Is the USA a free country?

[dross]

My general point being that when you say it "can't be made to work", it tends to imply that it's actually been tried. And perhaps to some lesser extent it has, but as your own post says, those who proposed the USA in the first place broke it the next day.

If we look at different expressions of liberty, we can certainly find near-total freedom in historical models. Hong Kong was a bastion of economic freedom until China took it back (I'm unclear as to how much of that has remained since). Pre-NFA, the USA was a fine example of firearms freedom. As I hear it, the historical Irish had a great deal of sexual freedom. And even with stupid **** like the Alien & Sedition Acts, the USA has generally enjoyed a pretty extreme amount of expressive freedom.

I think the trick isn't looking for the one shining example of all freedoms, but noting how freedom in different categories has been maximized in various places, and pondering how to gather that maximization into one place. Just saying that "well, there's gotta be jackboots, sucks to be us" is more like running away from the problem than actually trying to address it.

You're putting jackboots into my mouth.

I don't think I said, "can't be made to work," and I don't think there's gotta be jackboots, either.

Let me put it this way: If we're not a free country, there are no free countries and there never have been, except perhaps as soon to be modified anomolies.

In no way take that to mean I don't think we can improve. It's hard for me to understand how anyone who has read my posts on here for the last couple of years could think that.

Also, I hate what I see happening to freedome here.

What I have trouble with is the "all is lost," crowd, and the "it used to be so much better," crowd, and the "if I can't have 100% freedom then I'm living under tyranny and I'm now just waiting for the revolution crowd."

I try to be the thorn under that saddle.

 

[Coach]

Unless you were black.

Poor whites were not any more free under localism. The color that matters most is green if you have enough of it you can do what you want.

 

[Fletch]

You're putting jackboots into my mouth.

My attempt at colloquial humor. I humbly apologize.

I don't think I said, "can't be made to work,"

My point is just that when your ideals can't be made to work in the real world, it's your ideals that must be adjusted, not the real world.

The ideals being discussed are the ideals of freedom.

Let me put it this way: If we're not a free country, there are no free countries and there never have been, except perhaps as soon to be modified anomolies.

In no way take that to mean I don't think we can improve. It's hard for me to understand how anyone who has read my posts on here for the last couple of years could think that.

It's hard for me to decide. On the one hand I see you give a lot of lip service to the idea of freedom, but when it comes down to practical matters you always appear ready to just let the anti-freedom ride, as long as it's the flavor you like best.

And just so we don't have to re-hash the perpetual disagreement, I totally get that you think it's the best way out of the present mess, and I don't necessarily disagree. But in almost every thread of this type I've read, you do communicate a willingness, one might even say near-eagerness, to give up yards for inches.

And before we re-hash THAT argument, I also understand incremental progress, but I'm a fan of throwing a Hail Mary every once in a while.

Hey, did I just use a football metaphor? JetGirl would be so proud.

 

[rambone]

If you are measuring against an ideal, any real life situation will always come up short. This is the mistake that socialists always make.

My point is just that when your ideals can't be made to work in the real world, it's your ideals that must be adjusted, not the real world.

We should never stop striving for an ideal of liberty. Nearly all of my listed grievances come from policy changes that have taken place in the last 100 years or so. We shouldn't progressively readjust our definition of freedom to the meager standards of what continues to remain in America.

If everyone realized what we were, and what we have become, they wouldn't be so complacent as a nation.

Yes, but Ranger, our country started being different from what the founders laid out pretty much immediately after they ratified the Constitution. Our country hasn't ever been the country that people imagine it was. OUR FOUNDERS were the ones who started the movement away from what they founded.

Our founders should have been slapped down by the Supreme Courts immediately when they got out of line. It goes to show you that the very nature of government is to grow and corrupt. However, we should never stop fighting Big Government and corruption.

And, as the left loves to point out, for many, many people in our country, it was a whole lot less free then than it is now. More than half the population couldn't vote or own property, and were restricted in many other ways. (I'm talking about blacks and women, but there are other examples.)

There is an interesting argument that the U.S.A. would never have existed if the founders immediately tried to ban slavery, give voting rights to everyone, etc. Those were foreign concepts across the globe at that point. The 13 colonies would not have agreed to join if they were forced to change so radically all at once. The 3/5ths Compromise was actually an anti-slavery provision in the constitution, in order to reduce the power of the south in terms of representatives in congress.

The founders were wise in leaving the slavery issue alone, to be eventually abolished constitutionally, on the state level.

 

[jsharmon7]

I think dross has said it better than I ever could. So I'll have what he's having.

 

[dross]

My attempt at colloquial humor. I humbly apologize..

No need to apologize, I was riffing off you. I thought that given Rambone's avatar, jackboots in the mouth was funny.

The ideals being discussed are the ideals of freedom.

It's hard for me to decide. On the one hand I see you give a lot of lip service to the idea of freedom, but when it comes down to practical matters you always appear ready to just let the anti-freedom ride, as long as it's the flavor you like best.

And just so we don't have to re-hash the perpetual disagreement, I totally get that you think it's the best way out of the present mess, and I don't necessarily disagree. But in almost every thread of this type I've read, you do communicate a willingness, one might even say near-eagerness, to give up yards for inches.

And before we re-hash THAT argument, I also understand incremental progress, but I'm a fan of throwing a Hail Mary every once in a while.

Hey, did I just use a football metaphor? JetGirl would be so proud.

I truly believe the only legitimate function of government is to discourage the initiation of force.

Intellectually, I acknowledge that a goverment which exceeds that legitimate function is engaging in tyranny.

Now that I find myself living in this tyrannical system, what do I do about it? First, I look at where I'm at, let's call it an island - I look at this island where I live in tyranny and I assess it. Where can I go? By my standards, I see tyranny everywhere. I see nowhere I can go where the system is not tyrannical.

Now I look to the past, at history. Again, nothing but tyranny, with a few exceptions here and there for short periods and limited populations. Even then, the tyranny of the stronger outsider is always lurking.

What do I make of my assessment? I discover I've landed on one of the best islands, maybe THE best if I consider other things than just the political system, that I could have landed on now or at any time in history. In fact, even if I just went by the political system, that still holds.

So what do I do about getting to my ideal? Well, I can try to tear this one down and start over, but that doesn't seem possible right now and even if it was, based on my earlier assessment I might end up on a worse island.

Then I realize that this island has a system by which things can be changed. It's clunky and it doesn't work very well, and in fact, weaknesses in it have helped the tyranny advance.

So, I decide that the very best course of action, the only one available to me that might change things for the better, or at least slow the advance of the worse, is to work within that system, acknowledging the way it actually works rather than how I wish it would work, or how I incorrectly imagine it worked at some golden time in the past.

So, while I agree with some of you more than I acknowledge very often, I still find myself on this particular island, relatively better than any other island, working within the rules of the island as best as I can.

 

[dross]

There is an interesting argument that the U.S.A. would never have existed if the founders immediately tried to ban slavery, give voting rights to everyone, etc. Those were foreign concepts across the globe at that point. The 13 colonies would not have agreed to join if they were forced to change so radically all at once. The 3/5ths Compromise was actually an anti-slavery provision in the constitution, in order to reduce the power of the south in terms of representatives in congress.

The founders were wise in leaving the slavery issue alone, to be eventually abolished constitutionally, on the state level.

Wow, you couldn't have taken my side of the argument any better.

Yes the founders compromised one ideal in order to gain another. Exactly what you rail against here all the time.

This country was born in a compromise of freedom, much, much worse than anything that has happened over the last 100 years. That doesn't maket it bad, and yes, that was the only way we'd have had our country.

I'll bet a million dollars though, that the abolitionists of the time made the arguments you make right now about our system.

 

[rambone]

Somewhat, in the sense that FEMA camps are not yet operational.

I crack myself up sometimes.

Just wanted to share.

 

[Lucas156]

This is hardly a free country. The United States has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. What does that tell you?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Unless you were black.

actually the south almost freed the slaves because they knew it was wrong long before the north did it just to ruin the southern economy and still try to assert its authority over a sovereign nation! much like the U.S. govt still does today (world police). The reason they didnt is because all of the states wouldnt have came on board to join the CSA if they would have freed the slaves. there were much more pressing issues than freeing slaves. they knew that could be done later, and they would have. also I will point out that NO slave ships ever flew the colors of the confederacy. Even the last slave ship to arrive in America with slaves AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER, was flying the good ole stars and stripes.

the whole slavery topic is the best thing the U.S. govt could use to demonize the southern states for exercising their constitutional rights and the north going against the constitution to not allow it. and they are still pumping peoples minds full of that BS today. The U.S. govt succeeded because it seems like the slavery issue is always what uneducated retards think the civil war was over. but I wouldnt expect anyone raised in the north by northern families to ever care about the truth about the "dirty southerner rebels". all my family from the founding of this nation came from the virginias and the south mainly. you hear the truth passed down.

 

[Lucas156]

Of course the war wasn't about the slaves. The winner of the war always rewrites history. The south actually called the civil war The War of Northern Aggression and were right to do so. I call it that whenever it is talked about.

 

[Que]

actually the south almost freed the slaves because they knew it was wrong long before the north did it just to ruin the southern economy and still try to assert its authority over a sovereign nation! much like the U.S. govt still does today (world police). The reason they didnt is because all of the states wouldnt have came on board to join the CSA if they would have freed the slaves. there were much more pressing issues than freeing slaves. they knew that could be done later, and they would have. also I will point out that NO slave ships ever flew the colors of the confederacy. Even the last slave ship to arrive in America with slaves AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER, was flying the good ole stars and stripes.

the whole slavery topic is the best thing the U.S. govt could use to demonize the southern states for exercising their constitutional rights and the north going against the constitution to not allow it. and they are still pumping peoples minds full of that BS today. The U.S. govt succeeded because it seems like the slavery issue is always what uneducated retards think the civil war was over. but I wouldnt expect anyone raised in the north by northern families to ever care about the truth about the "dirty southerner rebels". all my family from the founding of this nation came from the virginias and the south mainly. you hear the truth passed down.

I've done some pretty extensive research on slavery, but I've not seen this. Where can I find documented proof that the south "almost freed the slaves" and in what way did they do this? Also, what were the more pressing issues that the south was dealing with?

 

[nova512]

freedom with their exception!

 

[E5RANGER375]

I've done some pretty extensive research on slavery, but I've not seen this. Where can I find documented proof that the south "almost freed the slaves" and in what way did they do this? Also, what were the more pressing issues that the south was dealing with?

you can read the papers of the confederacy. jefferson davis papers as well as delegates from the other states. i will provide you with a few references on the info. I will have to go through my books to gather it. but it is very real, but i would love for you to read it yourself to see what the U.S. govt has covered up intentionaly. the way they were gonna do it is actually put it into the southern constitution. but not all the seceding states would sign it so they couldnt.

more pressing issues would be fighting the union to secure their independence since they knew lincoln wouldnt recognize their sovereignty as free and independent states. slavery had existed long before america was formed, why didnt the U.S. govt free the slaves before they were about to lose the civil war? what were their oppressing issues? the south didnt create slavery nor did they do anything the north didnt do or support as well.

focusing on freeing the slaves while forming a new nation would have been as stupid as worying about adjusting your hair during battle. during that time period in our history slavery was normal, but just really starting to become wrong in peoples eyes.

 

[Expat]

I've done some pretty extensive research on slavery, but I've not seen this. Where can I find documented proof that the south "almost freed the slaves" and in what way did they do this? Also, what were the more pressing issues that the south was dealing with?

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

They freed them if they enlisted in the CSA army.
http://www.cwbr.com/index.php?q=3507&field=ID&browse=yes&record=full&searching=yes&Submit=Search

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

This is hardly a free country. The United States has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. What does that tell you?

It tells me that most of the people in prison are too stupid to follow the laws they were brought up in and should be in prison .

 

[dross]

It tells me that most of the people in prison are too stupid to follow the laws they were brought up in and should be in prison .

What if some of the laws are unjust?

 

[Lucas156]

It tells me that most of the people in prison are too stupid to follow the laws they were brought up in and should be in prison .

Well thats how you interpret it but to each their own. It tells me that we have too many ridiculous laws.

 

[Que]

you can read the papers of the confederacy. jefferson davis papers as well as delegates from the other states. i will provide you with a few references on the info. I will have to go through my books to gather it. but it is very real, but i would love for you to read it yourself to see what the U.S. govt has covered up intentionaly. the way they were gonna do it is actually put it into the southern constitution. but not all the seceding states would sign it so they couldnt.

more pressing issues would be fighting the union to secure their independence since they knew lincoln wouldnt recognize their sovereignty as free and independent states. slavery had existed long before america was formed, why didnt the U.S. govt free the slaves before they were about to lose the civil war? what were their oppressing issues? the south didnt create slavery nor did they do anything the north didnt do or support as well.

focusing on freeing the slaves while forming a new nation would have been as stupid as worying about adjusting your hair during battle. during that time period in our history slavery was normal, but just really starting to become wrong in peoples eyes.

I wold love to see that and form my own opinion. I have always refused to get into the debate as to whether slavery was the main issue in the Civil War. The benefit of the north winning was the freeing of the slaves. I refuse to believe the majority of free citizens believed slaves should be free based on ethics. Nothing has ever changed in this company in the area of equality without there being a fiscal benefit or punishment.

Also, referencing an earlier post, the flags flown on ships, including slave ships, had to be recognized by England. Those that were not were deemed to be pirates and destroyed.

This is a broad subject and I have various thoughts. Bottom line, just as some wish to put the past behind us, I wish we could just accept our history without attempting to relieve our hearts and minds concerning some of the atrocities that occurred by attempting to find or create a silver lining.

As to the OP, yes, I believe America is a free country. Accountability and punishment results from violating the freedoms we have.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

What if some of the laws are unjust?

You mean like the one that says if I want to Carry a gun I'd better have a license ? Or how'bout the one that says I need a license to fish ?

Regardless of how "just" a law is , it is a law and shall be obeyed in the interest of good order and civility .

If not , then don't cry when you get what you get .

Don't like it , then start a movement to change the law .