maninblack
Paranormal Novice
Are we really free in this country? Or, is that merely an illusion? If not, how long can we last?
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
try not paying taxes
Really a loaded question. In what context? Are we freer than just after the Revolutionary War. Depends on what color you are. Are we freer of rules & regulations governing our lives? Hell, no. On the other hand, we can travel around the globe to anywhere for a pittance compared to the cost in 1800. And the cost to communicate around the globe is approaching zero. Even in the middle of a recession the average person has more freedom in many ways, including a standard of living and sanitation, than Kings & Queens 200 years ago.
Compare to the fifties. Employment discrimination was rampant. Segregation was everywhere. You had no protections as a consumer. You could easily be socially ostracized for minor infractions. Divorce was difficult if not impossible. Being 'Gay' was bad. There was a draft in place. Society was much more rigid. You had fewer options.
On the other hand, you could fake a new identity more easily. Databases of your information were on paper. Building codes were far easier, and as the 'necessities' were less, life was easier. There weren't any seat belt laws. You could drive without insurance.
So, compared to 1800 we have a lot more bureaucracy and control, but our freedom to communicate and travel is vastly superior. Compared to the fifties we have a lot more personal freedom in some ways (Being 'Gay' is now 'good.'), but the tentacles of government control are pervasive in our lives. Our privacy is a lot less.
Of course, our ideas of freedom may be different. For some 'freedom' means a socialist society where everyone has complete financial equality, the same access to health care, education and retirement. No one is allowed to 'get rich' because that 'isn't fair.' Guns are outlawed because you might hurt yourself and you can expect to be taken care of from cradle to grave whether or not you contribute yourself.
To others 'freedom' means a government that leaves you alone to do what you want without interference, provides for the national defense, builds some roads, and encourages you to take care of yourself and make your own decisions.
We've basically got two camps now. One is the people who say, "Gimme, Gimme" and the others are saying, "Stay away from me." I don't know that this conundrum will be solved any time soon.
We are NOT completly self reliant. If you think that, go live in the African bush for a few years, then tell me what camp you are in. Happy Hunting
Are we really free in this country? Or, is that merely an illusion? If not, how long can we last?
"[SIZE=+0]Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
[/SIZE]
"Freedom no longer frees you" - Metallica
Most people are not self-reliant because they choose not to be--not that they cannot if they put enough effort into it. It's just easier to depend on others and hope the system continues to provide. I suppose you could discuss it in terms of 'degrees of freedom' insofar as you're willing to put X amount of energy into protecting yourself. To some it might be having extra water in the closet; to others it might mean generating your own electricity, raising your own food and going off the grid entirely.
As far as happy hunting, I don't need to go to Africa. There are plenty of deer and elk in the woods. For that matter, there are cougars, coyotes, and bears, too. For people used to getting their hamburger already chopped up in cellophane, they might go "Ewwww!" to this and perhaps to those people your comment is directed. That's why I have 1,000 rounds of ammo stored away--just in case I have to do it myself. I don't want to, particularly. I hope I will a full box to my son. But the real point is that I pay for my meat. It's not given to me; it's an exchange of services, a trade. I'm not asking the person who sells me the meat to "Gimme!" anything.
I have nothing against an interdependent economy. Indeed, it keeps us safer. By contrasting the Gimmes versus the Leave me alone crowds I'm not talking about an interdependent economy where everyone contributes. I'm talking about a situation where some contribute and some don't.
The problem, as I see it, is government providing too much to the point that the Takers (vs. the Makers) start to believe that government taking care of their every need is their "right." Government creating dependency is never a good thing. I've done a lot of grants in my career. In fact, I never lost a grant, but you could say I was part of the problem and I certainly have seen what can happen. The issue is that government (at whatever level) will grant you funds to 'do something good' like, for a theoretical example, provide daycare to children. The grant is for a year and provides start-up funds for a community organization to get the ball rolling. This is going to be so great because these kids will finally get government subsidized daycare. How wonderful!
Then the grant runs out. So the local organization is faced with continuing the program on its own funds, terminating the program, or getting another grant. They can't terminate the program because, my goodness, think of the children and the outrage if they did. So they go get another grant. But how did the kids get along before that? What was first a luxury of subsidy has become a necessity.
One of the major ways you justify a grant is simply by defining an 'unserved' population. For example, libraries traditionally serve children. They have children's librarians, children's sections full of childen's books, children's story times, summer reading programs, etc. To get a grant you have to find a way of dividing this population and declaring, sometimes quite arbitrarily, one such sub-population as unserved. I know! We can say children in daycare are unserved because they might not be able to get to the library to take advantage of all these wonderful programs. Note the word "might" here. It's unproven, but we can certainly cite a bunch of statistics that look formidable and kind of slide right on by the "might" part. Then we'll get this grant, and everything will be wonderful.
And people wonder how government grows.
I just finished watching an excellent (and I might add, very depressing) documentary about a subject tangential to that of freedom, namely privacy. It's called "Erasing David" and absolutely everbody here should watch it if you get the chance.
One of my favorite bands, good enough to get the attention of the late, great Michael Kamen. I don't really see why you'd hate them, they made some of the greatest metal albums ever made.A Metallica quote? I just threw up into my own mouth. I HATE those jackoffs. Nothing against you, methshin...
dB