could not vote until something like 1921. And let's not forget that LGBT's basically had zero rights until public opinion finally began shifting in the 1990's.

But of course if we consider only white heterosexual males, you're right that it was freer then than it is now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I understand what you are saying...but I would reply that the lack of freedoms to which you refer are largely concerning business and money, whereas personal freedoms are significantly greater now than before.

Making a basic living unfettered by gov't regulation is not small matter as a personal freedom.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I understand what you are saying...but I would reply that the lack of freedoms to which you refer are largely concerning business and money, whereas personal freedoms are significantly greater now than before.

Are they? I'm not seeing it when the federal government can control what kind of lightbulb or toilet I am allowed to manufacture or buy, what the gas mileage on my automobile must be, refuse me the right to use my own property as I choose, confiscate any portion of my personal property they choose to take, dictate the kind of healthcare I am required to buy, and can launch a federal investigation of my activities just because I am accused of being politically incorrect.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Making a basic living unfettered by gov't regulation is not small matter as a personal freedom.

And when the government steps in and lessens the rate of poverty?

Which is better - an "unfettered" life where more are living in poverty, or a life where the government takes action to do that which lessens the rate of poverty among the people?

 

[TurtleDude]

Was it before the Civil War, or before WWI, or before the Civil Rights Act, or today?

And why do you think so?

depends on who you ask

 

[ttwtt78640]

And when the government steps in and lessens the rate of poverty?

Which is better - an "unfettered" life where more are living in poverty, or a life where the government takes action to do that which lessens the rate of poverty among the people?

If you value having the freedom to demand that others support you then we are certainly getting more and more of it. The US poverty rate has remained fairly constant, at 12% to 15%, since 1962 but the cost to keep it that way continues to rise.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Are they? I'm not seeing it when the federal government can control what kind of lightbulb or toilet I am allowed to manufacture or buy,

Incandescent bulbs and high-water-use toilets waste resources that are becoming more scarce to the population as a whole. Which is more important - your personal right to unnecessarily waste resources, or doing that which maximizes the resources available to the population as a whole?

what the gas mileage on my automobile must be,

Again, which is more important - your 'right' to unnecessarily waste resources, or maximizing the availability of those resources to the population as a whole?

refuse me the right to use my own property as I choose, confiscate any portion of my personal property they choose to take,

I defy you to find a nation where the government does not reserve the right to take your property if it feels a very real need to do so. In other words, unless you live somewhere where you are not a member of any nation, you never truly own your land - the government can take it if they really feel the need to do so. This has been true in every government, ever. The only difference is that in most first-world democracies like America, it's harder for the nation to do so...but they still can. So get over it.

dictate the kind of healthcare I am required to buy,

Yeah, you're special - you'll never, ever need healthcare that you wouldn't be able to afford, and shame on the government for enforcing a law that saves you money and ensures you have access to almost any health care you need, and you can't be denied or dropped. Shame on the government for doing that, huh?

and can launch a federal investigation of my activities just because I am accused of being politically incorrect.

If you'll check, this has been the case all through American history...and in most other nations, too.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Not so much - the iceberg's not what it once was - global warming, y'know....

 

[Van Basten]

With gay marriage legalization beginning to sweep the nation (feels like it, anyway), drug policy proved to be the sham they are, racial minorities seeing far better days, and a more diverse nation in positions of power in comparison to decades before, I'm going with right now.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

If you value having the freedom to demand that others support you then we are certainly getting more and more of it. The US poverty rate has remained fairly constant, at 12% to 15%, since 1962 but the cost to keep it that way continues to rise.

And as I've pointed out so often before, you pay anyway. You'll either pay to help the poor and indigent through your taxes...or you'll pay for what happens when they have zero support in the form of higher taxes for more police, more court cases, more prisons, and in the form of higher prices because the more homeless there are near a business, the fewer people will go to that business, the higher the insurance rates for businesses will be, and the higher the crime rates will be.

Like I said, you pay anyway. You'll either pay to help them and maybe even give them the opportunity to rise above their station...or you'll pay for what happens when they become homeless.

Personally I think the first option makes a lot more sense.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

With gay marriage legalization beginning to sweep the nation (feels like it, anyway), drug policy proved to be the sham they are, racial minorities seeing far better days, and a more diverse nation in positions of power in comparison to decades before, I'm going with right now.

And that's been my whole point all along. Unfortunately, there's some out there who think that it's only the rights of white hetero males that count.

 

[Perotista]

Was it before the Civil War, or before WWI, or before the Civil Rights Act, or today?

And why do you think so?

I do not think there is a right answer, different people will view this differently for different reasons, circumstances, situations and the like. In my lifetime I would say the time I was growing up. There was a whole lot less laws, regulations, mandates and most people were freer from the controls of Washington D.C. Washington didn't effect peoples daily lives like it does today, there was no medicare, no EPA, no Departments of Energy, Department of Education, and on and on.

 

[HogWash]

When the American Indians were the ONLY inhabitants.

 

[HogWash]

And that's been my whole point all along. Unfortunately, there's some out there who think that it's only the rights of white hetero males that count.

And there are some out there that think that it's only the rights of black people to be the victims of "racism". That white people ONLY are racists.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I do not think there is a right answer, different people will view this differently for different reasons, circumstances, situations and the like. In my lifetime I would say the time I was growing up. There was a whole lot less laws, regulations, mandates and most people were freer from the controls of Washington D.C. Washington didn't effect peoples daily lives like it does today, there was no medicare, no EPA, no Departments of Energy, Department of Education, and on and on.

But by the same token, there's no Jim Crow now either...and 18 y.o. men who can fight and die for our nation can now vote where in your time they could not...and LGBT's had to keep their lives secret or they could and would lose their jobs.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And as I've pointed out so often before, you pay anyway. You'll either pay to help the poor and indigent through your taxes...or you'll pay for what happens when they have zero support in the form of higher taxes for more police, more court cases, more prisons, and in the form of higher prices because the more homeless there are near a business, the fewer people will go to that business, the higher the insurance rates for businesses will be, and the higher the crime rates will be.

Like I said, you pay anyway. You'll either pay to help them and maybe even give them the opportunity to rise above their station...or you'll pay for what happens when they become homeless.

Personally I think the first option makes a lot more sense.

Yet we now fight two very expensive, conflicting and endless "wars" - the war on poverty and the war on drugs. If the result was actually lower crime and an ever decreasing percentage in prison/poverty I would start to agree with your "more gov't" choices. One only need examine the areas that recieve the bulk of this poverty assistance to find that they still commit the most crime.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

And there are some out there that think that it's only the rights of black people to be the victims of "racism". That white people ONLY are racists.

So...if a certain population of America doesn't have the rights of the rest of the population, that's okay with you?

And when it comes to white racism...dude, I'm from the Deep South - don't tell me how terrible white males have it compared to blacks. They were and in many ways still very much are victims of white racism. You can deny that all day long if you like, but you can't change history.