Posted on 12/28/2005 5:18:08 AM PST by unionblue83
Philosopher David Hume warned that, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." That's why we should guard against any encroachment on liberty, no matter how small. Let's look at a couple of instances where, at our peril, we've failed to do so.
The Christmas season reminds many Americans of the attack on religion. A number of stores have caved in to pressures to ban Christmas celebrations, greetings and symbols, among them: Target, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Kmart, Sears, Costco, Kohl's, Barnes & Noble, Toys 'R' Us, and Walgreens. Cities have banned nativity scenes. Some schools have banned the singing of Christmas carols.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
Dr. Williams is such a brillant man. Unfortnately, the sheeple aren't paying much attention to liberty lost. I hate the seat belt, car seats, and other vehicle laws from the nanny state.
You are not alone. The government has been chipping away at the liberty of the American people for decades with the justification that it saves lives, it saves money, it's good for you. And on and on it goes.
Yep, cuz those are the greatest threats to Liberty we face today. Sure thing.
When Hillary-Care was the big issue of the day, Senator Bob Dole got on the floor and eloquently described how it is not government's job to do good, it's government's job to prevent harm. Therein lies the crux of the problem - the government has become the "do-gooder" nanny, and the people have fallen for it, despite the harm it has done to the nation...
Thought you'd get a kick out of this. Here we are worried about a Federal government unchecked by the Constituiton, but the real threat to liberty comes for people who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and folks who don't like smoking in restaurants. We're doomed.
Hey, man, I don't care if they throw that hippie with an ounce of grass in jail, just as long as I don't have to wear my $&*%$##ing seatbelt.
"Yep, cuz those are the greatest threats to Liberty we face today. Sure thing."
It's a start down that path. If you don't think so you need to review your history.
The start is spelled P-A-T-R-I-O-T. History indeed.
In some things people are welcolming the encroachments in exchange for "safety", not understanding what they're doing. A prime example of this are the application of restrictions ex post facto to released offenders.
Case 1: Megan's Law: sounds good, right? The catch is that it was applied in some cases to those who had already been convicted. In order to make that stand, then, the courts had to rule (and did) that registration was not punishment. It was only necessary that it be for the public safety (without that being defined).
Well, okay. Not a big deal -- until you get a totalitarian on the order of a Clinton into office. "Public safety" might demand registration of one's residence, just as it might demand GPS tracking devices on all vehicles (just think, if we could have know exactly whose cars visited Fort Marcy Park one particular evening, and when).
But it's not a big deal, really, The good citizens of Switzerland all have to register their residences with the canton police, so why should this be a problem for the good subjects of the US?
Just remember, though, the only thing standing against registration is popular will, because any legal roadblock of, say, privacy (wherever that is in the constitution) was sold for a sense of safety.
Case 2: "Protection Zones". A really popular measure sweeping the states these days are the so-called "community protection zones" (or some similar name). The idea is that a concicted sex offender is denied the right to live within some defined distance of some defined property such as a school or day care. (Particulars vary.)
Sounds good, right? Nobody wants a convicted sex offender living next door to a school. But once again, the law has been applied ex post facto and so once again this is not "punishment", though some initial applications were to parolees.
Skipping past the direct problematic issues with this (such as the "feel-good" safety it does not afford), the mechanisms for legal discrimination in residence are now in place. Maybe this isn't a bad thing. Perhaps I live in an neighborhood with many children and winding roads. Very dangerous to have a drunk meandering around in a car, so we need to declare a DWI protection zone. You have such a conviction, you cannot live here.
But there are problems arising with the protection zones. One is the ever-changing nature of the zones as people tweak it so their residence too get included. The effect has been to push the sex offenders out to the country, and people out there are beginning to push back.
Now I'm not crying over the fate of these guys (and now gals), but the answer to this (note: here's where I begin the stretch -- tell me where I am wrong) is obviously to pre-define zones where they are allowed to live and require them to live in these zones.
Note that this is permissible under law, for the public's safety. Whether it gets extended to other criminals is anyone's guess, though I for one would not want any convicted burglars near here, especially as we have had a rash of breakins lately. And maybe we create DUI residence zones close to bars so they don't have to drive.
Naturally there will be resistance from those required to live in the zones. This will lead to tighter enforcement, official monitoring of entry and egress (think fencing and gates) -- and that is a direct invitation to controlling egress.
By this point we've created the ghettos and are well on the road to peacetime concentration camps. (Note: I did not say death camps!)
Is this a bad thing (after all, it's only for "them": criminals, Muslims, etc.)? You tell me.
Have I stretched this too far? Tell me what point won't happen, and why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.