Anyone lost any freedoms?

[joemailman]

Garb and Perdalis

Actually what you say is correct but we're talking about the concept of freedom. Does it exist or not. I've suggested that it does not. Everything on this planet is controled and influenced by something or many things. Power in cultures carries with it the need to control which means simply that freedom is a rediculous way of suggesting that somehow you will be unaffected by those who control this or any culture. Freedom means "that which without influences"....Period. To be "free-er" can be a reality but there is also the reality of other kinds of control such as suspicions by member of your community who see, hear and whatch what you do. You are as free as your community wishes you to be. Infringe on their values or their mores and you can expect some kind of reaction. Everything depends on what you are allowed to say and do coupled with where you are and who you are with.

 

[Ben Tilly]

Serious question: How many and which phone calls are monitered by the government?

All of them. Unless you're lucky enough to be using QWEST. I can't post links yet, but add http in front of www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1948927&page=1 to see the story.

If I remember correctly only those suspected of terrorism had their conversations tapped.

Monitored does not mean tapped. It means that they record who called whom and for how long. If they have more interest, then they start tapping.

Note that it is information of exactly this sort that HP was trying to get about their board by pretexting. You may have heard about the result - you know, the CEO of HP was forced to step down and California is considering who to file criminal charges against. But when it is done to all of us by our government, well...

BTW would you care to bet that Karl Rove can't get access to some of this data? You know, just enough to use it like HP did? I wouldn't...

Although it doesn't concern me that much either way, I have nothing to hide. Perhaps when I rob a bank and want to brag about it over the phone, then I will be against it.

Ah yes. The old, "If you're innocent, then what do you have to worry about?" comment.

Well I'm an atheist. That means that I'm part of one an intensely disliked minorities in the country. (The current President's father is of the stated opinion that he doesn't think we can be true citizens or patriots of the USA!) If we continue down the path towards fascism, I fear that I need be guilty of nothing more to become a target.

On a more immediate level, see my comment above about Karl Rove. The knowledge that government collects and monitors this kind of data has a chilling effect on whisteblowers of various kinds. This undermines our ability to believe we have a free society. If this doesn't matter to you, then I can only say that you neither understand nor value freedom.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Pardalis]

You are as free as your community wishes you to be.

But you are free to move to another community, if the one you are currently in doesn't suit you.

 

[Gravy]

You also have to travel with your ID-Card here. So
the Police has no problems to identify you if you make
some trouble or if your driving in wiggly lines with your
car.

That's the law here for drivers, who must have a driver license in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Others are not required to have ID on them. Joemailman is wrong about that. There is no law against me walking down the street without ID.

It's an interesting question, but I'm going to ask that this thread be moved to politics/current events.

 

[joemailman]

Ben, I couldn't agree with you more. Remember Dr Newdow? All that is required for anyone to become a target is for the government or those who are responsible for reps being in their position to have an agenda. the McCarthy years come to mind. Spying and violent harrassment during the Vit Nam years also. M. L King paid the price for his words of freedom and justice for his race of people. R Kennedy paid the price. And you can bet that there have been thosands of people throughout US history who have paid dearly for their wish to be left alone or to do something significant.

This idea of freedom is like the idea of absolutism or certainty. The english language like languages all over thisk planet are so simited in thir scope that they must resort to fiction of many kinds in order to be functional or even semi-functional.

 

[joemailman]

Gravy

That's the law here for drivers, who must have a driver license in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Others are not required to have ID on them. Joemailman is wrong about that. There is no law against me walking down the street without ID.

I wasn't speaking of laws or restrictions. Only of the concept of freedom.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Haven't americans regained the freedom to have more than 10 bullets in thier gun at any time since 9-11?

 

[Pardalis]

Well, I prefer the "relative" freedom of Canada and the US than the one the Islamic fascists like al Qaida want to impose on the world...

 

[Carnivore]

Mhmm, i don´t know how to change this problem.
Maybe it has something to do with the "democratic
system" over there? Do you believe that other people
agree with you and there will be a change because of
these freedom changes at the next elections?

Traditionally the House of Lords balanced the power of the executive. (The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party with the most seats in the House Of Commons.) These days however, the Lords have lost a great deal of their power, and the government of the day can appoint people to be Lords.Tony Blair is currently under police investigation for his part in the "Loans for Lordships" scandal. The UK electoral system looks somewhat undemocratic to my eyes, as I am used to a Mixed Member Proportional system modeled on Germany's. I dont believe there is much voter interest in electoral reform however.

Compulsory electronic ID cars are already controversial, but whether they will be a big factor in the next election is another matter.I think the state of schools and hospitals will trump it.

 

[Gravy]

I wasn't speaking of laws or restrictions. Only of the concept of freedom.

AFAIK, your freedom to walk down a street in Miami has not been altered since 9/11.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you wish to discuss the philosophies of freedom, or the various (de)merits of democracy, please take it to the Political subforum.

 

[Brainster]

For example, if Amendment I of the US Constitution was eliminated today, then it would make no difference to me since I am rather unreligious to begin with.

Uh, that is not the only right in Amendment I.

 

[rwguinn]

Uh, that is not the only right in Amendment I.

Absolutely!
What we are doing now is an integral part of Amendment 1, as is the "Troofers" gathering on GZ.
The only freedom I really see eroding lately is the freedom to suffer the consequences of your own actions/inactions.
THis is also known as "The Freedom to Fail"

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Uh, that is not the only right in Amendment I.

i seem to remember a man on the street poll where no one could name all 5 freedoms protected by the first amendment

BTW, the first amendment not only protects your freedom to be religious, but also your freedom NOT to be religious

 

[Oliver]

Traditionally the House of Lords balanced the power of the executive. (The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party with the most seats in the House Of Commons.) These days however, the Lords have lost a great deal of their power, and the government of the day can appoint people to be Lords.Tony Blair is currently under police investigation for his part in the "Loans for Lordships" scandal. The UK electoral system looks somewhat undemocratic to my eyes, as I am used to a Mixed Member Proportional system modeled on Germany's. I dont believe there is much voter interest in electoral reform however.

Compulsory electronic ID cars are already controversial, but whether they will be a big factor in the next election is another matter.I think the state of schools and hospitals will trump it.

Well, we also have the school and public healthsystem-problem
here - also the biometric data within travel-passports. But to
me it does not look like a threat against the citizens - And i
think it´s a littlebit overstated to say we need this kind of crap.

But i highly guess that the mistrust in terms of americas freedom-
changes will change the current governments political structure
at the next elections. If the british people start to think the same
way about their freedom-rights, there will be also a widespread
public protest - at least at the elections. Don´t you think?

 

[gumboot]

Freedom means "that which without influences"....Period. To be "free-er" can be a reality but there is also the reality of other kinds of control such as suspicions by member of your community who see, hear and whatch what you do. You are as free as your community wishes you to be. Infringe on their values or their mores and you can expect some kind of reaction. Everything depends on what you are allowed to say and do coupled with where you are and who you are with.

This is a fairly typical American view if you ask me. Selfishness. Self-centered-ness, call it what you want.

Perhaps this is why I find American culture so fascinating. You have a "me" culture. Everything is about the individual. Individual freedoms. Individual rights. Individual success. Individual everything.

New Zealand, by contrast, is the total opposite. Everything is about the "us". Indeed, caring too much about "me" will result in you getting cut down by society.

Neither is perfect of course.

However, I think, personally, that us kiwis are closer to the idea and the value of "freedom" that was given birth by the Ancient Greeks.

"Freedom" is not about YOU being free as an individual. It is about your SOCIETY being free. In the most fundamental sense, being "free" means not being owned. Slavery is the antithesis of freedom. When the Greeks developed their free societies, that was the invention of the concept of citizens. This was in contrast to other societies of the time such as the Persian Empire where everyone was essentially owned by whoever was above them on the chain - so the Emperor owned everyone.

From hence came the concept of a king who was "first amongst equals". Essentially that is what we have in western society, scoff all you want, but it's true.

The President of the US, or the PM of New Zealand, or of the UK, or any other western country is no more above the law than any of the rest of us.

Let's say Bush hopped in a car and went for a drive himself, and got pulled over for speeding...

That can happen because he's "first amongst equals".

What you are talking of is Anarchy. Anarchy is all about personal freedom. But "Freedom" as used, is a description of our SOCIETY. And an Anarchic society is NOT a free society.

To the Brits here... you were talking about the government's ability to carry out surveillance without a warrant on a suspected terrorist... I would assume the laws remain as they are - that being only crimes for which the warrant was given can be prosecuted using evidence gathered from the warrant.

In other words if you get a warrant to carry out surveillance on a suspected murderer, and he talks about some drug dealing, you cannot use that as evidence as the warrant was not for drug dealing...

In which case, were someone under surveillance as a suspected terrorist, evidence gathered from that warrant-less surveillance could only be used as part of a terrorism-related conviction, nothing else.

Am I correct, or not?

-Gumboot

 

[katsu]

I don't think the government is doing the wire-tapping with an "evil" agenda. I don't see what they would have to gain from tapping into whatever conversation they want.

And I'm pretty sure the government doesn't have too much of a choice with the transparency. Anyone remember our buddy Bill a few years ago?

My point is that trusting only in the benevolence of the government is a universally bad idea. Give them an inch, and they take a mile. It's not an issue of evil, per se. It's the fact that the government is run by fallible, flawed human beings, many of whom have a very different agenda and direction for this country than sections of the population. For example, as an atheist, I get a little paranoid about a government run by a lot of fundamentalist suck-ups having the ability to listen to my conversations and read my mail without having to provide the courts with a good reason to do so. What is "Un-American" is purely up to the person that is defining what it means to be American in the first place. I'm sure there are some people who would define what we do here (in regards to criticizing established religion, especially, and the government as well) as quite "Un-American," given that they adhere to a false claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. I'm not willing to trust the benevolence of such people.

As for the transparency of government, David Brin wrote a very interesting book on the topic, called the Transparent Society. I'd post the link to it, but apparently I'm still too scummy to post links.

The government is certainly *not* transparent; while we are finding out some of the more distasteful things that have been going on, we find out about them months, sometimes years after the fact. While that's certainly better than never finding out, it's still a far cry from being able to watch the government in the same manner that they're maneuvering to be able to watch us.

 

[Oliver]

This is a fairly typical American view if you ask me. Selfishness. Self-centered-ness, call it what you want.

Perhaps this is why I find American culture so fascinating. You have a "me" culture. Everything is about the individual. Individual freedoms. Individual rights. Individual success. Individual everything.

New Zealand, by contrast, is the total opposite. Everything is about the "us". Indeed, caring too much about "me" will result in you getting cut down by society.

Neither is perfect of course.

However, I think, personally, that us kiwis are closer to the idea and the value of "freedom" that was given birth by the Ancient Greeks.

"Freedom" is not about YOU being free as an individual. It is about your SOCIETY being free. In the most fundamental sense, being "free" means not being owned. Slavery is the antithesis of freedom. When the Greeks developed their free societies, that was the invention of the concept of citizens. This was in contrast to other societies of the time such as the Persian Empire where everyone was essentially owned by whoever was above them on the chain - so the Emperor owned everyone.

From hence came the concept of a king who was "first amongst equals". Essentially that is what we have in western society, scoff all you want, but it's true.

The President of the US, or the PM of New Zealand, or of the UK, or any other western country is no more above the law than any of the rest of us.

Let's say Bush hopped in a car and went for a drive himself, and got pulled over for speeding...

That can happen because he's "first amongst equals".

What you are talking of is Anarchy. Anarchy is all about personal freedom. But "Freedom" as used, is a description of our SOCIETY. And an Anarchic society is NOT a free society.

To the Brits here... you were talking about the government's ability to carry out surveillance without a warrant on a suspected terrorist... I would assume the laws remain as they are - that being only crimes for which the warrant was given can be prosecuted using evidence gathered from the warrant.

In other words if you get a warrant to carry out surveillance on a suspected murderer, and he talks about some drug dealing, you cannot use that as evidence as the warrant was not for drug dealing...

In which case, were someone under surveillance as a suspected terrorist, evidence gathered from that warrant-less surveillance could only be used as part of a terrorism-related conviction, nothing else.

Am I correct, or not?

-Gumboot

What criteria do i have to fulfil to emigrate to New Zealand?
And how is the weather over there?

 

[Alt+F4]

I feel inconvienced, but that's ok, considering the bigger picture.

Didn't the conspiracy liars say that by now Bush would have suspended the Constitution and assumed dictatorial powers? Just more lies from liars.

 

[Carnivore]

Well, we also have the school and public healthsystem-problem
here - also the biometric data within travel-passports. But to
me it does not look like a threat against the citizens - And i
think it´s a littlebit overstated to say we need this kind of crap.

But i highly guess that the mistrust in terms of americas freedom-
changes will change the current governments political structure
at the next elections. If the british people start to think the same
way about their freedom-rights, there will be also a widespread
public protest - at least at the elections. Don´t you think?

If a large percentage British people are thinking that way come election time, then yes. And if it does then it will become a major election issue. Public protest on it's own hasnt had much effect on this government. Invading Iraq was very unpopular at the time ( IIRC over 60% of the public opposed it), with massive demonstrations and near rebellion from the governments own back benchers.

BTW, the proposed ID cards are much more than travel documents or confirmation of identity. Under current proposals you would be required to produce them when you see doctor or buy medication from a pharmacy. You would need it when entering government property or transacting any business with a government agency. You would need them to visit an airport or just if policeman stopped you in the street and demanded it. All of these events would be logged and recorded in a government database with varying levels of access to various civil servants. The government propose heavy fines for not carrying the cards.The government has claimed (and then backed down from the claims) that the cards would prevent terrorist attacks, stop welfare fraud and catch illegal immigrants. Even when they admit their reasons are flawed, they are determined to press ahead with this. It amounts to a mandatory electronic tracking device being placed on all citizens. To a mildly paranoid person like me, it's a bit scary. And VERY offensive.