Comment by roland707 on January 31, 2013 at 10:32pm

Saw an interesting piece relative to this on ,I think, Jimmy Kimmel the other night. They were doing a 'man on the street interview' bit. They ask "Do you think Congress is doing a good job?". The person would respond "Oh no, Congress is doing a TERRIBLE job! They should all be fired.....". Then the interviewer says "So who is your representative?" They got a lot of "Um... uh.....I don't really know". Hilarious, if it were not so sad.

Comment by Luara on February 1, 2013 at 6:13am

We do have the War on Drugs in the U.S., and a large fraction of the population is in jail because of it.  According to wikipedia the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. 

In a very literal sense, the U.S. is a very unfree country. 

Comment by Donald R Barbera on February 1, 2013 at 10:37am

Yes, we have k rr a million, but I think China is still number one with Russia a close second. Ht those numbers could have flipped.

Comment by Luara on February 1, 2013 at 10:44am

The incarceration rate in the U.S. is the highest in the world.  Russia and China may have more people in prison but the rate of incarceration is (according to wikipedia) higher here.  

wikipedia sez:

As of 2009, the incarceration rate was 743 per 100,000 of national population (0.743%).^[2] In comparison, Russia had the second highest, at 577 per 100,000, Canada was 123rd in the world as 117 per 100,000, and China had 120 per 100,000

Comment by Idaho Spud on February 1, 2013 at 10:57am

I can understand wanting the government to force people to do what you want them to do.  I often get the feeling myself.  I often wish there were a law against something I hate.  However, when I think about it, if I want freedom to do my thing, I have to allow others to do their thing.  Some of the freedoms I think shouldn't be taken away are:

If I start a business, I'm not free to hire or fire those I want.  There's also a huge number of rules and regulations that cost a huge amount of time and money to run a business.

If I rent a house, I'm not free to rent to those I want and I'm not free to kick deadbeats out immediately.  

I'm not free to own property if I can't afford to pay the taxes.  I think sales tax is the most fair tax.

I'm not free to keep my money or give my money to those I want, because the government takes a large portion to give to those they want.  

In many cases, I'm not allowed to defend myself.

Comment by Alan Perlman on February 1, 2013 at 1:26pm

I was going to write more, but the commentators pretty much covered it.  I would only add that I'm not free to educate my children as I see fit (applies to those for whom public school is the only option), not free to save for retirement as I wish (Social Security takes 14%), not free to keep what I earn (as Sheldon Richman said, "The income tax and the IRS are vile institutions that have no place in a free society.').  I don't even have freedom over my own body - ingest the wrong substances, and I'm a criminal.

"Freedom" is all too often taken to mean "freedom to do the things I want."  We naturally have a blind spot when it comes to restrictions on freedoms we don't personally care about.

Comment by Luara on February 1, 2013 at 2:09pm

The federal government has taken on more regulatory roles over time.  It seems that the power to "regulate interstate commerce" is is what is commonly used to justify this.  This has been used to justify federal anti-drug powers, and even somehow used to justify mandatory health insurance.  Those justifications sound wacky to me, like in reality it's just a federal power grab with no effective opposition. 

A lot of the unfreedom in the U.S. that I see, isn't the government directly restricting freedom, but rather the failure of our society and government to protect people.  For example, I as a woman am outrageously in danger when I'm by myself.  I've wondered why law enforcement wastes resources to pursue drug dealers that they could be using to protect women's safety. 

Comment by Donald R Barbera on February 1, 2013 at 6:12pm

These are common complaints of libertarians, but who is going to fund the infrastructure used by all for transportation. Do we restrict it to tax payers and make individuals not paying taxes find a way to work? Private schools are still available. Good estate planning can keep the government out of your pocket. You can even opt out of portions of other tax programs libertarians love to complain about, but they haven't found a way to support a giant military, pay for veteran care for endless wars, police protection or even basic programs to sustain prisons which I hear no one volunteering to fund. You are free as you want to be. You do not have to pay taxes, buy whatever drugs you like and more, BUT living comes with consequences and repercussions. The weight of freedom is not light until realization that it has little to do with the individual, but others.

Comment by Alan Perlman on February 1, 2013 at 10:13pm

(1) Who said anything about infrastructure? You're changing the subject. I'm not an anarchist.  We obviously need govt. for some things, but what?  The Constitution provides for a limited govt. with enumerated powers. We can argue over the powers, but certainly you don't think they should be unlimited, that anything that seems like a good idea, govt. should do.  I suggest that as a general rule, govt. be the problem-solver of last resort, when all private means have failed.

(2) Libertarians do not want to figure out how to maintain a world empire - but to end it. We should call it the Dept. of Defense -- and mean it. 

(3) I believe in personal responsibility, but to tell me that I'm going to suffer government repercussions for violating the drug laws (as opposed to destroying my health with legal drugs like alcohol and expecting the public to pay for it) is, no offense, condescending and patronizing.  It is not at all clear that in a free country, govt. is charged with protecting your from yourself.

(4) I agree with Luara: the commerce and general welfare clauses have been used to justify the unlimited expansion of govt. power.

(5) "Where the people fear the government, there is tyranny.  Where the government fears the people, there is liberty."  (Jefferson)

(6) As an atheist, I don't trust God, whom I never see - so why should I trust politicians, whose antics and chacanery are on display for the amusement of all?

Comment by Donald R Barbera on February 2, 2013 at 8:54am

Laura, I know we are in the top three and the drug war continues. Legalization of some drugs would help, but would create a necessary bureaucracy to oversee it. I sure.y don't want some loaded surgeon standing over thinking about chocolate chip cookies. I'm for even more government involvement as a direct purchaser from any source. Now that's capitalism. Direct competition. Of course, this is an extreme example, but it is an area the government could do something to help the people. Take the weight of insuring people off of businesses, it would free up revenue. On the other hand, it removes employer leverage, puts insurance companies at risk and moves drug companies into global competition to do business directly with the government. Just a thought. There's always a "gotcha."

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page