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 ...
If you ceded that there must be a lawful authority, then what was it that Rudy said in that statement that you disagreed with?
I don't see where Rudy says that there are no limits to the lawful authority...can you point me to where he said that?
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?"
Wrong. Again.
The system was set up to retain the greatest possible amount of freedom to the individuals. It also gave power to the states to determine how much authority they wanted to give their state and local governments. That is what the constitution set up. It definitely did NOT give any government "a great deal of discretion about what you do". That would only be done later by the states, and ultimately, the citizens of those states via their local and state governments, and they would determine the amount of authority those governments would have.
Actually, anyone with any level of intelligence would agree with Rudy's statement, because they would understand that freedom without the presence of authority is anarchy, and anarchy destroys freedom.
Only an abject moron would fail to understand that.
"We are a nation of laws"...I bet you've said that yourself once or twice. Being a nation of laws MEANS that we as a people, have decided to willingly accept limitations on our behavior, and have given the authority to restrict and punish unaccepted behavior to a number of government agencies.
I'm most definitely on topic. Rudy does not care to honor all the laws of God, therefore he proves he does not honor the authority of God (he makes himself 'god' as is common; 'it's all about me'). Hence, he cannot be trusted as he would consider his own judgment, not God's moral absolutes, as final authority.
I've asked you a question about your support for our laws.
Are you in agreement with the de facto law of the Land?
"I read exactly what you wrote. "
Maybe you did read it, but what you wrote didn't address what I wrote.
Let me post it again:
"You see, it's the "ceding a great deal of discretion about what you do" to authority that is the problem."
You don't seem to want to address that. Instead you want to play the all or nothing game, authority or anarchy. And you want to misrepresent the basic founding principles of this country and twist them so it seems like rudy would be right there, writing the bill of rights and everyone would be telling him how much of a fighter he is for individual freedom.
"Actually, anyone with any level of intelligence would agree with Rudy's statement, because they would understand that freedom without the presence of authority is anarchy, and anarchy destroys freedom."
You continuously misrepresent mine and everyone else's objection to his statement in your sad attempts to make this an "it's either authority or anarchy" argument.
As I stated before, I will always highlight liberal debating tactics. Right now you are trying to reframe the debate to being about "Authority or anarchy" and not about his "cede to lawful authority a GREAT DEAL of discretion about what you do." comment. How many times have you done that same thing in your posts tonight?
You see, "freedom is about authority" was just his attention grabber. It's his freedom is slavery moment. It's what he says afterwards that really exposes his true beliefs.
How am I wrong?
You yourself agree that there is a system set up, it was set up by the people, and that system was set in place to set limitations on behavior that we deem unacceptable.
I can say that freedom to me means walking around the mall naked and fornicating in the cafeteria, but since the majority of society decided to accept discretionary limitations on our freedom to walk around naked and fornicating in a public place and near food, I can't do that, and I must cede my freedom to the lawful authority of the majority.
What Rudy said is exactly right, and since every argument that you have made, or will make, has to cede that the system set up limits freedom to a degree, you can't say that he said anything wrong.
Why?
A President is bound to honor the Constitution, not the laws of God.
ping
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington.
But of course. My tagline has had that premise in the imperative for nearly a year.
But...How about you?
I've asked you a question about your support for our laws.
Are you in agreement with the de facto law of the Land?
If so, why? If not, why not?
"I don't see where Rudy says that there are no limits to the lawful authority...can you point me to where he said that?"
Be glad to. "I used gun control as mayor," But I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms. What I did as mayor will have no effect on hunting." Julie
It's not about hunting. It's about the right to self defend.
Are you willing to cede that right to Julie? Julie believes he is the higher authority. Julie believes the US Constitution a moot point. How bout you? Do you agree that all law abiding citizens have a right to self defend?
You're splitting hairs about the meaning of "a great deal"?
If you take a land where there is freedom to do anything one wishes to do, and a land like ours, is the difference between the two a minor difference or would it amount to a great deal of difference?
Anarchy reigns in many African nations today...could the words "a great deal" be used to describe the difference in societal behavior between an African nation under the grips of anarchy, and the US?
"Freedom without the presence of authority is anarchy...are you an anarchist?"
That's the kind of spin you would expect to hear in a communist country.
Why don't you like freedom? Are you afraid of responsibility? Do you want big bro to take care of you?
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." - John Adams
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." - John Adams
"A President is bound to honor the Constitution, not the laws of God."
Our Founding Fathers prayed before they wrote the Constitution, and the Constitution DID honor God's law.
We can discuss whether he had the authority to regulate (a word found in the 2nd) guns as a mayor of a city, as opposed to acting as the President of the nation and being restricted by the Second Amendment from infringing on the RTKABA.
Beautiful words...not found in the Constitution.
The Constittion is the law of the land.
"You yourself agree that there is a system set up, it was set up by the people, and that system was set in place to set limitations on behavior that we deem unacceptable."
No we don't agree. You are, or at least were (maybe you shifted it because you were wrong), referring to what is set up by the constitution. That's what I was referring to when I refer to the 'founding principles of this country'.
To claim that the constitution "was set in place to set limitations on behavior that we deem unacceptable." is laughable. It is like you're making this up as you go along.
The Constitution & BOR did two basic things: It enumerated certain basic human rights, and granted a limited number of powers to the federal government. It did not set up a system to ceded a great deal of authority to the government. Indeed, it restricted that authority in many cases - both by enumerating rights and listing only the thing the federal government could do.
So that's what the constitution did. That's what I and allegedly you were referring to. The "ceding of a great deal of authority" only came when the states set their own laws. Then the people, via their representative governments, decided what level of authority to give their local and state governments.
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.