The Loss of Freedoms List (Vanity Post)

Cornpone | 25 Jan 2005 | Cornpone

[Cornpone]

Dear Freepers,

I'm getting old and perhaps a little wacky but as I look back over my life I continue to try and understand how my country hasn't quite turned out the way my mother and father brought me up to believe it should be and what it was I was always raised to defend. So I've started making a list of those things that just seem to represent a betrayal of what I always thought America is about...freedom. Its a short list, I'm still working on it and I know many, if not most, will not agree with everything on it. But I'm sure everyone has something to add to it...like the state of medical care in this country which I haven't even begun to think about. Anyway, they are simple things that individually don't amount to much. But, taken together they represent a fundamental change in our culture if you think about it. Please help me add to this list. I don't know what I will do with it. Perhaps I'll just go nail it on the doors of Congress..not likely. I'd rather nail it on the doors of the White House except we can't really go there anymore...another freedom lost.

• Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws

• Mandatory automobile seatbelt laws

• Mandatory boating lifejacket laws

• Increasing erosion of property rights

• Increasing regulation of alcohol consumption, tobacco use and firearms possession

• Virtual elimination of the right to self defense

• Denial of the right to carry a weapon for self defense

• Hate crime laws that ridiculously imply that the murder of one human being is more heinous than the murder of another based on some politically motivated criteria

• Encroachment on the constitutional right to assembly

• Increasing attempts to limit our constitutional right to free speech through hate speech laws that seek to dampen dissident opinions

• Increasing restrictions on demonstrations of personal faith with a bias against Christians

• Increasing restrictions on hunting

• Increasing restrictions on fishing

• Increasing restrictions on the traditional use of fireworks

• Increasing restrictions on traditional methods of outdoor cooking

• Increasing restrictions on water rights and usage

• Increasing government incursion and attempts to regulate the possession of domestic animals which in all cases don’t happen to be ‘pets’

• Unfair taxation to fund social practices abhorrent to most Americans

• Government advocacy of socially deviant lifestyles

• Government attempts to redefine millennia-old family relationships and bonds, i.e., gay marriage

• Affirmative action laws and policies that unjustly punish and deny opportunity to current generations based on the shortcomings of generations long past

• Ridiculous product liability judgments that seek to limit access and deny choice through judicial activism rather than legislative debate

Add your thoughts to the list please.

God Bless our Forefathers and God Bless You

[Dan Evans]

from Article. VI.:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Where does it say the "Congress" means "the states"?

The way I read Article VI is that the Constitution can not be over-ridden by state law and that any existing state law is subservient to the new Constitution. Nowhere does it say the restrictions on Congress also apply to the states.

The tenth amendment reserves rights not given to Congress and not prohibited to the states, to the people or the states.

I'm curious. Is this something that they are teaching in schools these days? -- that the original Constitutional restrictions on Congress also applied to the states?

[hedgetrimmer]

Public/private partnerships make business instruments of government. As an instrument of government you are not free to act as you would if you were operating freely.

Public/private partnerships began corrupting American government in the mid-1990s during roundtables that Clinton and Gore held to get business to cooperate with sustainable development, among other things.

Public/private partnerships are boasted by the white house still today. They are a form of fascism and should not be allowed by the American people, but most Americans don't know this corruption exists, or if they do, they are getting paid in some form by the government to carry out the government's agenda. This is NOT freedom.

Example:
The Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Program represents a new way of doing business for the Federal government.
http://www.ezec.gov/Invest/pwguide.html

These kinds of deals are responsible for the trend for local governments to condemn property through eminent domain (another program that is easy to abuse) to give to private developmers. Then the developments are funded again by the government because they are usually developments the free market won't support.

[jonestown]

Our Constitution, in Art VI, explicitly establishes that it cannot be ignored by any government entity.
-- Fed/State or local, ALL officials are pledged to support the US Constitution and its Amendments as the supreme Law of the Land.
Congress shall make no law" meant what it said, but did not mean that only Congress was so restricted.

The 10th made clear that States were also prohibited powers, among them the power to infringe on peoples RKBA's.
After the civil war, southern States were denying freed slaves the RKBA's, under the pretense that the BOR's did not apply. The 14th was ratified to end that controversy.

Where does it say the "Congress" means "the states"? The way I read Article VI is that the Constitution can not be over-ridden by state law and that any existing state law is subservient to the new Constitution.
Nowhere does it say the restrictions on Congress also apply to the states.

If you read ALL of Art VI, you will come to the part where ALL officials [including Congress], -- Fed & State, - "shall be bound by Oath" to support our Constitution.

The tenth amendment reserves rights not given to Congress and not prohibited to the states, to the people or the states.
I'm curious. Is this something that they are teaching in schools these days? -- that the original Constitutional restrictions on Congress also applied to the states?

I'm curious why you think it shouldn't be, as they always have. We fought a civil war to settle the issue, as a matter of fact.

[hedgetrimmer]

Another example of loss of freedom is the "smart growth" anti-free market, anti-property rights programs pushed on citizens by federal,state and local governments.

In smart growth cities, urban boundaries cage people into a particular geographic area,preventing land owners outside the area from using their land for homes. The people inside the area are forced by the government, either by law or by paying off local officials to only build and live in "cluster developments" or on transportation hubs. This type of development is going on in Sacramento CA right now. Taxpayer money is used to pay cities to build in such a way that private automobile ownership becomes untenable. They do this by refusing to keep up the infrastructure, paving roads and adding lanes to support the growth they force with infill development. Then they repurpose streets for bicycles and buses, or redesign them with "traffic calming" devices that make driving hazardous and tediously slow.

Another neat little trick they use is a compact with the developer, either granting money outright or by granting tax incentives, so that the developer will not build in enough parking for their apartment complexes. Some developers even sign covenants with the government to restrict parking, water use and energy use in their buildings, that is enforced on the tenants.

They don't necessarily enact a law that says "you are not allowed to own an automobile" or you only get 17 gallons of water a day per person, but when they coerce local and state governments to go against all reason and encourage them not to protect individual rights but to enact collectivist anti-car housing policies, the outcome is the same. Freedoms are lost.

[Liberal Classic]

For further reading order a copy of Lost Rights by James Bovard from Amazon. PIck up a copy of Farm Fiasco while you're at it.

[Cornpone]

"For further reading order a copy of Lost Rights by James Bovard from Amazon. PIck up a copy of Farm Fiasco while you're at it."

Thank you very much for the recommendations.

[hedgetrimmer]

The people who have less freedom are the ones who produce goods

You can ask any timber owner in Santa Cruz County, CA if they are more free or less free today. Many of them have not been able to harvest for years, they have to file plans that can be 1000 pages long if they intend to harvest trees. Not if they do it, they have to file a plan if even if they are just thinking about it. This is LESS freedom than they had previous to 1990 than they have now.

You can also wonder about all the lands in this country that are now off limits to human beings-- that used to be homes, ranches and even parts of our state and national parks. I think you can clearly state that human beings in this country are less free because they are being shut out from lands they used to be able to live on, hike on, camp on, hunt on, drive their vehicles on, etc.

[hedgetrimmer]

You know, your post has brought up some excellent points.

We have lost liberty in this country in very insidious ways. Its hard to get people to admit it, they think such a thing could never happen in America. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

[Cornpone]

Thank you. I was surprised by the number of responses. It is an issue that has been troubling me for a very long time. It appears I'm not alone.

[hedgetrimmer]

There are several roots to our loss of liberty. If you are not aware of the United Nations program for sustainable development, it would probably be a good idea for you to read up on it. Sustainable development does not support private property, the foundation of all our freedoms. It is being implemented by the federal government through the state department, the EPA, the BLM, the Housing and Human Development, the National park service, and the department of agriculture to name a few. In California, it is being implemented through most of our state government agencies.

Sustainable development must be rejected by all Americans and our government as well, if we are to reclaim our sovereign freedoms, once guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

[editor-surveyor]

"people jumping in their car several times a day instead of asking if this trip is really necessary"

Who, pray tell, should we ask, and why?

Are you the commisar of the travel bureau?

[Southack]

"They don't necessarily enact a law that says "you are not allowed to own an automobile" or you only get 17 gallons of water a day per person, but when they coerce local and state governments to go against all reason and encourage them not to protect individual rights but to enact collectivist anti-car housing policies, the outcome is the same. Freedoms are lost."

I agree. My focus was on national rights, however. At the national level, and in Red States, we've grown progressively more free (e.g. negating Jim Crow laws, enacting CCW laws, national repeal of the old firearms restrictions against commercial airline pilots, legalizing gold and alcohol ownerships again, repeal of the national 55 mph speed limit, etc.).

In contrast, what's happened in California and Massachusetts should serve as examples of what the rest of the world should strive to avoid or overturn, but 3rd Party activists aren't going to enact change in those Blue areas, anyway.

Likewise, the leftists aren't going to get such nonsense past very many Red state Republicans, either.

[PhatHead]

Not many ever had them - I only meant to point out that, because of the 14th Amendment, the Consitution is no longer a restraint on only the Federal government (in theory...)

[Cornpone]

Thanks again. I hope the issue you just raised is addressed in the books you mention. It is a sad fact we live in the age of 'feel good' politics that seeks to mollify special interests at the expense of common freedom. Of course, history has demonstrated a mechanism for corrective action. Sooner or later it will be repeated.

[hedgetrimmer]

At the national level, and in Red States, we've grown progressively more free

When it comes to water rights and property rights, I'd say you're wishfully thinking.

The red states are clearly affected by the federal government abuses of property rights and the land grabs that have ocurred because of the ESA and other environmental laws and regulations. You can have a taking you know, with out actually booting the owner off his land. All you have to do is put so many restrictions on him he can't use his land for economic purposes or otherwise, and saddle him with a huge tax liabilty and the deed is done.

[hedgetrimmer]

Is Orrin Hatch a red state republican? Just curious.

[Southack]

President Reagan fixed the *federal* problem of passing land restrictions without compensating property owners.

Don't lump Blue States in with our national or Red State situations. California is a different beast than civilized America.

[hedgetrimmer]

President Reagan fixed the *federal* problem of passing land restrictions without compensating property owners.

I'm curious to know what this is, as there have been plenty of unfair federal takings since Reagan left office. Since most of the takings occur in the western united states, there are plenty of red states affected. But, you can look at the New River Friends website in W. Virginia, you can look at Stewards of the Range website, American Land Foundation, American Land Rights Association,Range Magazine, S.T.O.P (Stop Taking Our Property, IN), the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California State Grange, the list is pretty long and they are all over the country, if you've got time.

Don't lump Blue States in with our national or Red State situations. California is a different beast than civilized America.

Why not? Aren't Californians still part of the United States? Aren't Californians still guaranteed all the protections of the United States Constitution?

[Dan Evans]

The 10th made clear that States were also prohibited powers, among them the power to infringe on peoples RKBA's.

Yes, this is true. That's because the 2nd amendment doesn't mention the States or Congress. It simply guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. But the 1st does specify Congress.

The founders spent days arguing and carefully choosing the words that went into the Constitution. Do you really think they would have been so sloppy as to have written "Congress" when they meant "Congress and the States"

If you read ALL of Art VI, you will come to the part where ALL officials [including Congress], -- Fed & State, - "shall be bound by Oath" to support our Constitution

Yes. True. But some provisions of the Constitution applied to Congress and some to the state.

I'm curious why you think it shouldn't be, as they always have. We fought a civil war to settle the issue, as a matter of fact.

A war does not change the meaning of what the founders originally intended. The Civil War was fought over the right of succession. In fact, the right of secession was assumed to be a given when the Constitution was ratified even though some states declared that they reserved the right to succeed when they ratified. A war may subjugate people, but it doesn't change the truth.