that is a good cultural question, I wish I knew the answer

the 'drug' war had quite an impact on the growing incarceration rate,,,as did the three strikes clause which compounded the drug war rates


the idea that humans are less human once they commit crime and need merely punishment like animals, that thieves are worthy of being shot in their tracks,, that life is only as valuable as the earned income

the cultures views and what we 'value', has a lot to do with the incarceration rates in my opinion

that with the very lopsided justice system which ends up being tied too closely to financial status and rank,,,,

too many aspects of our culture have taught that we shoudl reflect a persons value on their status or position in life,,,,sd,, I could go on,, but I am beginning a tangent,,,

well, the south sure didnt rise with slaves who didnt realize they were slaves,,,

lol

I have nothing to 'escape' from personally, Im not sure what others feel the need to escape from

I just have to live my life making choices and understanding all of them will have consequences,,,, and having all types of luxuries available to me that are not to most of the rest of the world

my life and my country arent free,, but I would be gravely disrespecing my ancestos to claim to be a 'slave' because of rules that are being applied to me as a citizen,,,,,

Who and where are these slaves yo speak of?
Gotta' link?
I'd like to send an ex-slave a card to congratulate one for living so long.

Where are these slaves and we shall free them!

Yes everyone knows the south used to have slaves and they were your ancestors.

That does not change the overall slave mentality of this entire world since the biblical times when slave Masters/owners did not discriminate where race was concerned. News flash, even today it does not discriminate where race is concerned and slaves STILL EXIST.

Some are outright slaves, children slaves, etc. Others are poor people who are forced to work for little or nothing in sweat shops hidden from view.

Other slaves are people (like most Americans) who are mesmerized into going into such deep debt with the rising cost of living and being bombarded with advertising and tempted with credit and with having having credit cards and they are slaves to their jobs - even working two jobs to pay for all the ridiculous things they THINK THEY NEED. Both man and his wife have to work to make ends meet and the state takes control of their children in schools.

Those are the people who are slaves because they have to work and pay taxes to a government who just carelessly spends and borrows money going into deeper debt.

You don't feel like a slave? Good for you. But I know plenty of people under so much debt they can hardly breathe, working when they should be retired.

There are slaves. Hope you are not one of them. Most slaves got themselves into that position through their choices to go into debt buying a house. Then a lot of them got screwed royal by the banking gangsters.

Idealism vs Realism, eh?

1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

2. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

... 3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

5. If, in our largest city, you can buy "two" 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

6. If an 80-year-old woman and 3 yr old child can be stripped searched by the TSA, but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute, but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

9. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes…, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

10. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

11. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TVs and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

12. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more safe according to the government,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.


Welcome to your newfound FREEDOM!


The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed.

--The Road to Serfdom

same place those infalible 'founding fathers' are,,,,

Europe might be more your Cup of Tea,if it is Paternalism you are seeking!!

I know,I live here!

You live largely by Permission,NOT by Right!

it might be,,,,but for my family all being in the usa and egypt,,,

Egypt is definitely not the best place to be at the moment!

depends upon where in Egypt

'Without law, there can be no freedom'

If all the possible political systems can be viewed on a scale, we would have no government on one side, and totalitarian oppression on the other. Obviously, neither is desirable, and we are lucky enough to live under governments that occupy the middle ground. 'Freedom' in totality cannot be achieved, as we are all dependent on some fundamentals for our survival. We have to relinquish certain freedoms to survive and to interact with others in order to maintain our survival. As clans formed tribes and tribes formed states, the need for laws increased in order to preserve the society.

To enjoy participation in a society, certain 'freedoms' were relinquished, and certain obligations were adopted and the individual became part of a regulated society. The individual is constrained not to rob or kill the neighbour, and in turn, he or she is secure in the knowledge that one is protected in a like manner. Laws exist to deal with the transgressors of these 'rights'. In turn, the citizen pays taxes to enjoy life with the remaining freedoms (or rights) intact, administered by the taxpayer funded organs of government.

The relinquished freedoms are often less desirable than those retained, hence, there is agreement and stability within the society (excluding transgressions outside the law or international hostility). The aggregate freedom for an individual in a regulated society is much higher than in an anarchical one.

So the above quote can be amended to 'Without law, there is much less freedom.'

I've read where some complain about the compulsory wearing of seatbelts being an infringement upon their personal liberty. The reasoning being that if they have an accident, they have no-one to blame but themselves and there is no victim apart from the driver. This is nonsense, as Police and Fire-fighters have to deal with the trauma of cleaning up their corpses; medical staff have to try and reassemble their mangled remains. If they die, their family members suffer, and if they die without proper insurance, their family members inherit the funeral costs. There is even the remote possibility that the corpse becomes a projectile that injures another.

Members of an electorate often expect the government to react to various situations, hence the seatbelt laws in various countries. We can compare this to the recent gun regulatory proposals after Sandy Hook. Whatever people believe about this incident, the fact is that kids died, and citizens lobbied their representatives for action. The government responded with legislative proposals and they are seen to be doing something about the situation. Realistically, they are not trying to take your guns, or usher in a totalitarian state, but to satisfy those who are outraged by these massacres and to make an effort to protect other kids.

Is it a limitation on freedom, or is it an effort to prevent future slaughters? Whether it will or not is not the point (this is merely an often misrepresented example, and not a cue for further gun debate-we've had far too much of that). But the point being, that the government is trying to preserve the right to life for other kids in the future.

I ask the conservatives, what rights have you lost that can be considered oppressive?

Playing Devil's advocate, I just threw myself to the lions.

The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.


A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.

Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.

There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”


The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others.


Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.


A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).


When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang. In order to survive under such a system, men have no choice but to fear, hate, and destroy one another; it is a system of underground plotting, of secret conspiracies, of deals, favors, betrayals, and sudden, bloody coups.(look around you)

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

You are discussing inalienable (or natural) rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a fairly recent development and still hardly universal (freedom of religious practice; equality under the law; freedom of speech etc.). The fact that fundamental human rights have been hard won challenges the notion of 'God-given'. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional

Rand does not propose an Anarchistic Society!
Read the excerpts again!

And others on that Site!

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.


exactly what we have today!

That's only because you're looking at it from the perspective that man is not responsible enough to care for themselves on their own without some middle man intervening. Teach the people HOW to do exactly that and that problem you see suddenly changes.

But......because it's not in the interest of the state to do so....that meaning that a truly educated and enlightened populace, one fully capable of effectively governing itself leaves the power hungry without power any longer since they are no longer being depended on to live, you don't see that.

And I would disagree, I think what he said was on target, and is the basis of what freedom is supposed to be.

I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here.



I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise.



You know I abhor such a scenario.




Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? I know it has flaws, but history cannot provide us with a equitable example on a national scale (i.e. not a city state of antiquity).

Well, history supports that view.



That is somewhat naïve. There will always be the bully, or thug that will capitalise upon such a situation.



I do see that, but I recognise it as an ideal, and not practical. Moreover, educated and enlightened according to whom?



And I agreed with it to a point. Fundamental rights cause certain limitations of freedom.

It would appear that I didn't explain myself clearly.

take Europe,for example!