Holger Asks Why....
This morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the Reverend Al Sharpton said:
In response, George Will replied:
So Holger asks....Why is it that when a man says the America people need protection by the government, that his answer for doing that is to take personal liberties away from those same American people? When you lock away people in a cage of tyranny, are you really "protecting" them? And what are you protecting them from?
This morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the Reverend Al Sharpton said:
"the American people need protection by the government"
In response, George Will replied:
"Al Sharpton has said that the American people need protection by the government while many would say that the American people need protection FROM the government"
So Holger asks....Why is it that when a man says the America people need protection by the government, that his answer for doing that is to take personal liberties away from those same American people? When you lock away people in a cage of tyranny, are you really "protecting" them? And what are you protecting them from?
14 comments:
Interesting question. Please elaborate on its premise. What personal liberties do you see being taken away?
Does forcing everyone into a medical program "for their own good" sound like freedom? Does taking away most of the income of a minority sound like freedom? Is the gov't more efficent than business? If so, is the 2-3% profits of the medical insurance companies going to finance the feds programs. I think not. The bigger the government the smaller the people. I believe Dennis Prager gets credit for that last sentence.
Stimpson,
I'm sure you didn't come here to ask questions. What is your take on this? Don't you see any personal liberties, personal freedoms compromised by the government's "protection" of the people?
:Holger Danske
So, to sum up, Big Bob says these things infringe on peronal liberties:
1. health reform. All right, a mandate requiring everyone to buy health insurance does seem an infringement. Whether it's a justifiable infringement is an interesting question.
2. Income tax, or at least taxation that takes away most of a person's income. Not sure how that's taking away personal liberties - would you be less free to speak up at public meetings, or marry the person of your choice? - but it's an interesting proposition to say that it is.
I wonder if the blog's author has an answer to my question.
Oh, I see a response from the author. Except that it doesn't answer my question.
Seriously, I asked the question out of genuine curiosity. I *do* want to know what liberties you see being taken away.
Stimpson,
Do you feel your personal liberties regarding personal property, guaranteed under the Constitution, are upheld when your personal property is confiscated from you and given to another citizen of this country?
:Holger Danske
All right. I see you're only going to answer my question with a question.
I guess you're saying income tax and a whole bunch of other taxes are unconstitutional and therefore a capture of personal liberties. Thanks for the information.
Stimpson,
My blog post asked a question of readers. You came to the blog and asked a question - a typical tactic of a Leftist. I guess you didn't like your tactics being thrown back in your face, huh son?
;)
And if you were an American and not a Canadian, Stimpson, you'd know that the income tax in America IS IN the Constitution but as you could see from my question to you, that isn't what I was addressing in the "confiscation" of my property.
Perhaps you are comfortable in having your personal liberties as a human being decided by one of your Human Rights Council judgements but we don't work that way down here.
By the way, your blog entry that included this:
Rush Limbaugh is still a big fat idiot.
..shows me you really didn't come here to truly debate a question, now did you Stimpson?
:Holger Danske
Correction:
That should have been "Human Rights Commission", not Council.
:Holger Danske
Stimpson, did I read that right you take away most of a persons money and it doesn't harm him/her?
Amazing. You can lead a person to logic but you can't make him think.
Why do you call Sharpton "Reverend"? Please tell me what Church he is pastor of?
It should be MISTER Sharpton until he starts acting like a Christian and not a thug!
Findalis,
As far as I can decipher, Sharpton was "ordained" as a minister when he was 10 yr old in the Pentecostal Church. He later was baptized into the Baptist faith but I have not seen any evidence that he was ordained as a Baptist minister.
So, I'd have to say you're right. It's "Mr." Al Sharpton.
Thanks.
:Holger Danske
Big Bob,
Thanks for the clarifying points - always good to have you here.
:Holger Danske
I was also under the impression that taxation was allowed under the US Constitution. However, taxation in the 18th Century was nearly only for the purpose of war, and was levied only intermittently.
Most people are happy to pay taxes to defend them from other countries, to pay for adequate policing and other essential services that are used by everybody. But the government takes away your freedom when they decide they can tax you to give free stuff to other citizens. This is stealing.
It is one thing to collect a pool of money for essential national needs but quite another to 'redistribute' wealth according to the current governments whims of who might need some shiny new stuff to be paid for by the state.
That is European thinking and the reason Europe is f***ed.
That is a non-American's take on it at least.
Post a Comment