Wolves and Lambs

[Superman]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin

I saw this quote in someone's signature. I thought it might make for some fruitful discussion. You see, democracy is an interesting thing. One of the most obvious dangers, according to the Framers and Forefathers, is that the majority might ride roughshod over the minority. For example, if 51% of us were vigorously opposed to rock and roll music, believing that it leads to drugs and sex and debauchery, we could make rock and roll illegal from coast to coast. That might be considered an inappropriate curtailment of freedom.

Whaddayoo guys think? Be careful. The "Right" is, reputedly, actively interested in limiting peoples' freedoms because they just don't feel certain behaviors are "right" and they are (allegedly) prepared to use law to enforce those behavioral beliefs.

[tcar]

That's why we're a republic not a democracy.

...and you're in the wrong forum.

[Superman]

I've notified the Moderator. There is a glitch in the system that sometimes posts OT threads in the Technical Forum.

[tabs]

The left is concerned with limiting the freedom of people who smoke and the freedom of people who like to own guns.

[Jeff Higgins]

Doesn't anyone else notice that both "sides" accuse the other of attempting to limit freedoms? So how many new laws passed in this country actually add to our freedoms? Seems to me we have long since passed the point where most take a measure of freedom away from us. The only new laws that can actually "grant" freedoms are those that repeal or revise existing laws that took them away to begin with. That hardly ever happens. The noose only seems to be tightening.

Just to choose a couple of examples near and dear to both sides, let's look at gun laws and sexual freedoms. Both seem to really light up their respective proponents/opponents, and for good reason. Neither set of issues should even be addressed by law, but they have been. A man is inherently free to arm himself in any manner he sees fit. Likewise, he is free to have the sexual relations of his choosing. In neither case is it anyone else's damn business until it adversely affects some one else. Not just annoys, or disgusts, or worries - those are not valid reasons to impinge upon another man's freedoms. Yet we have allowed that to happen. It's because we have fallen for a ruse, a shell game, and have allowed ourselves to become distracted.

Both sides - the Left and the Right - are equally "guilty" as far as this little ruse works. Both espouse their versions of "freedom" while working to curtail those freedoms embraced by the "other side". The "default setting" of mankind is freedom to do as one wishes. Governments and the money/power structure behind them opperate to take those freedoms away. It's not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue until they start pointing fingers at each other, in hopes of diverting attention from their own particular flavor of impingement. "The other guys are worse..." still seems to be an effective diversion, however. Keeping the "liberals" and "conservatives" at loggerheads, while curtailing the freedoms of both, has proven an effective way for the real movers and shakers behind the scenes to bolster their power base. It's not a "liberal vs. conservative" issue, folks. At the grassroots it may be, but in the end both lose precious freedoms, and both have learned to ask permission of their government to do what no government has authority over to begin with. We are losing this one, kids, because we fight each other over it. It's time to wake up and recognize the real enemy of freedom.

[Moneyguy1]

Partisanship and self-interest are the real enemies of freedom.

If they are not, please discuss.

[the]

Self interest is a real enemy of freedom????

[Moneyguy1]

Sure. Self interest, taken to the extreme would be the forcing of your wants and desires unto others. Probably a bad example, but how about an individual who is anti abortion burning down a clinic. Freedom is a difficult thing to define because in order to maximize our freedoms we have to be tolerant of other's rights and in so doing so, limiting our freedoms to some extent.

I am not always able to describe things adequately. I hope I got my point across.

[the]

Anything, taken to an irrational extreme, is bad.

The pursuit of rational self interest is the greatest friend of freedom and is in fact what our country was founded on.

[Aurel]

Were the exectives of Enron pursuing rational self interest by screwing all their employees out of their retirements savings? I`d say yes. Did it lead them to freedom? I`d say no .

Aurel

[the]

No, in a system based on rational pursuit of self interest, "screwing" people or committing crimes is not rational.

[lendaddy]

Exactly, holding up criminals as examples of our system is incredibly weak though oddly not uncommon.

[Moneyguy1]

AHA..You added the word "rational".

To the Enron officials, their actions were quite "rational" at the time. dont'cha think?

But yet, in the interests of self interest, we ALL try to get the better of the "other guy", whether it be buying a car, taking advantage of another's financial misfortune, etc.....Just scan some of the other threads to get an idea of how people here view their "self interests".

[the]

I presume rationality. Because pursuit of an irrational "self interest" is a contradiction. I only made it explicit when it became clear some others do not make that same presumption.

The actions of the Enron officials were not rational. That they may have believed, or felt, or wanted, their actions to be rational does not serve to actually make them rational.

I will agree, many people view their perceived self interest in an irrational manner. Mainly because, like the Enron example, many people view reality not as an objective reality, but as a reality in the form they *wish* it to be.

Our country is (was) founded on the principle of the rational pursuit of self interest. That is what "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is. We've lost our way because we've lost our way from that principle.

[Moneyguy1]

I would posit that the definition of "rational" differs from person to person and can be "justified" in one's mind. Some world leaders consider their views rational. Others may not agree; hence war.

For example, a person who collects dozens of automobiles or multiple firearms may consider their actions rational, while others may consider that behavior bizarre.

[sammyg2]

I suggest that everyone read "THE FEDERALIST PAPERS".
That is what our country and government is based on.
The belief that two opposed sides, both fighting for what they want, will bring balance and compromise is detailed in those papers.
Absolutely brilliant work and an eye opening look at how the system is supposed to work.
It should be manditory reading prior to anyone being able to vote or express an opinion on politics in this country IMO.

[legion]

Originally Posted by tabs

The left is concerned with limiting the freedom of people who smoke and the freedom of people who like to own guns.

Unless they smoke something that is currently illegal.

[on-ramp]

It's a hell of a lot easier to collect a FEE when you take away freedoms than when you give them.

[sammyg2]

Here's an excerpt from one of the federalist papers. I'm not positive but I believe this was written by Madison. It addresses the concept of majority rule and the minority getting overwelmed. This concept is why we have two houses of congress, the house and senate. The house of reps is designed to represent the majority, the senate is designed to represent the will of the people and the country, not just the majority. The senate can be refered to as the concience of the country. It aslo explains how maving many different states and classes with many different interests is in the best interest of the whole.
It's wordy and hard to follow but worth the time to study it and comprehend:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.

[Superman]

Jeff, would you consider running for President? You'd have my vote. As long as you promised not to offer any appointments to Len. (wink)