Quote:
Originally Posted by TransparentMe  ...you had me until you said the word "wealthy.'
Much of the liberty I see being stolen right now is for the benefit of the supposed middle class and the poor.
Let's just say that it's an excuse to steal liberty for nefarious purposes, deal? |
One issue that's key to this discussion is what exactly a liberty is. Some people define liberty very narrowly and see it only as the "Bill of Rights"-type liberties. Others see liberty very broadly and decry any government incursion into their lives. Still others say that liberty means being free from the harassment of others and would support laws that constrict the freedom of speech. Pretty much everyone thinks they're supporting liberty, even those who would repeal the 1st Amendment in the name of security (they'd say, "what about the freedom to live?").
I can't make any representation as to which -- if any -- is right. Personally, I define liberty as the right to think and express yourself as you choose. Perhaps I'm a little radical in that I don't believe in "hate speech" legislation. I believe in freedom of action as long as it does not victimize others (Examples: murder, assault, etc.). I think that the government should not unduly burden citizens, but they do have a right to levy taxes and provide for the common good. This last sentence is probably what you're referring to. Where is the line drawn? Certainly we can all agree that it's good for everyone to pitch in and support things like fire departments and police departments, since we all get benefit. But what about things that seem to benefit one class or one group of people? This is the issue that cuts to the heart of all of this.
The political system of the United States, much like any other nation, has power vested firmly in the hands of the wealthy. Those in political power are often multi-millionaires or have strong connections to those who are. Sometimes they support the poor and middle class at the cost of liberty. Most of the time they support their own class. But in the end, I see it as just self-interest. They might support the poor -- with the hopes that the poor will support them when they seek re-election. It all comes back to self-interest, and the wealthy are inevitably the group in power. After all, who can afford to run all those campaigns than those who have the money to do so?
I would agree that liberty is perverted for nefarious purposes. When it becomes a nefarious purpose is a fuzzy line and I don't really have an answer to this. I would agree to your deal though. :)
For the record, the liberty I mentioned in my first post in this thread was relative to the more "clear-cut" incursions, such as wiretapping, spying, etc.
Linear Mode
