America the land of the free???

Cool! Accountability for your potential impacts on others is an excellent trait.

Methinks you would make a good anarchist with your approach. Few realize it, but the framing documents were essentially concieved as a minarchy.

IQ test protecting the national gene pool? Not a bad idea, might even refine the test.

 

If you want true freedom (from government) you're a 150 years too late.
The wild west was the closest thing to true freedom you could get, a very hard life but real freedom.
I'm not sure when the wild west actually ended, but my best guess would be when it was infiltrated by east coast liberals.

 

Has anything positive or wholesome come from free speech? ~ I know of nothing that has.

 

The only way someone can be truly free is to live way out in the middle of nowhere in an area nobody cares about. That's it. When you live amongst other people, you will slowly lose your freedoms because now the imperative is no longer about being able to do whatever you want. Now there is order that must be maintained. The bigger your country and the more people you have, the more laws you will have. The other half of this problem is that once you have all those people and the government they've built, those people have to stay involved. There is no autopilot setting for government despite this country's belief that you can put the government on autopilot and only pay marginal attention every four years for the presidential election.

People must be involved, at all levels, at all times. Anything less and your country will fail no matter what type of government you have or how many freedoms you think you have or deserve.

 

In a truly free country:

I would not have to keep every reciept.
I would not have to file a tax return.
I would not have to pay for others provisions by force.
I would not have to have a license and pay 20.00 dollars a year to carry my gun.
I would not be forced into socialist retirement and healthcarePonzi-schemes.
It would be no ones business how much I earn.
It would be no ones business how much I leave my children.
I would not have to balance my checkbook.
I would not have to deduct from my employees checks.
I would not have to worry about having government thugs invading my home to search for a 19 year old thug.

In a free country:

I would be responsible for my own retirement.
I would be responsible for my own healthcare(luxury).
My own food, clothing and shelter.
I would be responsible for my own luxury(college) education.
I would give charity as I see fit.

Proper government provides greater freedom. Improper government is what we have.

 

America the land of the free? Don't make me laugh.

 

If you don't know what good has come from free speech, you better hide. Ignorance of what good can come from free speech is similar, or as much a disaster as thinking none ever has.

The concept of America did, but then the loyalist schemes took over the printed medium. Lincoln couldn't even get his speeches published, so the loyalist financing of the union army was able to divide the country and defeat the south, even though the south was actually acting within the constitution.

All said and done, free speech has an ultimate purpose. The intent to use it for those purposes have always existed and always will. When peoples lives are on the line, they always respect it. Until that point, they can afford to be confused. If, after that point they remain confused, most often the die.

The biological ultimate purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

The legal ultimate purpose of free speech under the American constitution with intents defined with the Declaration of Independence is to enable the unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

If Americans are fearful and stupid enough, they will fail to use free speech for the purpose of creating the unity needed to defend their unalienable rights.

If you are a cognitive infiltrator covertly infiltrating this group, you will pretend you don't understand. If you are a fearful confused American you will pretend you don't understand.

If you are an intelligent American with enough courage to admit we are in danger of having our unalienable rights destroyed, you will agree and accept the definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

Typical modern American confusion between needs and wants. See my sig.

 

I stand by the position that absolutely nothing of value has ever come from the "freedom of Speech", but to the contrary is that lots of trash and garbage and scum is all that freedom of speech has ever produced.

The fact is that human beings have always had our natural and normal freedom of speech with natural and normal limitations.

The US Revolutionary War against Britain was discussed and decided upon and fought long before there ever was any 1st Amendment.

Instead what the Constitutional amendment granting the "freedom of speech" has only been defined by the SCOTUS to mean the right to speak hatred and bigotry and trash.

The "freedom of speech" does not empower the free and decent people - no, it only empowers the lowest and trashiest of speech.

It was a BIG mistake to put that into the US Constitution.

 

Rat thieves in customs stole a package from me. I was sending something I sold on eBay to Canada and they seized it. I believe something nefarious is happening. After running my mouth about our government I have had my identity stolen and now this. The United States has no problem fabricating evidence against their enemies they even have the military brainwashed into thinking this is acceptable. Look at what this soldier says about planting evidence on Iran so the American public will support an invasion. Right here on political forums the posters name is Josh777.http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-us-world-news/397138-cia-tried-plant-fake-nuke-evidence-iran-iaea-find-3.html Total jaw dropper for an honest and moral person. This is the most tyrannical thing you can do to someone. And our military is all for it. Yet people still believe guys in caves hijacked 4 planes on 9/11.

 

No she is not. Try to start a business in America and try to do the same in China. Then tell me how "free" America is.

In China, entrepreneurs are treated royally like kings. In America, entrepreneurs are vilified and treated like criminals.

 

They treat us like criminals because Americans are considered an enemy of the government. We were added to the trading with the enemy act as enemies of the state. But yet most people believe they are free. I suppose it's not their fault it's not like schools are teaching that. They are to busy teaching lies and half truths.

 

OMG! You've gone far past bring dumbed down. You've assimilated the dark belief that the worst of us that can be created by dumbing and misleading is all we are capable of.

Your limits are well articulated.

Correct, and unity was found because there was free speech and the people understood.

Not like these times where only the published powerful corrupting the masses are heard and understood. You prove the point.

The scotus does not lawfully define the meaning of rights it only is allowed to interpret them.

The powerful enabled the worst so the dumb and corrupted will adopt an attitude dividing the people. Sure worked well for you.

Then again, you could easily be an NWO schill just pretending.

 

I suspect that we don't all agree about the nature of freedom because we all have different and conflicting ideological views. If you are a small government or anarchist libertarian you probably don't think America is a free country. You think noninterference, taxation, and regulations on property rights define liberty or the lack of it. If you are a center left liberal you see inequality of rights and opportunities as a hindering liberty. They think liberty is the realization of self chosen goals so anything that blocks that individual self actualization such as poverty, discrimination, or physical deprivation means less freedom. However the liberal still sees the positive and the chance to make things better, but its not clear that libertarians of any stripe do

 

I posted over there. I've tried to explain to Josh before how the oldies is lied to in order to elicit his devotion.

I linked three threads that have some facts which are fundamental to the deeper issue, which really comes back to the American people tolerating church mixed into state. And that is not just diplomacy.

 

This is probably one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of all other freedoms, which is why there is a concerted effort to repress it currently. If a man is not free to speak his thoughts, then in fact his thoughts which are the only thing he can truly organically produce have no value.
The basic issue here is not whether any man has the freedom of speech, but by what authority does any man have to restrict the speech of any other.

 

The ignorance surrounding libertarians is simply astounding. Libertarianism is based in human rights and law. Both Republicans and liberals are more than willing to get on their knees and kiss the robes of government so long as they are getting their respective shares of stolen money. There is not a single liberal or republican that I have seen on this forum who understands or stands for freedom or liberty in actuality, only in there own corrupt self serving point of view.

 

When I started this thread I really thought the people that believed they were free would be all over my o.p. I am impressed most of you are aware that the freedom is just a myth. But at the same time I am disheartened by the fact that we don't talk about this issue near enough. Granted it's a very difficult and uncomfortable feeling to deal with but if we don't it only gets worse and worse until we are completely in chains. I don't claim to know what to do about it but I know collectively Americans can find a way out of this mess. For that to happen Americans need to stop lying to themselves. We can't think of solutions if we are in denial. If we could get past the denial then I believe the next step is to take over our local government's through elections. Right now less then 40% of the population votes for local government. If we could raise that number to 90% that would send a message that the sleeping giant "We the People" are awake and concerned about how things are going. That would force our politicians to pay attention to us more than the corporations. We would need to recall all lying back stabbing politicians as soon as we catch wind of their b.s. To change the laws we must change the people making the laws.

 

Your comments prove my point. If I misrepresented the libertarian view of freedom then show me how. If I take the liberal view I'm not going to change your mind and that's fine. However a more informative discussion and debate is only possible if one side doesn't reserve the right to define all the terms.
I would say libertarianism is based on a particular view of human rights and conception of law. As for your antigovernment sentiment how can there be law and law that is binding without representative government ? How would libertarian anarchy make laws or negotiate rules with the broadest possible agreement. Remember society is made up of lots of individuals with different desires, values, and interests. Libertarians ignore that diversity and the need to prevent concentrated power by some depriving others of their individual liberty.

 

The crux of the issue is that only a minority of the people today place freedom above material wealth.
The people who originated this country desired liberty above all else, and were willing to risk their lives to attempt an ocean crossing that was miserable at best and deadly at worst. They were willing to risk everything and fight the most formidable military in the world at that time just to live as they pleased.
The freedom that they won at such a high price was targeted by men of wealth and low integrity as soon as it was won.

As years passed and the danger of an ocean crossing diminished, the immigrants who would have never risked their lives for freedom or liberty began to immigrate, and over time they outnumbered the people who cherished freedom beyond all else.

Todays Americans are a cowardly lot who have little or no connection to the great men who founded this country. They worship materialism and are willing to get on their knees for whatever the government will give them. The "we" you talk about does not exist.

The only reason people like you and I are able to speak freely about things like this is because the people in charge know we are just tilting at windmills and will never influence even a small number of people to change. We are an insignificant minority and of little concern to the people in charge.

The best we can do is to find a desolate corner of the country where we can live as we please.

 

who is enslaved in America?

 

OK for the sake of argument lets say you are sincere in wanting to understand libertarianism .

This country was founded on the principals of libertarianism and the majority of the founding fathers were libertarians in their philosophies and their writings. If you insist on maligning libertarianism, then you must also malign the very principals the country was founded on.

1.) The primary position of the libertarians is that all men are endowed with equal rights by birth. No man is superior to another to the degree that he may infringe on his rights.

2.) Every man is free to pursue happiness as he sees it so long as he does not infringe on the right of anyone else to do the same.

3.) That government is composed of men, and that men are corruptible. Therefore government must be restrained and restricted to the specific tasks that are agreed to by contract between the free citizens and the government, In addition, government must always be the servant of the citizen, and never the citizens master.

4.) That government in its actions must respect the rights of every citizen equally.

If you stick to these basic tenants, then every libertarian principal will follow logically.

 

I would say liberals, libertarians, and conservatives all agree with the Founding Fathers on these principles and limited government. Although I don't think the Founders were always clear about certain tasks for government. Nor did they talk about limited government built on contracts. Rather they wanted a government that could not act arbitrarily or take away the liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights. I would say that the Founders embraced what you might call Classical liberalism which libertarians claim to uphold today. They were products of their time and experience with a tyrant in the person of King George III of Great Britain. They did not want a government that could abuse people the way he or monarchs did. Their concerns about government power reflected this. However America has changed over time and circumstance. It is nothing like the Founders could have imagined or known. To say that libertarians or your view of liberty, property, and the role of government most perfectly fits the Founders. I disagree.

You say that I maligned libertarianism. How ?

Do you not believe in noninterference or negative liberty ?

Do you not reject government regulation of business as an infringement on property rights.

Do you oppose taxes or progressive taxes in particular as theft ?

I think my grasp of the libertarian position is stronger than you think.

 

I pray for the day that SS/Medicare collapse.

 

Of course there is. If you have a child, you are not free of obligations to the child. If you have a spouse, a friend, a boss, an employee... you are not free of your obligations to them.

American's do enjoy many liberties not available in other countries, but there is absolutely a grey area when you are talking about freedom. You will always have some obligations ... unless you are completely alone or expect those around you to care for you like a spoiled child.



​

 

Let's carry this into the positive

When the speech of one person related to the laws over everyone, are agreed with, accepted and supported by the many, that speech justifiably needs and deserves the opposite of restriction by government which is disallowed from restricting any by law.

Therein is the duty of government to support speech which creates unity under the principles and for the intents of the constitution which protect the speech.

How else would the framers have expected the people to be unified enough to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights?

Government must maintain the unity of the people so that at any time government might become destructive to the peoples rights, the people can immediately alter or abolish.