Is freedom a threat to freedom?

Post Reply New Topic

And believe me, they're not as enforceable as people seem to think. Without private citizens willing to report such offenses and act as witnesses, the laws would be altogether useless and decorative unless we kept about a third of the population in police uniform.

The propaganda machine is so strong that the US is now virtually a fascist state and most don't seem to realise it. If you don't think this is so far, then wait to see what is on the agenda for 2012.

I don't know what you mean by '.. pushing us far..' (who are the us you refer to ?)

I have no idea what you mean in your second sentence. It makes no sense to me.

That is true, however, most people have some respect for the rule of law. Ultimately, you are right, it does all fall apart without the rule of law keeping it together.
I tend to disagree. If this is true though then we have had our fascism problem for a few decades and thus I have probably never known a non-fascist society and most Americans are in the same boat as myself. Really though, I think I would have to disagree with the argument that we are in a fascist state. Even though there are some corporatist aspects, and some social governmental intrusions, on average we find ourselves in a relatively free economy and with relatively high freedom of choice. What do you predict for the agenda in 2012 though.


I thought I was a little choppy there too. "pushing us far." means that we are not losing much in terms of social liberty and if anything, in my view we are more likely to gain more social liberty. The major evils that people speak about tend not to be where social liberty that has previously existed is usurped, but rather where further gains should be made. Take the gay rights issue. Go back like 50 years and it wouldn't really be on the agenda, however, now there is greater concern and even though there is some backlash, it is only because it now IS an issue.

I mean that the only model I see existing is one of multiple propaganda machines. The entire direction of the population doesn't seem stable enough to reflect much of a propaganda movement at all, or it reflects multiple ones going on.

Yes, the 'fascist problem' has been in existence for a few decades (in the US).
Much stronger now. I mean it's only a democracy in name. The presidents are puppets and it's the people behind them that have the power and they are the same since (at least) Reagen. Then you had Bush ( who I would say was high in command and pulled Reagen's strings, somebody had to).
Now you have Bush again.
And even if you think the elections aren't rigged. Who were the opposition: members of the same lodge.
As for civil liberty and such like. If you are doing what you are told, then sure you can have a relatively nice life (as long as you have a few dollars). But the machinery is in place for a future police state.

The long term agenda would be a global one state ruled by one party with an oppostion in name only.
Of course a war with China would be necassary; i would predict this will be 'brewed' by around 2012.
After the MiddleEast is sorted out, the new 'evil' will be the Chinese and millions more will be slaughtered in the name of freedom.

I don't see multiple propaganda machines.
When white people die we have terrorism and evil.
When other countries are invaded we have freedom and liberation.
This is the main propoganda machine that i am refering to.
It's being drilled into people on a daily basis for years. And if you don't agree, then you are either a conspiracy nut or anti-patriotic. This is identical to the techniques used by the nazis to control their populace.

That's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that the government isn't the only entity that can play a role in keeping order. The actions of private citizens are important in this regard as well, including businesses owners who pass up immoral opportunities for profit in spite of being able to get away with it, clerks who consistently return the appropriate amount of change to hurried customers in spite of being in financial trouble themselves, and other acts of respect for the need for orderliness and lawfulness. We can keep fascism from rising simply by socially ostracizing those who support it. The media could help by refusing to give them air time. There are a number of ways that a free society could stem the spread of a militant and dangerous ideology.

I wouldn't consider this a democracy only in name. It is more of a republic. Bush also isn't in charge of Reagan. Bush 1 hated Reaganomics and he acted against the supply siders by raising taxes. Finally, they have Clinton in between them which all right wingers hate. Considering the fact that there does seem to be conflict within politics on issues, I do think that there is not some higher consensus.

I know that, however, that does not necessarily mean much. It just means that rich people get into office, not that they are homogeneous. If you are not following the laws in a society of law then you are punished, that does not mean that you respect all authorities though. Considering the mass hatred for Bush, and calls for his death, I don't think that power is held like in a police state. The machinery is not all in place.
HA HA HA HA!! They are not attacking China. China has a few nuclear weapons and I don't think they would mind using nukes on us. If nukes are used then the will to fight will die. Not only that but given China's international position, a war with them won't be politically tenable and will likely severely hurt the economy as it would not surprise me if Europe would stop trading with us as well as India and quite a few other countries(obviously China of course).

When America is attacked then yes, we don't like it and we see it as evil. No, we don't have freedom and liberation when brown people were attacked. When Afghanistan was attacked by the USSR, we were not cheering on the soviets. Nor were we happy when Vietnam was finally taken over by the north. I think that the real issue is not that people are brain-washed to think that what untrue is true, but rather that they are very distrusting of those with ideas significantly out of the norm because of the number of wackos with widely divergent ideas. Frankly, I do think that you are a bit of a conspiracy nut.

I agree with you completely. The rule of law actually is one of those institutes in some ways as you sort of mentioned in your past post as it requires trust in order to ever be effective. The government is in some ways just a pin to keep it all together than the cloth itself. A free society can stop a dangerous ideology easily if its members agree on the danger.

LOL
Obviously the propagada has no effect on you.

How do you come to such a quick conclusion?
I am bounded by the official secrets act; but i can tell you that i have held government positions in defence. I am not so easily swayed by what i watch on the news when i know that is a lie.
So obvioulsly i question most other things.
But i guess this makes me a nut too.
Not that i mind, at least it was easy money.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Under some hypothetical and highly improbable scenarios, the government wouldn't be necessary at all. There'd still be some means of coordination, though. If it weren't government, there'd be a grotesque demand for social conformity, or some other means of control would be put into practice.

Laugh all you like. I hope you are right, but it's your analysis of the situation which is rather laughable (to say the least.)

Last edited by Kosmonaut on 12 Apr 2007, 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OK good point.

Not the sort of reply i would expect from an Aspergian, but quite common amongst the idiot masses.
Nothing to say, so try to assert domination by ridicule.

Dude, it's not even clear to me what you're talking about. I was just offering a suggestion as to why AG would have made such a quick assumption. If you sound like a conspiracy nut, you're going to be treated like one. Take a breath, and try to explain your views in a tone that doesn't make you sound like a raving maniac.

Dude, i have no interest in your suggestions as to what someone else assumes.
Don't even try to advise me on the tone of my posts: you're the one posting juvenile s**t like

If you sound like a child, you're going to be treated like one. Why don't you take a break, stay out conversations that don't concern you and be a good boy in school tomorrow.

It's a common idiom.

It's an open discussion. If you didn't want other people's input, you should have taken it to private messages.

Call it what you want, i find it offensive.

Yes, i like open discussion. I didnt say i did not want input. Just some peoples inputs are rather moronic.
In particular .