Posted on 03/22/2007 11:28:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
...We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.
.... What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
... The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government.
... They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.
If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together.
(Excerpt) Read more at query.nytimes.com ...
Are you a student or an adult?
I'll make it real simple for you...what is freedom without the presence of authority?
Is that what you support?
Explain the notion of freedom without the presence of authority.
Governments were created to secure people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That does not imply that government should be allowed to grow to the point that it attacks those rights more than criminals do.
Then why do you have an issue with Rudy saying that autority ios needed in order to secure freedom?
And why would you imagine that had Hillary said the same thing anyone with any level of intelligence would object to it?
Freedom without the presnce of autority is anarchy...are you an anarchist?
""Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
If hillary clinton had said that, people here would be ripping her left and right.
But since it's a guy with an (R) by his name, it will be praised as an act of courage by somoene who is 'tough on crime'."
Yep.
If I am free to do whatever I want to do, and no one has the authority to stop me from doing it...what secures your freedom from being violated if I am stronger than you?
Freedom without the presence of authority is anarchy...are you an anarchist?
Sounds like a closet fascist to me.
That's funny coming from someone who supports the anarchy on our southern border.
There will always be some 'controlling authority.' Whether it is God or whether it is human is determined by the citizenry--or those who hold hostage the citizenry.
In America, the law of the Land as per the post-McCarthy VALID Red Scare Congress, is in fact that we are One Nation, in authority Under God. Those who want to overthrow the existing government and Constitution so that they can rule this land with a fist of iron--strive to remove final authority from the spiritual realm and make it strictly secular, i.e., the duplicitously-applied false premise of 'separation of church and state.'
And those same schemers are the ones who want to end all loyalty oaths as one of their Communist Goals.
McClintock's speech nails the topic.
Are you in agreement with the de facto law of the Land?
Good start.
The Constitution created a government, that Constitution granted powers to a national government, and set rules that we were all willing to live under.
It did things like cede lawful authority to settle issues via a national Court system, to create a forum where the individual States would assemble and enact laws for all of us, etc...in other words, in writing the Constitution, the "willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do" was set in place for the United States by the people of the United States.
Right or wrong?
Who would that be?
"Then why do you have an issue with Rudy saying that autority ios needed in order to secure freedom?"
Let me ask: Did you actually bother to read what I wrote, or are you just trying to troll people by ignoring what they actually post and allege they posted something else?
Because you posted "Freedom without the presnce of autority is anarchy...are you an anarchist?" to two different people.
Right now you are reminding me a lot of the anti-gunners who say "If you think the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own military weapons then you probably think they should be able to own nukes, too!"
It's an attempt to ascribe beliefs to another person that they have never expressed or implied, all to make them look bad and further your weak argument.
"And why would you imagine that had Hillary said the same thing anyone with any level of intelligence would object to "
Because anyone with intelligence here would object to it, as they object to her other statist quotes like "we're going to take things away from you for the common good" (paraphrasing there).
People have an issue with Rudy's words indicating his belief that in order to have freedom, there must be authority present.
Stay on topic will you.
"It seems that you agreed to take someone's ability to self defend based on your own willingness to exercise authority over others."
Not at all. I ceded there must be a lawful authority. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme authority from which all subsequent laws find their authority. If the supreme authority (the US Constitution) is abused, then this is the point my "willingness" ends.
"You have no problem with setting up laws under which all must live (whether they all like it or not), then you also have no problem with taking away the rights of self defense of those who don't live under the laws you've enacted, against their will."
refer to the US Constitution.
"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
That's what Julie says. But the US Constitution says there are limitations on the lawful authority.
I read exactly what you wrote.
You still have not provided a reason as to what exactly you disagreed with in that statement.
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.