Just how free is freedom?

Just how free is freedom?

One of the thing brought up time and time again on the forums is that government should keep their hand off the people's buisness and allow them to do what ever they want.

Freedom… what does it really mean? Many people take freedom for granted but nobody ever stop to think about what the true meaning of freedom. The founding fathers believed that everybody is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (US declaration of independence). However, just like any other things in life, freedom is not free. It passes on an enormous debt to the recipient.

Another reason freedom is not free is that are terms and conditions that entail with freedom. For example, although United States citizens are entitled to vote in the federal elections, serve on a jury, travel with US passports, run for federal office, and are eligible for federal grants and scholarship, they are required, among many other things, to support and defend the Constitution, serve the country when required, and respect and obey all United States laws.

...

One of the most important reason why freedom is not free is that there are measures in place to ensure that no one infringe the freedom of other people. Is freedom really free if it infringes upon the freedom of other people? For example, although we have the freedom to say anything we like, we must not say things that can affect or harm other people. One of the most widely given example is shouting “Fire” in a crowded place when there isn’t any. Because of that person’s action, other people can be hurt or even killed in the ensuring stampede. Another example is racial discrimination. Although we can say anything we want, speaking hurtful or disdainful things about another race can spur hate crimes where people can be hurt and thus their freedom for life is breached. Therefore, although we are entitled to do anything we want, we must walk a fine line where our actions does not overstep and affect other people.

There are relatively few countries that are really as democratic as that word they claim.

Wanted to share these video:


Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky2WKqmrnnI

Oh, I ain't looking for tea with old Ratty. Had tea with my national Grand Master once. That was much better being both ardent Presbyterians!

The government need to restrict freedom to protect people. For example, there need to be laws to keep businesses in line and not doing unscrupulous things to cut costs. Same thing apply to people. So they won't do things that harm others.

This is a shame for Americans, but kudos should be given to our northern bretheren.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/the-charter-proves-to-be-canadas-gift-to-world/article2403254/


"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed 30 years ago Tuesday. Since then, not only has it become a national bedrock, but the Charter has replaced the American Bill of Rights as the constitutional document most emulated by other nations.

“Could it be that Canada has surpassed or even supplanted the United States as a leading global exporter of constitutional law? The data suggest that the answer may be yes.” So conclude two U.S. law professors whose analysis of the declining influence of the American constitution on other nations will be published in New York University Law Review in June.

As the first Commonwealth nation to adopt a bill of rights, Canada has influenced other former British colonies as they create or revise their own constitutions, the study finds. Israel, Hong Kong and Eastern European countries have also drawn from the Canadian example.

Both the Charter itself and the nation that gave birth to it serve as an example to the world. “Some countries may be especially prone to borrow from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they perceive themselves as sharing the same goals and values as Canadian society,” write David S. Law, who is professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, and Mila Versteeg, who teaches law at University of Virginia.

In contrast, professors Law and Versteeg conclude that the American constitution, once the foundational document for new nations in search of a government, has fallen out of favour. It fails to protect rights, such as freedom from discrimination based on race or sex, that are considered fundamental in our time; it enshrines rights, such as the right to bear arms, that other nations don’t value; its courts increasingly interpret the American document so perversely – by claiming that it must only be applied as the founding fathers originally intended – as to render it useless as a tool for tackling modern problems.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only prohibits discrimination based on race or gender, it protects mobility and language rights and enshrines the presumption of innocence. It balances the rights of legislatures and courts through the “notwithstanding” clause, which gives the federal and provincial parliaments limited powers to override court decisions.

Beyond the Charter itself, the Canadian Supreme Court is considered an exemplar in balancing constitutional and legislative powers, a role the American Supreme Court lost entirely after Republicans and Democrats turned it into an ideological battleground.

“The Charter is widely admired, and so are the decisions of the Canadian court,” observes Peter Hogg, one of Canada’s foremost constitutional authorities. “And one reason is that Canada is not the United States.”

The U.S. study, which offers a meticulous comparison of how constitutions around the world reflect and influence each other, leads the authors to conclude that “other common-law countries are looking either directly or indirectly at the Charter,” as they draft and amend their own constitutions, Prof. Law explained in an interview Sunday.

“Overall, the evolution of global constitutionalism has tilted more toward the mild-mannered country to the north than its superpower neighbour to the south,” the report concludes.

Jean Chrétien was a founding father of the Charter. He, as federal justice minister, Roy Romanow, then attorney-general of Saskatchewan and Roy McMurtry, then attorney-general of Ontario, crafted the “Kitchen Accord” that Pierre Trudeau, who was determined to get a bill of rights, and the premiers, who were determined to protect their own powers, could all live with. Only Quebec refused to sign the document, though a recent poll showed Quebeckers overwhelmingly endorse the Charter.

Mr. Chrétien is saddened by the Harper government’s decision not to mark in any meaningful way the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Charter, which may be altogether too Liberal an achievement for the Conservatives’ taste.

“I would celebrate it; they don’t,” Mr. Chrétien said Sunday on Global TV’s The West Block.

Conservative premiers played a major role in the crafting of the Charter, especially Bill Davis of Ontario. As Mr. Chrétien observed, without him there might never have been a deal.

The Charter doesn’t belong to the Liberals or to Conservatives. It belongs to all Canadians. And, increasingly, to the world.

I've never been more proud to be quarter-Canadian.

It's a shame that you can't learn how to quote your sources, Dawg. But, having so few opinions of your own, you have little choice; I understand.——————————————————————

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I've never been more proud to be quarter-Canadian.

You do know, that's a racist comment? (Well, it would be — in Canada. )

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

It's a shame that you can't learn how to quote your sources, Dawg.

Thanks for posting that.

I thought I had included that, but obviously not.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But, having so few opinions of your own, you have little choice; I understand.

You should probably include sarcasterics with comments like this.

The first Bill of Rights was in 1688..........

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I thought I had included that, but obviously not.

You did include the link, after posting 15 words of your own. Then you quoted the entire article, with your own editorial emphasis… And you couldn't be bothered to show that nothing following was yours or that it was quoted. If you plan to revert to palimpsest, say so!

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

You did include the link, after posting 15 words of your own. Then you quoted the entire article, with your own editorial emphasis… And you couldn't be bothered to show that nothing following was yours or that it was quoted. If you plan to revert to palimpsest, say so!

And lo and behold, after doing that, it caused no-one any confusion at all.

You know Oakdale, for 5 years I have put up with your trolling, snide/condescending remarks and whispers and I have held back saying this, but no longer. There comes a time when a man must speak his mind, and this is one of those times.

Vete ala puta verga, usted hijo de puta!

I hear flutes n' drums, marching feet and the crossing of a famous "line". Woo-hooh OakdaleFTL, I do declare Yankee you had better run.

I think this song would make howie's blood boil as it is set to the tune of the UK national anthem, but more patriotic:

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0ywDLpfBHg

Shows how much you don't know me thinking my blood would boil. And as it happens you are a bit late with that thing as I learned that when I was a laddie in Primary School (5-11 years for Ex-Colonists)! To enlighten you a wee bit further wikipedian, our tune was used in other countries as well in Europe due to the position Gt Britain was in as an imperial power. So your lot jumped on the same bandwagon as the others. To be fair you should have as you suggest been better with that as a national anthem......

Yes but your national anthem mention nothing but saving the monarch. There is no mention of saving thyself. And franky it's less memorable than the US anthem. "Land of the free and the home of the brave" vs "God save our gracious Queen / Long live our noble Queen / God save the Queen / Send her victorious / Happy and glorious / Long to reign over us / God save the Queen." Not to be be disrespectful but how about us the citizens. God save up too, not only the monarch!

'Thy choicest gifts in store on her be pleased to pour
Long may she reign
May she defend our Laws and ever give us cause to sing with heart and voice
God save The Queen'

This is the second verse and includes as you will note an important constitutional point. In addition the lack of a personal connection as you suggest is not confined to Great Britain there are many National Anthems that don't go about "self". So perahps an unknowing point for you? If you look at the words of another democracy that of France and read all the verses of theisr in English it is very antagonistic and damn right violent as well as bloodthirsty. National Anthems are important and I am sure yours is too but the fine words that encourage you are a conflict (unfortunately) with how people were treated within your own country from it's inception by the corporate leaders who started it and ran it! For all the good words it is a history of persecution, betrayal, racial conflict and ethnic cleansing. And another thing to note is that our National Anthem was not laid down by the Monarch nor by Parliament but by the general wish of the very people themselves! Such is typical of a nation that runs without a written Constitution and works fine!

Me? An ardent Briton, Scot and democratic Monarchist!

You know the UK National Anthem contains an antiscot verse?

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King / Queen.

That said, I wished the royal family do something with the tons of land they own. Maybe use it to provide affordable housing for the poor. That said, I'm hoping to become a British Citizen so God Save the Queen! Also, the UK doesn't have a constitution!

Oh dear, I was going to mention this but thinking it was a minor thing was going to ignore it. Being an ex-Colonist let me explain this further to you for your wider education.

Firstly, as I indicated, there was no formal decision on a National Anthem and God Save the King was written as a patriotic song full stop not as the Anthem. It was if you like a popular and loyal song of the period sang in musical halls etc and nothing more. The verse written was quite correct as it happens as the rebels were Scots Jacobites. That lot of no-hopers tried to rebel in 1715 and even more so in 1745. They were heavily defeated at the Battle of Culloden 1745 not by an English Army but a British Army as so many of the red-coated soldiers were Scots and from the Lowlands who had little time for the wild Highlanders or their religious or Jacobite credentials. The Lowlands in the country south of the wild Highlands was solidly for the Crown and Great Britain. The kilt was never the national dress which is portrayed as now. Such too is a load of bunkum.

Secondly when the song became more widespread the verse on the rebels from up here was not included for very long and deleted in a very short space of time because Jacobites were finished on the mainland for good. It gradually became a National Anthem through usage and never had that verse in it when it was accpeted as an Anthem. Nationalists and oither Brigadoon and shortbread nuts like to sneer it wass in the National Anthem but it never was as I have shown. Hope that helps you?

I prefer "Land of Hope and Glory" to "God Save the Queen".

Might as well go ahead and get ready to change back to the anthem of your youth, Mr. Howie; "God Save the King".

I like ole 'Lizzy, but if she squeezes out another decade, I'll be astonished. (Though I do always enjoy her Christmas messages)

I can accept that 'Land of Hope and Glory' is a tremendous tune and words. Indeed at our lodge church parades we tend to sing at at the end when Colours are leaving. Gives a lift to your step on the homeward parade! Whether King or Queen is here or there but the National Anthem can be played as a hymn style or as a crashing, stirring tune too. Yes, I think that Her Majesty has been an outstanding Monarch and maybe she might beat Queen Victoria yet?! ( (Her mother although no long Monarch lived to 101!).

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

And lo and behold, after doing that, it caused no-one any confusion at all.

Not quite true: The typist thinks he's clever…

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

There comes a time when a man must speak his mind, and this is one of those times.

Your mind speaks broken-Spanish?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I hear flutes n' drums, marching feet and the crossing of a famous "line". Woo-hooh OakdaleFTL, I do declare Yankee you had better run.

Yeah, I suppose you're right: Why risk hurt feelings? (That seems to be the world's most prevalent and onerous affliction nowadays… And there's no known cure — other than growing up.) But, no, I think I'll stand my ground!
————————————————————————
Since the first affirmative paragraph of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

it's quite easy to see why it would be popular world-wide: That's a lot of wiggle-room!

But it's only been thirty years, so it's understandable that not all Canadian Provinces have agreed to the document yet… (I suspect some of the legalese is off-putting!)

But even in Canada there are some things that are PC to being daft?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

But even in Canada there are some things that are PC to being daft?

I repeat your post because the Lefties should hear, even someone as clueless and insularly nationalistic as you has "got wind" of that! Canada is a part of the European continent (well, not by plebiscite…). Whence Europe, RJ?

I know you have little understanding of and less appreciation of the form of government that was formed from the rejection of the defects of yours… But it may yet survive.
Yours may not.

Europe and Canada? Cut down the drink, it is effecting your thought process. Kind of laughable talking about government defects when you consiider the way your portrayed democracy works. You could learn something from us and others because they and us have nothing to learn from you unless we add deception and conning minds.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Kind of laughable talking about government defects when you consiider the way your portrayed democracy works.

It is not our fault, that even a single word misunderstood by the semi-educated (and semi-literate) can cause such confusion and consternation. Be that as it may, we are learning from you: We have before us your example, and the clear choice — to follow it or go our own way.
Apparently, you're a firm believer in the "misery loves company" theory of social and political evolution. Myself (and many of my countrymen) prefer our "intelligent design"…

Oh dear. A country that has 2 big parties who are big money machines and strings pulled by the corporates lecturing here on democracy! Small wonder so many ex-Colonists are getting frustrated at the system these days. I watched interviews with some on NYC streets and my comment here was being endorsed. It is not reflecting shoals of the population. Large numbers over there have been brought up brained into being bigger, better, greatest military, most progressive economy and the usual guff to fill heads. You can elect to this 2-party stitch-up all you like but it isn't working hence the mess you are in. It is Wall Street and the Pentagon that run the place and you think that trotting along to vote makes a big difference. Talk about delusion on a grand scale. If it is supposed to be the most wonderful beacon of democracy from the day your own aristocrats the corporates commenced it why is your own internal history a two century massive other contradiction? Your own people have had to fight tooth and nail for "rights" and opinions and often in the law courts where that other money making corporate group, lawers make the pace.

You don't have an intelligent design. Heavens, how Goebbells would have loved you working for him. From your break right to the present day it has been a front of democracy that hasn't come into practice. No money? Life a bit difficult? Well tough. No money? Then somehow you ain't a real Joe. That you also want to promote your corporate and corrupt, political machiniations all over the world by marching feet would be laughable if it wasn't such a damn drag on the world. Every President would-be, roars out a new vision a new future a new America a return to greatness, etc etc. Same olf stuff and you fall for it like children in a toy shop. Maybe you enjoy satirical fables to get the chance of a big spoo but if you believe the keech you come out with you like millions have a big problem.

Explain to me again, RJ, how —even granting all your maledictions— your system is better?

maybe you'll understand one day that, Freedom is for the people and control is for the gov't.

So if the government controls how can the people be free??

Is there need to be control for freedom and equality to exist?

Imagine a place where everybody can do anything to anyone. Murder, theft, and other crime would be common. The strong will trample the weak. That's why laws are there to protect everyone and make sure nobody takes advantage of others. In a sense, control is needed for freedom. There is no such thing as complete freedom.

Suppose you are living in a row house or apartment. You have to exert self control to avoid annoying your neighbors. In apartments or hotels, there may be rules to turn down the tv or stop playing loud music after a certain time. You don't want others doing the same thing to you, so why do it to others.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

So if the government controls how can the people be free??

wiki is right, however, there must always be control for freedom to exist. Passion will forever rule reason, and the needs of the many will forever outweigh the needs of a few.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Imagine a place where everybody can do anything to anyone. Murder, theft, and other crime would be common. The strong will trample the weak.

I can and am.

It's called Scotland. Glasgow, Scotland to be exact.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Imagine a place where everybody can do anything to anyone. Murder, theft, and other crime would be common. The strong will trample the weak.

I can and am.

It's called Scotland. Glasgow, Scotland to be exact.

wow a potshot at Rj... i wonder what he'll say -.-

Originally posted by rjhowie:

One has assumed that as the thread starter is concentrating on the warping of the word freedom...blah...blah

Weak.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Just how free is freedom

Freedom is not for bourgeois. They can't even understand the meaning of freedom. People and Aristocracy can.
Capitalist societies needs bourgeois, without them capitalism collapses.

When there's anymore white bourgeois, they try to create black bourgeois. Nothing better than a black president for that.

Mmm, hmmm, yeah, and now after that branch from the trunk of topic... ?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

There are relatively few countries that are really as democratic as that word they claim.

True.

I would hope that most people here have noticed that.

(An aside to the subject of freeness of freedom ... or ... uh, freedom of freeness ... ?)

Nice try thedawgfan. Blinkered on Liverpool and Manchester is a frightening place.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Blinkered on Liverpool and Manchester is a frightening place.

Not sure I understand you here, old chap. (?)

I'm pretty sure RJ means this sort of thing… ("I hate that Liverpool are completely blinkered by the whole racism thing and will probably insult and boo a man who was racially abused.") But I fear that you'd rather believe he refers to something like this. You seem too often wanting to change the subject…
It's okay if you don't know what you believe. But it's not okay to denigrate all others who do… (Don'tcha just love the ambiguity of idiomatic English? )

I just found this video, which I think is patriotic:

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBF9XEsnvJI

Notice an almost lack of black faces for good reason - they didn't count in the patriotic game.

A neat cartoon and to a degree, harmless really. It does at the same time follow on the theme that since then America has been a juvenile cartoon of a political system and cartoon politics. Whatever lofty ideal the early, fledgling ruling caste had in mind, it's been lost. Yep, pleasant for children and no fault with that.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Notice an almost lack of black faces for good reason - they didn't count in the patriotic game.

Notice the "almost"… (BTW: How many black faces were present at the signing of the Magna Carta?)

(From the Wiki account of the Boston Massacre) […] the soldiers fired into the crowd. Rather than a disciplined volley (Preston gave no orders to fire), a ragged series of shots was fired, which hit eleven men. Three Americans — ropemaker Samuel Gray, mariner James Caldwell, and a mixed-race runaway slave turned sailor named Crispus Attucks — died instantly.

When and where I grew up, everyone knew this. What do you know of the "black faces" in your history, RJ?
Perhaps you'd like something more recent?
(Painting depicting the the Fathers of the Confederation gathering in London in 1866.)

To take a slightly different tack (…and hearken back to Dawg's gleeful "dissing" of our constitution…):

Constitutional Separation of Powers vs. Parliamentary Government

Ilya Somin • May 7, 2012 9:55 pm

In this interesting recent National Post op ed, my George Mason colleague Frank Buckley argues that parliamentary systems of government are less likely to become dysfunctional than separation of powers systems such as that of the United States:

Before Standard and Poor’s downgraded U.S. public debt, Barack Obama mused that the American system of separation of powers might not be all that it is cracked up to be. It results in gridlock, and had raised the specter that Congress would fail to raise the debt ceiling. “We did not have a AAA political system to match our AAA credit rating,” Obama noted….

By contrast, the Canadian system of government has never seemed more attractive, if one judges these things by their results. Notwithstanding its generous social-welfare safety net, Canada is ranked as economically more free than the United States by the conservatives at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, which puts Canada in sixth, and the U.S. in 10th place, in the group’s most recent international survey. On per capita government spending, the two countries are tied, and on corporate taxes Canada is way ahead. On public debt levels, it’s no contest….

Getting legislation passed or repealed in America is like waiting for three cherries to line up in a Las Vegas slot machine. Absent a supermajority in Congress to override a presidential veto, one needs the simultaneous concurrence of the president, Senate and House.

In a parliamentary system, however, one needs only one cherry. In Canada, neither the governor-general nor the senate has a veto power. All that matters is the House of Commons, dominated by the prime minister’s party.

An American separation of powers might nevertheless be thought better able to screen off bad laws, which might more easily be enacted in a parliamentary regime. The flip side is that bad laws, once enacted, can more easily be reversed when a government doesn’t face the gridlock of the separation of powers.

So which is more valuable: Pre-enactment screening or ex post reversibility? I’d suggest the latter, for one important kind of legislation: “Experience laws,” whose effects cannot be judged without the benefit of hindsight. Then, reversibility trumps ex ante screening — not that there’s much of the latter in Washington. And when you get down to it, just about all laws are experience laws.

Frank makes a good case. But I remain unpersuaded.
(read why)

@RJ: If you're interested in democracy, and how it works, I'll spare you the initial reading of Professor Somin's post:
See here and, then, here… But you should read some Somin!
Somin continues to impress me. (Many others continue to disappoint me…)

You really are making a monumental fool of yourself OakdaleFTL equating my view with what the Magna Carta is all about. There were no democracies then were there? Neither did it set itself up as some wonderful constitution for a country as the US of A has done and made a mockery of it ever since. You were so full of yourselves and trying to show you were somehow pioneeringly different. A new beacon for the world and instead developed a load of old baloney on freedoms, rights and dman well much else. Maybe you should be reminded that the Constitution stuff was influenced by King William 3rd's Bill of Rights to Parliament and that was in 1688. The Magna Carta for Heaven's sake - you have lost the plot!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

There were no democracies then were there?

Well… One might consider Athens. (Did you miss the Canadian constitutional kerfluffles? Apparantly. But I thought I'd throw in some Brit-bait… ) There were –certainly– the Swiss; and the Netherlands. (Estonia? How many others? C. Northcote Parkinson's work on political history is worth a look…) BTW: Was Scotland in any way involved in the Magna Carta?!

But I offer my appologies, for asking you to read anything, RJ. It's not in your repertoire, is it? (But –by the time it gets to the Telly– you'll be constrained to drooling your opinions… And it'll probably be entirely American imports, anyway.)

Not to go too far off-topic, I caught a recent episode of the latest incarnation of Sherlock Holmes (the one with the female antagonist) and found it superior entertainment!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The Magna Carta for Heaven's sake - you have lost the plot!

There you make a good point: The only plot evident in your screeds is that one Scotsman (rjhowie) feels inferior, and he blames the U.S. for his feelings and shortcomings. While it's true that some other "Europeans" feel the same, you'll understand –if you care to think about it– that I won't care very much:
What will you make of wealth, intelligence and history?

You seem to want to become the next Soviet Union. Good luck with that!

wikipedian

I agree with you on many aspects of ur post.Freedom is also putting up with those thing you may hate or disagree with.There are many issues today in america that are removing our freedom of choice and speech and left unchecked will lead to a police state or worse.U say being a raciest is wrong and should not be allowed to be voiced.Just the notion of theses words "politically correct" is a sign of Oppression of thought and speech.What theses words mean is shut ur mouth dont say what u fill or think and go with the flow and make no waves.When u pass laws such as smoking bans and seatbelt laws for adults u take away choice for people.When I hear elected officals shouting we are a country of laws I want to throw up.Why beacause yes I agree we need laws but we have become a country of too many laws.If u want proof just look at the fact we have more people in prisons and jails then any other nation in the world.Jut try to count how many federal state and local law enforcment agenices there are.I could start nameing them but it would take a whole post to do that.We are losing our freedom not from outside threats but from inside from ourselves.We are losing our freedom because people like u and many others dont understand what freedom means.If U think a wiki copy and paste is what freedom means then our future is lost.Freedom is not only giving something to ur country but also understanding freedom is a choice of action thought and the ability to voice and do things other people may disagree with and hate u for and in return doing the same for others.Freedom is understanding things like respect and understnding of others and there ideology ,faith and values even if they seem way out of the mainstream too u..One of the main flaws I see with our country is our elected officals dont understand that congress was not intended to pass laws by the thousands every year.Congress was set up to deal with the most importaint laws and issues and let others die in house.A sort of check on what I call "To many voices"..Want a good example just look at our national debt and size of our Bureaucracy.Another example is when congressman dont read a bill then vote on it not knowing whats in it.Why because they are too many bills on the hill and those bills may contain hundred of new laws and thousand of pages of rules and regs..They cant even keep up with the vast amount of bills that are being passed every year..This is another reason we are losing our freedom.Too many voices yelling for new laws and elected offficals not understanding there role in the checks and balances of our system.I could go on about this but I think u are starting to understand we are causing our own downfall into a police state and then a dictatorship because most people think a wiki definition of freedom is what freedom means....

Sorry for the spelling to lazy to spell check right now..

tim, you might have a point. (I was able to read what you wrote; but I won't make that effort again. If you can't be bothered to write with consideration for your readers, why would I? Indeed, why should I? You don't say much beyond what wikipedian does…)
But you are either incapable of making it or you don't want to.

p.s.,
I don't buy your "I is an ignoramus" pose… You are obviously not worthy of debate, or even conversation. Bye.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Well… One might consider Athens.

Greece in that time, did actually have a true form of democracy. while some debate it's effectiveness, it held longer and more stable than any form of government. Rome's was something of the same, not certain though. Greece also had the true idea of freedom, if threaten, Greece suspended it citizen's right to make sure democracy was protected, and got its citizens to fight along side soldiers.

Yoou only increase notice of your sillyness OakdaleFTL by going even further back! You fail to see how ludicrous you are often portrayed yourself. Oh and in pasing, Sherlock Holmes was based on a Scot ( ). You blithely wallow on a fake intellectualism and unfortunate you are not aware it is obvious to all normal folk. You also unfortunately hav a trait often found in Americans (not all of course) of seeing criticism of America's dubious role in the world as a lack of understanding, intelligence, education or whatever comes to mind to justify your want to control. Thankfully all Americans are not the same but there are plenty who do and brought up to beive you can provide everyhting, bigger, better et al than ayone else. That I would submit betrays a lack of momentous proportions. Instead of being able to destroy my points you drift off into woolly cloud thinking that tells nothing and answers nothing. Yet again you show such here because you are incapable of positive answering so slope off after waffling a load of nothingness.

On a more general note for the rest of us (which would strain you), I wonder if it is possible in general thought to have a more effective democratic ideal? There may be wider freedoms than say in a dictatorship but most liberal democracies these days like them have upper echelons who control and let the population have some tit-bits to keep them happy. Does that just make us to adegrre marginally better off or we deluded?