The definition of LIBERTY

[bspence]

Liberty:
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

I wanted to look up the exact definition of liberty once I read that Ashcroft's Patriot Act campaign tour said that "To abandon these tools would senselessly imperil American lives and American liberty.”

I would think that the Patriot Act goes precisely against everything that liberty stands for. "Free from restriction or control?" Not when you're being monitored, being denied a right to counsel, and basically running a secret police that's accountable to no one. If this tactic works against terrorism, why not use this tactic to go against every type of crime? Why not take away someone's privacy because their "right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing" doesn't fit in with the ultra conservative christian values?

I think Ashcroft and the neocons need to understand why this country was founded.

[tlcandie]

1. Here you go .. pay close attention to the LAST sentence...

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/neo-conned.htm
(found within the following link)

http://pnacrevealed.com/

<snip>
Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.
<snip>

[Deja Q]

2. Not the neocons. The people.

The neocons don't give a fuck except for themselves and their corporate friends. They piss on people when there's a benefit out of it for their corporate buddies or their own agendas.

We can't change the neocons but we can wake the people up.

There are more people than neocons.

[silverweb]

3. Well said.

Ashcroft's lust for power over individual lives is antithetical to the very concept of liberty and does absolutely NOTHING to protect us from foreign terrorism.

He uses fearmongering to turn us into spies against each other. He abuses his misbegotten "authority" to impose his own draconian belief system where he has no business even poking his long nose.

And now he's going on a "road trip" at our expense to promote his dictatorial ideas.

That's why I signed the following petition to stop Ashcroft and hope you do, too. Check it out, sign it, and pass it on:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=stopashcroft

On edit: Spelling. Duh!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Here is a wonderful flash entitled the Philosophy of Liberty

Watch it and consider it in the context of your post. I believe it underscores a number of your points well and it is well done. Enjoy.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/liberty.php

[bspence]

5. Thanks for all the cool replies

I read that "Neoconned" speech this morning. Can't believe a Texas Republican wrote it.

I already signed the petition with Howard Dean. He's leading in New Hampshire!!

Downloading the flash right now.

Thanks guys. I really needed to get this off my chest. I think a lot of people are getting frustrated at what's happened to our country, and there will be a huge backlash against this administration. At least, that's the best case scenario. At least it's getting me off my ass to try to do something about it.

[sweetheart]

6. they're just ignorant criminals

I like john stuart mill's essay on liberty, as it is more rich and eloquent than mere dictionary thinking. Liberty historically involved the right of the governed to be spoken for by his/her government... and only more recently has come to be defined as those limits and rights.

Sadly you're right. Ignorant criminals run america, but has that not always been the case... truly. The criminal conspiracy to overthrow democracy is institutionalized in america like nowhere else. Jefferson would clearly have counselled more firm measures.... as is the right of the governed when government is criminal.

...
The aim, therefore, of patriots, was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty. It was attempted in two ways. First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe, and which, if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks; by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power.
...

John Stuart Mill - "On liberty"
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/jsmill-lib.html