RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/18/2007 6:56:04 PM)

Hmm so "occupation is freedom"  interesting.  I thought it was just another word for nothing left to lose



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/18/2007 7:10:45 PM)

MeatCleaver:

The Constitution merely defines the apparatus of government - in this case a democratic republic. While I would say that some portions of the Constitution do have some importance in terms of establishing individual freedoms, the real meat of that stuff is in the Bill of Rights. The problem all around is that every aspect of both documents can be and has been chipped away at by all three branches of government. Of the three, the judiciary has probably been chipping away at these documents the hardest.

Going again by my usual Monopoly game metaphor, I think we can take as given that everyone likes to play the game knowing the rules up front. But sure, the board was set up respecting the property of those that already claimed ownership over so very much of the board and which left so very little to newcomers. To make matters worse, rules are established or redefined in the middle of play such that no one can discern the actual rules governing the game.

That's basically how we are living under any democratic form of government everywhere in the world. You name the country, it makes no difference...

The way they sell this bullshit is to claim that everyone has equal opportunity under the rules of the game. But as we all know, the rules of the game are about as stable as quicksand. Much of the time the rule of law seems to lean in favor of the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

So, just as I often ask free marketeers to show me a free market anywhere on the globe, I'd ask you to show me a truly free country that is not under the thumb of big monied interests.

We are all living in the shadows cast by the unseen hands of an overwhelmingly large plutocracy. There is no one conspiracy, but there are factions that vie for power. This is history - the rise and fall of great powers by following the money trails they leave in their passing.

Freedom is a fairy tale to keep people from leaping out of the windows of tall buildings.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/18/2007 7:15:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie
Everything that was listed as a freedom in the original Constitution was put in writing because a certain King of a certain country wouldn't allow his people those freedoms.


That's not at all accurate I hope you realize...



petdave -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/18/2007 7:21:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
My point is that the constitution is loaded with political values and therefore does not define freedom as is often claimed.


You know, i understand every word in that sentence, but i have no idea what you're getting at. [:(]

quote:


I'm not sure where Royalty comes into it, Americans are more deferential to their President than Europeans are to their royalty which in a constitutional framework is a means of dividing and limiting power between other state institutions, not unlike the three US institutions.


Royalty = hereditary elite. Hereditary elite = lack of social mobility and/or egalitarianism.
= lack of freedom.
i don't know that "deferential" is an appropriate term. The President has more political power than most crowned heads of state, but i don't see that as being at all relevant to the issue of individual freedom.

quote:


As for having no state religion, Americans have more religious interference in their politics than Europeans do.


Isn't Vatican City in Europe? [8D]

quote:


As for Americans having more rights to privacy and more rights to self defence than Brits, I'm not all together sure that is true, especially given US history of policing its citizens for unAmerican activities.


i was speaking of self-defense in the civilian-on-civilian sense... i'm not well-versed enough in modern British history to make an argument on sedition witch hunts. As far as privacy, the "common knowledge" seems to be that UK citizens are the most-surveilled people in the world right now.. What other nations have laws providing an equal or greater protection against official searches as provided by the Fifth Amendment?

quote:


But this is all by and by, my point being the claim made for the constitution and the claim often made that it defines freedom.


Saying that it "defines freedom" is an odd claim. i can't say i've really seen it made (although i haven't read the Constitution Day thread).



Owner59 -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/18/2007 7:23:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie





So, we're now supposed to chuck the actual foundation of this country because the constitution is too limiting or that some people abuse it?  Well hell, don't some people abuse everything? 

There is no perfect solution, is there?


Good point.Just because people abuse the system,doen`t mean we have to change the Constitution.We just need to protect and defend it,just like our leaders aren`t.

There are other countries one can go and live,if the US doesn`t appeal to you.

I`m stay`n,and will work to make things better.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/18/2007 7:32:26 PM)

Its pretty close to accurate.  Most of the text could not be taken as a lisitng of freedoms.  The bill of rights could be, and it was certainly inspired by freedoms they  wanted but were not allowed under the Monarchy, got after the revolution, and wanted to keep.  Speech, assembly, worship, guns, security in thier possesions w/o a warrant, ect.

I think it is rather disingenious to compare the original Constitution (slaves, no election of senators, no universal sufferage, ect) to the modern British system.  Much of England at that time had comparable freedoms to the colonists ( and far better than the average europeon), but the Constitution and Bill of Rights gave a few more.  Certainly not all of the British Crowns subjects held the same degree of freedom, go ask an Irishman.

Though I guess if we go with the "Occupation by Brutal Totalitarians is freedom"  definition, you could consider Europe to have been more free than England, which was more free than the American colonies.  But that is simply nonsense, not really worth debating



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/18/2007 7:41:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie





So, we're now supposed to chuck the actual foundation of this country because the constitution is too limiting or that some people abuse it?  Well hell, don't some people abuse everything? 

There is no perfect solution, is there?


Good point.Just because people abuse the system,doen`t mean we have to change to Constitution.We just need to protect and defend it,just like our leaders aren`t.

There are other countries one can go and live,if the US doesn`t appeal to you.

I`m stay`n,and will work to make things better.


i have yet to find where they are chartered or authorized to be our "leaders"  i will buy administrators.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:10:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

Royalty = hereditary elite. Hereditary elite = lack of social mobility and/or egalitarianism.
= lack of freedom.
i don't know that "deferential" is an appropriate term. The President has more political power than most crowned heads of state, but i don't see that as being at all relevant to the issue of individual freedom.


ER..You do know that not a year ago an OECD report stated that there was less social mobility in the USA than in any other developed nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

Isn't Vatican City in Europe? [8D]



Er.. You do know that out of over 500 million people, only 2,000 people live in the Vatican City, some of them happen to be Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

i was speaking of self-defense in the civilian-on-civilian sense... i'm not well-versed enough in modern British history to make an argument on sedition witch hunts. As far as privacy, the "common knowledge" seems to be that UK citizens are the most-surveilled people in the world right now.. What other nations have laws providing an equal or greater protection against official searches as provided by the Fifth Amendment?



You're right about CCTV cameras, for some stupid reason, most Brits have nothing against this. But I did happen to watch one of those cop documentaries on TV yesterday where in the US police SWAT teams were breaking down doors and scaring the life out of people as they went in with the artilary for the same reasons a couple of police might knock politely on a Brit's door for.

But none of this has to do with freedom but everything to do with the constitution or the law.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:14:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

As a gentle reminder ...

Everything that was listed as a freedom in the original Constitution was put in writing because a certain King of a certain country wouldn't allow his people those freedoms.  Some people decided they'd had it with that baloney and decided to make a life they wanted elsewhere.  They felt they had to put certain things in writing to guarantee these freedoms they so desperately wanted.



You do know you showing your lack of knowledge on the history of your country here and history in general here?



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:19:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Its pretty close to accurate.  Most of the text could not be taken as a lisitng of freedoms.  The bill of rights could be, and it was certainly inspired by freedoms they  wanted but were not allowed under the Monarchy, got after the revolution, and wanted to keep.  Speech, assembly, worship, guns, security in thier possesions w/o a warrant, ect.



How was the revolutionary war a fight for freedom rather than independence when the average colonist had less freedoms under the new regime than under the old regime? That the average empire loyalist that esdaped the pograms aftert the war esdaped to Canada and enjoyed more freedoms there than the new US citizens they left behind. How was it fighting for freedom when the new regime brutally kicked native people's off their land for supporting a regime (the British) that were trying to protect their land. (The Proclaimation line and the British efforts to stop the colonists expanding into native lands being one of the reasons for the war.)

Every state under the British had its assemblies that were not interfered with. Just look at some of the pre-revolutionary speaches. If there was censorship, they would have been closed down. There was no restrictions on weapons. There was no more or less freedom of worship in the colonies as there was Britain. Most people who claimed to have moved to the colonies for freedom of worship were not persecuted but moved to the colonies because they were too intolerant to live amongst other people with different views. As for security of possessions, that idea was an English idea as most of the ideas were in the constitution.

But all this is by and by, it has nothing to do with freedom in the sense I mean. The constitution being about freedom is like saying the law is about justice, it isn't and can't be because one is a code, the other is a philosophical idea.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:31:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent



My take on it is that both continents have allowed big business to take over the asylum; both continents are struggling with corruption and deceitful policitians.


This is getting to what I see as the heart of the problem. By blindly believing a document defines ones freedom when it allows the exploitation of the individual, is to give away ones freedom because one stops analysing what freedom really means and one aquiesces to the imposed rules set within the document.

I can readily accept the constitution, as with any constitution, is a framework in which laws are written. I can't accept it defines freedom.


Isn't this document a red herring, though, MC? 50% of the people have effectively disenfranchised themselves by not making the effort to vote: if people would rather go shopping than exercise their stake in the nation, then it goes without saying that politicians and CEOs are going to have a field day.

Surely, an element of freedom is having a say in how we're governed; it's quite convenient for big business that many of us have been directed towards consumerism and away from the democratic process.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:36:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

MeatCleaver:

The Constitution merely defines the apparatus of government - in this case a democratic republic. While I would say that some portions of the Constitution do have some importance in terms of establishing individual freedoms, the real meat of that stuff is in the Bill of Rights. The problem all around is that every aspect of both documents can be and has been chipped away at by all three branches of government. Of the three, the judiciary has probably been chipping away at these documents the hardest.

Going again by my usual Monopoly game metaphor, I think we can take as given that everyone likes to play the game knowing the rules up front. But sure, the board was set up respecting the property of those that already claimed ownership over so very much of the board and which left so very little to newcomers. To make matters worse, rules are established or redefined in the middle of play such that no one can discern the actual rules governing the game.

That's basically how we are living under any democratic form of government everywhere in the world. You name the country, it makes no difference...

The way they sell this bullshit is to claim that everyone has equal opportunity under the rules of the game. But as we all know, the rules of the game are about as stable as quicksand. Much of the time the rule of law seems to lean in favor of the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

So, just as I often ask free marketeers to show me a free market anywhere on the globe, I'd ask you to show me a truly free country that is not under the thumb of big monied interests.

We are all living in the shadows cast by the unseen hands of an overwhelmingly large plutocracy. There is no one conspiracy, but there are factions that vie for power. This is history - the rise and fall of great powers by following the money trails they leave in their passing.

Freedom is a fairy tale to keep people from leaping out of the windows of tall buildings.



I have to generally agree with you and would only differ on minor details.

My point was to start a debate about what is freedom and nature of what we call freedom in the west and so gliby and smugly call ourselves free without any self reflection and examination as to whether we really are free. Now I realise using the American constitution as a springboard was a mistake because now the thread has turned into why the constitution exists and the evil Brits.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:39:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


Isn't this document a red herring, though, MC? 50% of the people have effectively disenfranchised themselves by not making the effort to vote: if people would rather go shopping than exercise their stake in the nation, then it goes without saying that politicians and CEOs are going to have a field day.

Surely, an element of freedom is having a say in how we're governed; it's quite convenient for big business that many of us have been directed towards consumerism and away from the democratic process.


Too true. I think this is the heart of the matter. Too many people are happy to be bought off with trinkets and let people assume power over them rather than make the effort to question the life they lead and where those in power are leading them.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:46:16 AM)

well Meat as far as religous freedoms they were extensivly granted after the revolution.  England has always had stop and search laws that are prohibited by our constituion.  I know none of these things are freedom.  Feedom is occupation, you and Satre say so about the legendary french resistance



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 12:49:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

well Meat as far as religous freedoms they were extensivly granted after the revolution.  England has always had stop and search laws that are prohibited by our constituion.  I know none of these things are freedom.  Feedom is occupation, you and Satre say so about the legendary french resistance


I have to laugh because I have been stopped and searched in New York.

Sartre was talking about a state of mind not the French rsistance which isn't very legendary anywhere but in France.

As for religious freedom, what is the most important, what is written on a document and what is the actual experience of people? Which is the heart of the matter. You can read through the constitutions of many old east block countries and people were as free as birds if you believe what was written. 



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 1:29:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Hmm so "occupation is freedom"  interesting.  I thought it was just another word for nothing left to lose


If you take the time to stop and think, it's a very interesting idea.

According to Sartre, when the Germans occupied France, everything the French had been taught (i.e. all the rules and regulations, the value system, the morals and ethics laid out by the establishment and adhered to by the people) were discarded with one fell swoop. According to Sartre, they were freed from these stifling conditions, and the French people could strive for what they wanted as individuals i.e. the removal of the Germans. For Sartre, it was the first time the French people were actually acting in their interests, rather than the rules set for them by an elite.

Sartre was actually an existentialist who believed man has the power to be whatever he wants to be, and that there is no preordained path, and not necessarily a meaning or purpose in life. In fact, he was quite right-wing in his beliefs, and learned much from Heidegger who you'll know was the philosophical spokesman for the Nazis.

It's a very interesting concept, only a fool would dismiss it without thought.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 1:39:23 AM)

quote:

Thoughts...



Sure....I'm surprised you haven't been scolded by Caitlyn yet [;)]





- R



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 1:48:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

Thoughts...



Sure....I'm surprised you haven't been scolded by Caitlyn yet [;)]





- R



I know and I'm really disappointed in her absence.[;)]



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 1:49:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Hmm so "occupation is freedom"  interesting.  I thought it was just another word for nothing left to lose


If you take the time to stop and think, it's a very interesting idea.

According to Sartre, when the Germans occupied France, everything the French had been taught (i.e. all the rules and regulations, the value system, the morals and ethics laid out by the establishment and adhered to by the people) were discarded with one fell swoop. According to Sartre, they were freed from these stifling conditions, and the French people could strive for what they wanted as individuals i.e. the removal of the Germans. For Sartre, it was the first time the French people were actually acting in their interests, rather than the rules set for them by an elite.

Sartre was actually an existentialist who believed man has the power to be whatever he wants to be, and that there is no preordained path, and not necessarily a meaning or purpose in life. In fact, he was quite right-wing in his beliefs, and learned much from Heidegger who you'll know was the philosophical spokesman for the Nazis.

It's a very interesting concept, only a fool would dismiss it without thought.


Well put NG and worth repeating.



LadyEllen -> RE: Freedom and the American constitution. (9/19/2007 1:50:00 AM)

Hi MC

You said something interesting about the written law not being justice, just as a written constitution isnt freedom. I agree.

In the case of the law, in the most ideal circumstances it falls short because it is a human invention; even carefully drafted it can be inadequate to the aim of providing justice. Given the right (or wrong, perhaps) circumstances, law can be written with the specific aim of inhibiting, even preventing justice of course. This latter occurs when interest groups (monarchs, dictators, big business etc) have excessive influence or control over law - but it can also happen in the best democracy when disinterest groups (those who fail to participate) allow it to happen, by ceding control to the remainder. Law is not justice, and never can be - but thats not to say it cannot be produced to provide the nearest possible outcome to justice.

As for freedom and a constitution, this case is affected by the same issues. A constitution is only ever going to be as good and as welcome as what is in it, compared to the ideas and aspirations of those under it. A constitution can just as well restrict and remove freedoms as provide or promote them - but again, this is not to say that one could not be produced to provide the best possible level of freedoms.

I also agree that justice and freedom are philosophical concepts - this is the reason when even with the best intentions our efforts to capture them can fail. Yet we still have to try to capture them and formulate them, because as with all philosophical concepts, they are otherwise matters for debate and even open rivalry in the case of marked disagreement over them. What I feel is justice may be very different to your ideas, and what I feel is freedom may be equally variable with your own notions. The only realistic way forward then becomes to produce an accomodation which is acceptable to most, in the form of laws and constitutions and the like. The problem we have as I see it, is that the accomodations we currently have are now outdated and require revision - the world has changed and continues to change at rapid pace, so that the populations for whom the previous accomodations may have served is now very different, with different ideas about what is justice, what is freedom and how these should be formulated in terms of law and constitution.

So, this brings us really to the question of what is freedom? and more relevantly perhaps, given that we could here and now produce a new constitution, how would we frame it so that freedom as we understand it today, was guaranteed under it, taking into account the social realities of our times - individualism, diverse populations within the country and so on?

The main issues in such an endeavour to my mind, would be to consider that true freedom can only exist where we are independent of others (for good and ill), contrasted with the actuality that we are highly interdependent on one another even with the best circumstance (for instance, I have no land and cannot produce my own food, so I have to rely on others), and also to consider that given our population density we must deny some of what we might call freedom, in order to promote a society where everyone can get along - one's freedoms must end, where another's begin.

E



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125