Keep arguing folks. The people in power live to keep
us at each others' throats. (Photo by David Shankbone,
Gnu Free Documentation License))
In the comments to yesterday's jury nullification piece (yes, I read your comments) Smitty was especially on-point when he said, "The real problem might be toleration, or more accurately, the lack of it. We wish our preferred freedoms to be respected, while applauding governmental crackdowns upon those freedoms we dislike or are indifferent to." Frankly that's been an ongoing hurdle in the effort to preserve and extend liberty. Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we're all in this together, we're going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms.
After World War II, Pastor Martin Niemöller voiced several variants of the following sentiments in his public speeches:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Along the same lines, Benjamin Franklin once commented, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
It comes down to the same thing: When liberty is under attack, everybody is at risk. But that's not what the politicians and inspectors and tax collectors and police officers say, of course. No, they're all too happy to tell you that the queers next door are a threat to your way of life, or that the gun nuts are a public danger, or that the tax dodgers are greedy and not doing their fair share, or the store keepers are running amuck without entangling red tape, or that the pot heads are lazy parasites who will corrupt your kids.
But once the politicians and inspectors and tax collectors and police officers are done with the queers, they'll happily shift their sights to the gun nuts, then to the tax dodgers, the store keepers, and then the pot heads, and ...
Where were you planning to hide? Forget about it. Because you're some kind of menace, too, and you'll be fresh out of allies if you don't realize that the freedom of people you don't care very much about is just as important as your own.
The sort of people who make up the political class -- the control freaks of the world -- are experts at divide and conquer. They have all sorts of reasons why you should be glad that somebody else is being hemmed in by laws and threatened with prison. Those people are bad -- until it's you who's so bad. What the control freaks will never tell you is that they'd be entirely unable to impose those draconian laws and threats if you'd ally yourselves with those different folks and their peculiar interests to protect their liberty and your own at the same time.
You don't care about your neighbor's gun collection and he doesn't give a damn about your pot farm? So what? If you help each other out, everybody wins. If you don't, you'll both end up losing something you want, or else hiding it in the shadows and hoping for the best.
Keep that in mind the next time a politician promises to protect you from bogeymen who look an awful lot like the pleasant couple who live down the street. Maybe it's time to knock on their door and talk about an alliance of convenience.
Because you're not going to stay free if the only liberty you care about is your own.
You might also enjoy these:
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Contact J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
Comments
You are absolutely right. I think the biggest mistakes people make is in putting on blinders or judging other people's actions. Individual interests come with Liberty. Liberty does not come from legalizing a particular activity. People are putting the cart before the horse on this one.
The real bogeyman is big government. There are more of us than there are of them. It's time we made them do their jobs, not control our lives.
Check out my Libertarian political art if you have a chance and let me know what you think. www.machinepolitick.com
Well done. Quality piece. Unfortunately the people that represent the groups you mention are usually those dreaded one-issue voters.
My thoughts on this is that we have a culture where people think too highly of their own opinions and everyone thinks their opinion needs to become LAW. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you should ban other people's right to do that thing - just don't do that thing yourself.
It's a dream world you paint though. You'll never get anti-abortion, gun rights folks to reconcile with gay rights, atheists, civil liberties folks.
Jim L Cunningham
DC Progressive Examiner
Great Article.
Our country has so many problems.
When this country first was discovered, when the foreigners came here from over the waters... they all had cohesion. They all were of similar minds.
Now, we have this melting pot of different thinking peoples. That was a great idea, but any idiot could have figured out the long term outcome of inviting in All Nations and Total Freedom for all.
It has been said, if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
OMG, he is going to mention God...
If this nation had some ground rules.
1. This is a Godly Nation. 1 God.
2. Our language is English, Learn it.
3. Bible is taught in schools.
4. You don't Like it, you are welcome to travel to another nation.
Our problem is that our nation is based on money and greed. Hell, our politicians vote on their OWN pay grade!
We are experiencing total Moral Breakdown. Their will be 2 classes,
1. The rich, political and ruling Class.
2. The poor, working sheeple who wish they were in the other class.
That is where we are now, but it is going to get MUCH Worse.
And oh yes, Prisons, Jails, and Government Power is going ot grow daily.
New word class... Oppression! Learn it, Live it. cfcamerica.org
I agree with you that those interested in protecting one civil liberty have it in their best interest to protect all others, but I don't see how tax dodgers fit in. People who like to collect and shoot guns, grow and smoke pot, or live with and love a member of the same sex should be able to do so, so long as their actions affect only themselves. If the guy with a gun shoots someone or the girl smoking pot causes a car accident, then sure, the government should get involved, but by and large, people can enjoy their freedoms responsibly.
All these groups, when going about their business responsibly, can still contribute productively to society. While they might not agree with how all their tax dollars are being spent, they recognize the need to support the society as a whole.
What civil liberty are tax dodgers asserting? All I can see that they're trying to avoid is that requirement to contribute to society in proportion to the gains they take from it.
I don't mean to come off like I'm trying to pick a fight; I've never seen this group tied in with the other civil liberties groups before, and I'd like to know why you think they're all on the same side.
"4. You don't Like it, you are welcome to travel to another nation."
What, and be a victim of our foreign policy?
@cfcamerica.org
How can you support the article when its message has clearly eluded you? Freedom of religion is a civil liberty too.
Hear, hear!
Please remember in these times that extending FINANCIAL protection or punishing groups FINANCIALLY is the same kind of an assault on liberty. When the government pays one group of people, it robs the rest to do so. It's a divide and conquer strategy along financial lines.
So when the government tells us they want to punish a group of people delineated by their financial or professional status, remember that you might be next. When they tell us they want to pay a group of people (to the tune of, say, $800 billion), remember that YOU'RE the person getting punished. Don't support ANY of it.
How in any way is running a pot farm comparable to defending your Constitutional right to bear arms?
Chris, you read and understood the purpose of the article correct? It's about being aware of and tolerant of everyone's interests and trying to protect them. And "running a pot farm" is completely comparable to defending the second amendment. How is it constitutionally permissible that the government be allowed to regulate what substances adults put into their bodies, especially substances which derive from the same plant the constitution was drafted on.
Oddly enough, the general idea of this article is the exact same idea behind the NOFX song Re-Gaining Unconciousness
Oddly enough, the general idea of this article is the exact same idea behind the NOFX song Re-Gaining Unconciousness
The only good government is NO government.
Amazing! Truth laid out before you, and people still cry, "Yes, my needs! But not those people!"
We truly deserve what ever is coming our way.
Amazing! Truth laid out before you, and people still cry, "Yes, my needs! But not those people!"
We truly deserve what ever is coming our way.
Amazing! Truth laid out before you, and people still cry, "Yes, my needs! But not those people!"
We truly deserve what ever is coming our way.
Wow, I tink you might just be onto something dude!
RT
www.anon-tools.us.tc
We have a local political candidate. Complains bitterly about government intrusion into smoking and drinking, going on about threats to freedom and liberty, founded a campaign that invokes Churchill and talks about how our brave soldiers died for our freedoms that are being stomped on.
And when the subject of prostitution comes up he condemns them as perverts and whores and rejects any moves towards decriminalisation.
When I pointed out the very same ideas that this article suggests he said that you could not compare prostitution to smoking or drinking.
That's the conservative movement in a nutshell. They talk about liberty, but they are at the front of the queue when they want to imping on liberties they disprove of.
Too true-- if we just follow the maxim to take all our beliefs to their logical conclusion, we will avoid these problems. If one believes in freedom that does no harm to one another, then one must conclude that one must support all freedoms that do no harm to one another.
Stephen,
The inclusion of "tax dodgers" on the list refers to many people's belief that taxes don't support society at all -- they only support government. As a result, such people try to minimize or eliminate the tax collector's take in the belief that they're both escaping a mugging and denying sustenance to an institution they oppose.
As a gay gun owning pothead who doesn't pay taxes, I wholeheartedly agree with your article.
"Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we're all in this together, we're going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms."
As a gay man, I've got to say that this irks me somewhat. I've got nothing against pot (hell, I partake in it every now and then), but I'm really sick of pot advocates trying to snatch every possible chance to defend their "cause." They're going to bury Michael Phelps as they hold him up like a sacrificial pot-smoking lamb, and they carry on about getting Obama to legalize it when it should be obvious that the man has bigger fish to fry.
Sorry, but my civil rights trump your smoking rights. Maybe we'll get both one day, but don't tell me that we're all in this together.
James: you are missing the point to a profound degree. No one is saying that the right to smoke pot and basic civil rights are EQUAL, they're saying that the same people who would deny you your rights would also deny the rights of the pot smokers, gun toters, etc. Together you might make for a convincing voice against them, but seperately you're all just minorities and are easy to deprive.
This is very refreshing. While I dont poke smot, and I dont tote guns, I am very much in favor of preserving not just my liberties but everyones. It is about time someone shined a light on this issue.
Excellent article. I remember vividly driving down the road in 2006 (when Tennessee was trying to pass a gay marriage ban) seeing a elderly black couple in sedan with a bumper sticker asking people to vote yes on the gay marriage ban.
These people were old enough to have lived through Jim Crow. They were old enough that they likely had heard stories of direct family members who were slaves. My thought upon seeing that bumper stickers was, "how quickly the oppressed become the oppressors".
Ultimately I am a realist. What do I care if gay people get married, how does that affect my life? I know people who are gay and they aren't monsters trying to grab your kids, they are normal people just trying to live their lives. This country has gone mad.
To James:
"Sorry, but my civil rights trump your smoking rights."
No, they don't. The whole point of the article is that it all boils down to the same issue: freedom of choice. Of grown adults being able to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives.
what I been screaming for years.
It is us against them.And they dont play fair-ever!~
James, get over yourself, read the article again, 'cause you still do not understand LIBERTY.
I really disagree with this line of thinking as well as the "fine line" or "slippery slope" argument. In a democracy where the government represents the people the power is to the people. The constitution was established by the people from all walks of life with a variety of agendas. It's okay and in some cases GOOD to go after certain groups of other people. For example, I think pedophiles should all be locked up. I will never stand up for them based on religious freedom. I also think partial birth abortion is wrong and should be illegal, but some would be outraged by such a law and protest using this silly, juvenile argument of "Oh! But if you make partial birth abortion illegal then what's next? Pretty soon all abortion will be illegal". That's dumb. It's perfectly sane to draw lines. There is no threat to society by saying partial birth abortion is illegal while other forms of abortion are not. It's just like telling a gun owner they can't have a fully automatic uzi. It's not saying you can't own guns, just certain types of guns.
binxter, this does NOT mean you need the federal government to decide those things.
State governments can make things like murder, theft, illegal and enforce their own laws.
The problem is when the FEDERAL government starts putting laws on the entire USA and enforcing them at the point of a gun against the states who have had all their power stripped from them.
binxter: Pedophiles are not protected by the Constitution because they are violating others' rights. Pot-smokers and gun-owners and sexual minorities want personal liberties that do not violate others' rights.
I want the right to take a dump on my front lawn in broad daylight. Who will protect my freedoms!?
Freedom to dump!
The fact is, our democracy is constrained by the social norms of our society. The government merely acts as it is designed to. If you want your cause to be protected by the government, change the attitudes of the people - the government will follow suit.
Our democracy works! Don't blame the politicians. Blame the people who put them in office.
Binxterdoodles: if the 2nd amendment exists to let us resist a tyrannical gov't, how much sense does it make to let that gov't decide which arms are appropriate for that resistance?
I want the right to take a dump on my front lawn in broad daylight. Who will protect my freedoms!?
Freedom to dump!
The fact is, our democracy is constrained by the social norms of our society. The government merely acts as it is designed to. If you want your cause to be protected by the government, change the attitudes of the people - the government will follow suit.
Our democracy works! Don't blame the politicians. Blame the people who put them in office.
@Mike
Sadly your rights end where my nose begins. Please do not poop on your lawn
The same logical principles are used to explain why it's important to protect free speech. Put simply, the correct philosophy is, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it". People seem to have a difficult time grasping the reason why protecting minority rights in general is important. When the pie is all sliced, nearly all of us fall into the minority on one issue or another, and if we do not protect each others' liberties, we endanger our own. It breaks my heart that probably 90% of voters can't grasp the concept.
binxter: Pedophiles are not protected by the Constitution because they are violating others' rights. Pot-smokers and gun-owners and sexual minorities want personal liberties that do not violate others' rights.
I'm in favor of unrestricted pot and guns, but I'm especially sad that somehow gays are lumped in as well: A person possesses guns and uses drugs, but a person IS gay.
I don't even want to say that I "SUPPORT" it, because I feel that even doing so is somehow admitting it's something that could NOT be supported.
It's like saying, "I support your use of guns and pot...as well as your being Irish."
Hm...I think I'm going to try that with some friends, "Ted, I totally respect your decision to vote Republican, but I just can't support your being-over-six-feet-tall position. You'll have to leave now."
Genius. I couldn't agree more.
Fantastic article!!! Thank you for your courage and wisdom.
That right there is the definition of patriotism - love your neighbor, not Washington, DC/Wall Street.
Second, binxter you are rambling. Since when is pedophilia a religious freedom?
Well said, this should be required reading for everyone
This is an awesome article. This is what I'm always trying to tell people. I keep asking people to listen to this interview with Os Guiness who wrote "A Case for Civility"
That's exactly what Os says. People in the US need to start saying to each other "You respect my rights, and I will respect yours" or the United States is going to topple like Rome.
John Morgali said, "While I dont poke smot"
ARE YOU SURE?
i agree very much with the sentiment and content of this article.
i'm generally left-leaning on my politics, i live in New York City, and i work in the tech sector. as such i find myself having a great amount of solidarity with all sorts of other freedom issues.
for my own benefits i need freedom of information. freedom to access info, process info, and sell info to anyone who wants to buy it. i need information carriers to be neutral (so my content is given the same opportunity that everyone else's content is) and i need the government to keep its nose out of my work.
these are not different issues than the ones related to gun ownership, drug use, sexual preference, or any of those things.
We all have to remember and realize... All blood is red.
Wow. Wouldn't it be great to live in this described Utopia where everyone believed the same things were civil liberties and protected by the constitution?
What if I believe that a woman's right to choose should be protected but I don't believe that homosexuals have a right to marriage?
What then? Should I sacrifice my principles for fear that my right to choose will be impeached?
So we are to abandon our moral principles based upon a theory that if one "civil liberty" is denied that all will be? What is the precedent for this theory in a democracy?
What about my civil liberty to poop on my lawn in broad daylight? When does that get protected?
The fact of the matter is that just because the individual or group of individuals want to do something - it doesn't make it a civil liberty.
Civil liberties are dictated by society. And in a democracy, the civil liberties which we deem suitable to protect will be protected by the government we elect, and those lack the support of society won't be protected.
This is a fear tactic. Look. if you want your civil liberty recognized - take it up with the people.
I'm done. I've been saying what this article states for some time now, and I'm giving up. Let you proles fight over your single issues, while I steal from your cause. I'm gonna cash in on your downfall.
I want you to buy a TV, and stay in your home! Keep watching that TV, Drink cool aid, and eat Cheetos so you get diabetes. Watch the news because it scares you. Most of all go out and be an activist for things so that more laws get passed! Better, start telling others how to run their lives. Scowl at people when the get speeding tickets. Call the police on your neighbors for the slightest social infractions. Go out to bars and write down license plate numbers of people leaving. Report your co-workers to the IRS, or for workers comp fraud.
Go do it I'm betting on you! I make money when you do. I'm fully invested in it! Watch out proles your pessimism, and hatred will drink you dry and fill my cup.
binxter, you are missing the point. This is all in regard to *victimless* crimes. Every case you point out (except the gun possession, see below for more on that) is where another person is harmed. That is the ONLY place where it is the govt's duty to protect the citizens... from each other. No one here is saying that pedophilia should be allowed. That is your twisted reading of the above.
Now, as far as guns/automatic weapons are concerned. I think the govt is missing the point and likely trying to do an end run around the citizens. For me, the whole reason for the right to bear arms is so that the people can protect themselves from a government run amok. The entire existence of this country was to flee from religious oppression so it only makes common sense that the founders were trying to make sure this doesn't happen again. So, if you continue to follow that interpretation, well, if the govt/police has automatic weapons, then you should have the right to bear arms equivalent to theirs to protect yourself from them becoming oppressive because it is not IF it will happen it is WHEN it will happen. Because it WILL happen. And the Founding Fathers saw this.
Now, that whole argument breaks down when you get into missiles, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc. But, at the time of the Founding Fathers these things did not exist and they, obviously, could have never predicted that technology in their time. And it is a whole other problem that needs to be addressed in entirely new ways that protect the spirit of what it means to have the right to bear arms if you subscribe to my interpretation of that right.
"Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests"
Doesn't that mean that societies are formed based on an agreement of what the rules are?
What's great about the United States and other western societies is we have the right and responsibility to constantly examine those rules. We won't always agree, but they can change over time. And we have a right to challenge those rules in a court of law. But in the end, if we don't live by a set of pre-determined rules, then society collapses.
Forget pedophelia. That's not a victimless crime. But what about littering. It's really akin to smoking, isn't it? Besides making our landscapes ugly, it can create a health hazard. Or how about public masturbation, or public sex? Is anybody really a victim? Aren't those rules more about decency? I doubt anybody is going to make a serious argument that these laws should be overturned.
Without rules, we aren't a society, just a mob. And if we lose the agreed upon rules, then we open ourselves up to exploitation by outside forces that could come in and take away all those rights.
"Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests"
Doesn't that mean that societies are formed based on an agreement of what the rules are?
What's great about the United States and other western societies is we have the right and responsibility to constantly examine those rules. We won't always agree, but they can change over time. And we have a right to challenge those rules in a court of law. But in the end, if we don't live by a set of pre-determined rules, then society collapses.
Forget pedophelia. That's not a victimless crime. But what about littering. It's really akin to smoking, isn't it? Besides making our landscapes ugly, it can create a health hazard. Or how about public masturbation, or public sex? Is anybody really a victim? Aren't those rules more about decency? I doubt anybody is going to make a serious argument that these laws should be overturned.
Without rules, we aren't a society, just a mob. And if we lose the agreed upon rules, then we open ourselves up to exploitation by outside forces that could come in and take away all those rights.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!