• 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!

When was America most free as a nation?

When was America most free as a nation?

  • Between the end of the Revolutionary War and the start of the Civil War?

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of World War One?

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Between the end of WWI and the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Today, including the time after passage of the Civil Rights Act?

    Votes: 37 66.1%
  • Total voters
    56
Glen Contrarian said:
Was it before the Civil War, or before WWI, or before the Civil Rights Act, or today?



And why do you think so?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Before it ever became a nation.

Before Columbus 'discovered the Americas and the colonists brought Black slaves here from Africa.

The reason why I believe that is because it is a simple fact.




"All of the problems that we face in the USA today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." ~ Pat Paulsen
 
shrubnose said:
Before it ever became a nation.

Before Columbus 'discovered the Americas and the colonists brought Black slaves here from Africa.

The reason why I believe that is because it is a simple fact.




"All of the problems that we face in the USA today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." ~ Pat Paulsen
Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps you should go back and study what their cultures were like. For the most part, we do not know what their cultures were like because 90% of them were wiped out by smallpox and assorted diseases that we brought over with us...and they didn't leave written records. But we do know what the cultures of the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, and assorted tribes we've found in the jungles of modern-day Brazil were like. This story is somewhat enlightening in that respect.

So...no, there's no way to really measure the level of freedom that America's pre-Columbus tribes had or did not have. There are stories about the Iroquois Confederation and the Navajos and so forth...but remember, this was after we introduced smallpox - their populations and cultures had been devastated, and so we can't be sure of what their cultures were really like before they had recovered from losing up to 90% of their respective populations.
 
voyager1 said:
No. Taxes doesn't mean you lose freedom.
Click to expand...

that's ridiculous. taxes take wealth, often wealth one earns through working. The more taxes taken, means the more of your time is taken by the government
 
TurtleDude said:
that's ridiculous. taxes take wealth, often wealth one earns through working. The more taxes taken, means the more of your time is taken by the government
Click to expand...

Yeah, get rid of ALL taxes! It's all just theft from individuals from the eeeeeeeevil government! Who needs roads and police and firefighters and a strong military anyway?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, get rid of ALL taxes! It's all just theft from individuals from the eeeeeeeevil government! Who needs roads and police and firefighters and a strong military anyway?
Click to expand...
Even if the net effect is positive, let's not pretend that taxes aren't a loss of freedom. If the government tapped every phone, that would make us safer, but the increase in safety wouldn't change the fact that the loss of privacy would be a decrease in freedom.
 
mpg said:
Even if the net effect is positive, let's not pretend that taxes aren't a loss of freedom. If the government tapped every phone, that would make us safer, but the increase in safety wouldn't change the fact that the loss of privacy would be a decrease in freedom.
Click to expand...

High or low taxes has nothing to do with whether or not the government taps every phone. That's like comparing the price of a ticket to a home game of baseball has any bearing on whether the team's owners decide to bug all the seats in the stadium - makes no sense, does it? No offense, but neither does your comment.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
High or low taxes has nothing to do with whether or not the government taps every phone. That's like comparing the price of a ticket to a home game of baseball has any bearing on whether the team's owners decide to bug all the seats in the stadium - makes no sense, does it? No offense, but neither does your comment.
Click to expand...
It's called an analogy. Let me give you another one. You need a new TV and someone sells you a $1000 TV for $100. You made a great deal right? You would've been dumb to not take it right? According to your logic, if it was a great deal, you didn't even spend $100. What TD was saying, is that taxes are a loss of freedom, even if something better comes from it. He wasn't expressing an opinion; he was stating a fact.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really? Perhaps you should go back and study what their cultures were like. For the most part, we do not know what their cultures were like because 90% of them were wiped out by smallpox and assorted diseases that we brought over with us...and they didn't leave written records. But we do know what the cultures of the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, and assorted tribes we've found in the jungles of modern-day Brazil were like. This story is somewhat enlightening in that respect.

So...no, there's no way to really measure the level of freedom that America's pre-Columbus tribes had or did not have. There are stories about the Iroquois Confederation and the Navajos and so forth...but remember, this was after we introduced smallpox - their populations and cultures had been devastated, and so we can't be sure of what their cultures were really like before they had recovered from losing up to 90% of their respective populations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Correct. Much of the history of Native American people is still a mystery to us.

If the Europeans had come here to study and learn about these people instead of to conquer them and take their land we would know more about them.
 
I say before the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

I know this is controversial, but my reasoning is that we already had in place the amendments to the constitution after the Civil War. i honestly believe that we would have less racism today if we let it dissipate naturally. Yes, I believe it would have dissipated naturally if not forced upon hard headed ignorant people.
 
mpg said:
It's called an analogy. Let me give you another one. You need a new TV and someone sells you a $1000 TV for $100. You made a great deal right? You would've been dumb to not take it right? According to your logic, if it was a great deal, you didn't even spend $100. What TD was saying, is that taxes are a loss of freedom, even if something better comes from it. He wasn't expressing an opinion; he was stating a fact.
Click to expand...

Problem is, he - and you, apparently - are making an assumption that if a government is bigger, it must automatically start bugging its own citizens, and this is a completely false assumption. America did with the NSA...but this does not automatically mean that all big governments do. Look at the other 'big government' nations, like Germany, France, Australia, NZ, Japan, Italy...do these nations do so? We have no real proof that they do so, do we? No.

On the other hand, do nations with smaller governments monitor their citizens? Yes, they can and some do so...particularly those that are not democracies or do not have a long tradition of democracy. For instance, look at the several nations in Africa where the people are monitored for homosexual behavior, or actions that are against Sharia law?

In other words, the size of the government is NOT an indication of more or less freedom. That's just a false assumption on TD's - and your - part.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Problem is, he - and you, apparently - are making an assumption that if a government is bigger, it must automatically start bugging its own citizens, and this is a completely false assumption. America did with the NSA...but this does not automatically mean that all big governments do. Look at the other 'big government' nations, like Germany, France, Australia, NZ, Japan, Italy...do these nations do so? We have no real proof that they do so, do we? No.

On the other hand, do nations with smaller governments monitor their citizens? Yes, they can and some do so...particularly those that are not democracies or do not have a long tradition of democracy. For instance, look at the several nations in Africa where the people are monitored for homosexual behavior, or actions that are against Sharia law?

In other words, the size of the government is NOT an indication of more or less freedom. That's just a false assumption on TD's - and your - part.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for TD, but I surely never said anything like that. He and I both said that taxes are a loss of freedom, and that isn't debatable.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Problem is, he - and you, apparently - are making an assumption that if a government is bigger, it must automatically start bugging its own citizens, and this is a completely false assumption. America did with the NSA...but this does not automatically mean that all big governments do. Look at the other 'big government' nations, like Germany, France, Australia, NZ, Japan, Italy...do these nations do so? We have no real proof that they do so, do we? No.

On the other hand, do nations with smaller governments monitor their citizens? Yes, they can and some do so...particularly those that are not democracies or do not have a long tradition of democracy. For instance, look at the several nations in Africa where the people are monitored for homosexual behavior, or actions that are against Sharia law?

In other words, the size of the government is NOT an indication of more or less freedom. That's just a false assumption on TD's - and your - part.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that taxes cause a loss of freedom; I'm saying that taxes are a loss of freedom.
 
The far right and all their memes about taxation is sickening and this latest bit of nonsense that taxes mean a loss of freedom and liberty is no less offensive. You don't want to live in a civilized society where taxes are the admission price? Cool. Ray Charles said it best - hit the road jack and don't come back no more.

Otherwise - shut up and know your role. I think the Rock said that.
 
haymarket said:
The far right and all their memes about taxation is sickening and this latest bit of nonsense that taxes mean a loss of freedom and liberty is no less offensive. You don't want to live in a civilized society where taxes are the admission price? Cool. Ray Charles said it best - hit the road jack and don't come back no more.

Otherwise - shut up and know your role. I think the Rock said that.
Click to expand...
Whenever the government comes up with a new idea, you have to weigh the pros against the cons. If it involves a tax increase, that goes in the con column if freedom is one of your core values. This is not debatable.
 
mpg said:
I can't speak for TD, but I surely never said anything like that. He and I both said that taxes are a loss of freedom, and that isn't debatable.
Click to expand...

Are they really a loss of freedom? Because how can you have the freedom you enjoy without paying those taxes? Would you be more free if you didn't have roads, police, firefighters, a strong military?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Are they really a loss of freedom? Because how can you have the freedom you enjoy without paying those taxes? Would you be more free if you didn't have roads, police, firefighters, a strong military?
Click to expand...
Even if you have a net increase in freedom, it might be because the increases outweighed the decreases. See post #162.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that so many feel America was most free when more than half the population did not have the right to vote..
 
mpg said:
Whenever the government comes up with a new idea, you have to weigh the pros against the cons. If it involves a tax increase, that goes in the con column if freedom is one of your core values. This is not debatable.
Click to expand...

freedom is something we all value. So you do not have a corner on that market and it is not some silly trump card that can be played.
 
Capster78 said:
I find it interesting that so many feel America was most free when more than half the population did not have the right to vote..
Click to expand...

Apparently the RIGHT and FREEDOM to be a bigot and oppress others is high on some folks list of priorities. :roll:
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, get rid of ALL taxes! It's all just theft from individuals from the eeeeeeeevil government! Who needs roads and police and firefighters and a strong military anyway?
Click to expand...

I wonder what portion of total federal expenditures go to roads, police, firefighters, and defending our shores.
 
Green Man said:
I wonder what portion of total federal expenditures go to roads, police, firefighters, and defending our shores.
Click to expand...

You're obviously alluding to the cost of our social safety net. What you don't get is that you pay anyway. You can either pay the taxes that enable us to maintain our social safety net, or you can pay the taxes for the increased police, courts, and prison costs for what happens when we take the social safety net away.

Look, guy, higher taxes are the price of admission for life in a first-world democracy. If you want to live somewhere that your taxes will be much lower, go live in a third-world nation. But it's those higher taxes that enable first-world democracies to provide the standard of living that is found in first-world democracies.

So...what kind of freedom do you want? The freedom found in first-world democracies? Or the freedom found in third-world nations?
 
Apparently 25% of the poll responders consider the right to own slaves more important than right to not be a slave.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You're obviously alluding to the cost of our social safety net. What you don't get is that you pay anyway. You can either pay the taxes that enable us to maintain our social safety net, or you can pay the taxes for the increased police, courts, and prison costs for what happens when we take the social safety net away.

Look, guy, higher taxes are the price of admission for life in a first-world democracy. If you want to live somewhere that your taxes will be much lower, go live in a third-world nation. But it's those higher taxes that enable first-world democracies to provide the standard of living that is found in first-world democracies.

So...what kind of freedom do you want? The freedom found in first-world democracies? Or the freedom found in third-world nations?
Click to expand...
You have to weigh the pros against the cons. If you wanna do that correctly, don't put a con in the pro column.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You're obviously alluding to the cost of our social safety net.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just observing the standard rejoinder of, "So I guess you don't like roads, or police, or firefighters, or the military" when that isn't really the issue in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom