Our system is one whole thing, it cannot be butchered into leaner and fatter cuts like meat.

[originalpckelly]

We must deal with the risks of freedom to have the benefits of freedom. The two primary risks of freedom include bad decisions made by our populace at elections and criminals taking advantage of freedom to profit at the expense of others. Faced with the even greater risks of tyranny, those risks of freedom don't seem nearly as bad.

In a nation ruled by a tyrant, such as ours, the "leader" often suggests that he or she knows better for the population than they themselves do, and many tyrants throughout the modern era have used this perception of incompetence on the part of the electorate to gain their powers. Our President is a good example of this problem. Repeatedly he has suggested that "he does not listen to the polls" on Iraq. He "stands on principle" and we don't I suppose.

Inherent in the claim of ignoring polls for the reason of "principle" is that one man who has never met most of the American population believes he is far better positioned to know what decisions are right for us. The absurdity of that claim is comparable to an anonymous person walking up to another person, and claiming to know so much about their life that they can make better decisions about it. I've made lots of bad decisions in my life, as I can assure you everyone has, but if I don't know what's right for me sometimes, and I've lived with me my whole life, how is George Bush who I've never met going to do any better?

In addition to the claim that an anonymous man knows your life better than you do, the proposition of him making our decisions is also based upon the claim he's more error free than the rest of us. History will suggest that George W. Bush has made more than his fair share of mistakes.

Most frighteningly, that claim also seems to be related to the claim that our leader talks to God, or has been ordained by God to be President. This is also a tactic that has been used by many other tyrants throughout history, and it was used by the very people our nation declared its independence from so many years ago. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Some people are not given a special birthmark in the shape of a big cross to show they are ordained to be the leader of a given nation. Leaders fall from grace all the time, but especially the types of leaders whom make that claim, there have been so many divinely ordained Kings throughout history to fall to other Kings that God must be quite scatterbrained if he does indeed select our leaders.

However bad it may be that we have to risk mistakes by our electorate, it is far better than letting an anonymous person tell us s/he knows best for us, that is self-evident truth.

The risks of democracy used by tyrants to gain power also include the possibility of crime, of late in our nation it has been the crime of terrorism. As a nation, we have been brainwashed into believing that terrorism is our nation's greatest threat. However, that ignores the inherent threat of the people who claim they can protect us from terrorism by terrorizing us and placing all of us in digital prison of suspicion and surveillance. 

I've heard that Americans are captured on at least 200 surveillance cameras a day going about their mundane business; I'd suggest most prisoners are probably captured on far fewer. We are supposed to be freer than these individuals in prison, yet I'm certain that if we went to a prison, there are only so many cameras trained on each cell. This became apparent to me a while back when the tapes of John Geoghan's killing in prison were released to the Internet. I can assure you, there were not 200 different angles to view that cell from, at most five.

In much the same way a prisoner's communications are monitored, our communications have been illegally monitored in some type of mass surveillance system that uses computers to sift through our information. We are being surveilled more than a convicted criminal, and there is something very wrong with that.

Our nation has been placed under the rule of a tyrant, one whom asks us to sacrifice our privacy and our liberty for our security. That is yet another absurd proposition, as it presumes the definition of liberty is not "security from the arbitrary use of authority (tyranny)" but "unnecessary risk taking and red tape" that we can live without.

Common sense suggests the soldiers who've taken an oath to defend our US Constitution, and therefore our liberty, did not consider the definition of liberty to be "unnecessary risk taking and red tape." I know I would never risk death for "unnecessary risk taking and red tape." Nor would you, the reader, I presume.

Many people throughout our history have found liberty to be more essential than life itself, I believe they came to the conclusion that life without liberty is not one's own life, but the life of those in control. If you are not free enough to make the wrong decisions in life, you cannot be free enough to make the right decisions. And therefore, it appears the goal of preventing crime before it happens is inherently opposed to the idea of liberty.

Unfortunately, to make the decision not to commit a crime, we must have enough freedom to be able to commit one. That doesn't mean we should encourage crime, but it also doesn't mean we should prevent crime before it happens. Last time I checked we presumed people innocent in this fine nation. In general, if there is not enough evidence to link a person to a crime, then there may not be evidence to unlink a person from a crime.

How can we presume innocence if everyone is a suspect in a crime yet to be committed?

In the end, it makes sense that tyranny doesn't make sense, as liberty is a natural truth as sure as 2+2=4.

[Didereaux]

1. Stated quite well...the cause and solution is

The cause is IGNORANCE, brought on by abysmal education. Not one percent of the general population has even the remotest idea as to how our government is structured, how it sustains itself, or what the foundational documents say. Not just at a national level, it extends all the way down the political chain to school boards, municiple districts, even villages.

Two things must occur within the next generation: One is that a full civics curriculum must be reintroduced into the primary school system, extending into the secondary. The second is that teachers must be taught the subject first in order for them to actually teach such a subject. Teachers today are taught how to teach, they are NOT taught the subject. Proof of this can be found by simply sittting sown with any elementary or secondary teacher today and inquiring into their understanding of the specific subkject, be it math, science or literature.

So what can be done while we teach the teachers? Possibly an interim and partial solution would be to bring in non teachers who are knowledgeable on the subject of civics. Perhaps retired lawyers, even older citizens who have been through the old system or who have through caring, researched the subject and taught themselves over the years. Whatever jury-rigged interim compromise that can be made up can hold the fort so to speak until qualified teachers and adequate texts and such can be made, found and installed in our schools.

Lastly, FIRE immediately any educator or teacher today who claims that the teachers and educators of today are already qualified.

[originalpckelly]

3. I completely agree.

Thanks.

[originalpckelly]

2. OK, two anonymous Rec's but no kicks?

:P

Come on folks, if you like it, kick it! :rofl:

[Didereaux]

4. /k

[The2ndWheel]

5. That's the whole point of the system though

"The absurdity of that claim is comparable to an anonymous person walking up to another person, and claiming to know so much about their life that they can make better decisions about it."

To create distance, separation, disconnect, etc. Which then requires "placing all of us in digital prison of suspicion and surveillance", otherwise the system will fail.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911taylor.html

"In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first."

The system is about killing diversity. It's about predictability.

Unfortunately Bush isn't the problem. The problem is the one-size-fits-all-world that is being molded for/by us. The corporations and governments that make up that system only have as much power as people give them. That's the flaw, but also the strength. At every step, as corporations and government acquire more control over our lives, we become more dependent on them, requiring that we give more over to these centralizing organizations.

[Yuugal]

6. Totally disagree

"We must deal with the risks of freedom to have the benefits of freedom. The two primary risks of freedom include bad decisions made by our populace at elections and criminals taking advantage of freedom to profit at the expense of others. Faced with the even greater risks of tyranny, those risks of freedom don't seem nearly as bad."

The biggest risk to freedom is neither of these things. We will always have ignorant people and crooks. The thing that is killing this country is corporatism. Corporatism inserts its evil voice into every debate and twists every public good we try to do into corporate evil. Corporate money is a drug and the addiction level is epidemic in both partys.

Consider some of the things we want done:

Health care for all:

Without corporate money fouling the waters: This issue would have been over decades ago. We would have decent care for all like every other industrialized western nation and that would be that.

With corporate money tainting our politicians: We always get a plan that favors insurance and big pharma interests at our expense and WE ALWAYS WILL. People without benefits suffer and die and even people with benefits are allowed to suffer and die like Cigna's latest murder victim: a 17 yr old girl.

Global warming:

Without corporate money: We would have 10x more wind and solar by now, electric cars, be signing treaties with other countries to reduce pollution of all types.

With corporate money: Lots of talk but no action, cynical subsidies paid to coal plants and oil companies by the same dems who promise every election do otherwise, the "consumption" economy held onto with a death grip by the rich until our poor kids and grandkids end up living a life straight out of Soylent Green.

Endless War:

Without corporate money: We'd fight a lot less wars, spend alot less on defense, and the wars we did fight would be much shorter.

With corporate money: They spend trillions on war and the means to make it every decade and let the corporations steal half of what they spend.

Jobs:

Without corporate money buying off our politicians: We wouldn't be shipping our jobs away as fast as we can. More things would be made in America, By Americans, for Americans. The trade deals we did sign would make sense.

With corporate money: We get a race to the bottom and the US as a debt-ridden third world country.

No matter what the issue, if corporate money is involved we lose because our own people stab us in the back time and time again. The rich get richer and laugh at our ignorance of how they do it as they commit crime after crime against us.

You say: "The two primary risks of freedom include bad decisions made by our populace at elections and criminals taking advantage of freedom to profit at the expense of others."

I say: "The two primary risks of freedom include bad decisions made by the people we elect and corporate criminals taking advantage of freedom to profit at the expense of others."

I'm not going to blame public ignorance when the public just gave us both houses of congress and they control the purse strings. It used to be very easy to just say, "Them evil reps sold us out to the corps!" Now its our party that does it and I should blame the average person for electing Dems who looked them right in the eye/camera and said they were different?

Until the dem party learns to reject the dirty corporate money we will always have a system run by one big corporate party at the expense of us all.

[Toots]

7. You voted for Nader didn't you?

At least you sound just like him. Not that I disagree....It is why Peloisi and Reed have done absolutely nothing in regards to accountability. They are every bit as culpable.

[Yuugal]

8. I could afford to be a Gore supporter then

These days I would go back and vote Nader if I had a time machine. Nader was right in the end: doesn't seem to matter which party you vote for anymore.

[shadowknows69]

9. Great piece, happy to K+R

What differentiates between a leader and a tyrant is that a leader LISTENS to his people and attempts to bring them along on a shared vision. A tyrant like GW, like you said, simply knows he knows better than the rest of us. We elected him so he MUST be the smartest guy in the country after all right?

[originalpckelly]

10. HA! Good point...

and thanks for the kick!