The Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinners are famous events for the state Democratic Party in Connecticut. However, as part of the backlash against historical figures who owned slaves, the NAACP demanded that both names be stripped away from the dinner and the state Democratic Party agreed.
Nick Balletto, the party’s first-year chairman, said that he hoped other states would follow suit and do “the right thing.” Some may disagree with that assessment.
First, I have been a long critic of Jackson who is legitimately blamed for the Trail of Tears and other atrocities against Native Americans. He is also viewed as the father of the patronage system. He also openly challenged the authority of the Supreme Court to restrain him. It has always astonished me that Democratic Party embraced such an abusive figure as Jackson. However, Jefferson is a founding father who is credited not only with the Declaration of Independence but key rights like those of religious freedoms.
Second, stripping away references to all slave owners would wipe out many if not most of the framers. Slavery was a tremendous evil at the time and those framers with slaves are legitimately criticized for calling for political and social rights while enslaving other human beings. They were flawed figures but they were also the creators of a system that allowed for not only the evolution of rights but the ultimate rejection of slavery.
Scot X. Esdaile, the head of Connecticut’s NAACP, insisted that only stripping away such names can heal the wounds of racism and that the move of the Democratic Party was “making the symbolic first step and striving to right the wrongs of the past . . . You can’t right all the wrongs, but I think it’s a symbolic gesture of our support for their party.”
Ironically, Jefferson was one of the most active in seeking to curtail slavery. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson originally sought to criticize England for forcing the slave trade on the colonies but it was taken out of the draft. In 1778, Jefferson led the effort to ban the importation of slaves into Virginia and as President fought against the slave trade. In 1784 Jefferson unsuccessfully proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800. He wrote about the corrupting influence of slavery. In other words, his story is a complex one and captures a generation that was moving at least in part toward the emancipation of slaves.
What do you think?
Ninian,
All of your arguments tend to reflect a view that a social contract should disregard the “social” aspect of the contract. Our constitution was designed specifically to be amended as our society changes. It’s not a weakness, it is a strength. Without the amendment process we would be forced to expose our existing rule of law to the collective will every time a change was necessary. This would make the security of INDIVIDUAL rights a prerogative of the COLLECTIVE and we are proving today how thin that security can be.
I will repeat, the Declaration of Independence was NEVER intended to DELIVER equality, liberty and natural rights. It was a DECLARATION that an INDIVIDUAL in a free society should expect those principles to be honored by each INDIVIDUAL to the next and that the primary purpose of ANY government is to provide each INDIVIDUAL the security of those rights. That declaration was the beginning of our nation’s struggle to recognize those founding principles. We fought a war and struggled through our first iteration of government with the Articles of Confederation. That form of government failed to provide the security necessary to fulfill the vision of the DoI. Our current constitution was ratified with the COLLECTIVE understanding that it would be the best form to secure national, state and INDIVIDUAL sovereignty.
Our first ten amendments to that constitution are all about securing the rights of each INDIVIDUAL and the States. As we have evolved in our pursuit of recognizing those founding principles we have amended the constitution (by design) to reflect that cultural transformation. We have COLLECTIVELY adopted the necessary changes that secured freedom, liberty and natural rights for the INDIVIDUAL. Where we have failed as a culture and a nation is when we allow the COLLECTIVE to abuse the rights of INDIVIDUALS. Nothing within our constitution allows this but the ignorant COLLECTIVE have traded their INDIVIDUAL sovereignty for that of the COLLECTIVE.
You should read The Law by Frederic Bastiat:
“The Seductive Lure of Socialism
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.”
Olly:
You need to learn to listen, read and have the humility to learn.
Your concept of America was your own American Dream.
The American system as recorded cannot exist if a Nation is to exist.
Olly: Post script
And it isn’t anything to do with socialism either. Its about two concepts of freedom that cannot coexist.
ninny – your two concepts of freedom can coexist. I have an individual right to vote or not vote. Felons lose their right to vote. Voting is not a collective freedom. Some vote in person, some vote by absentee ballot returned in the mail, some vote by absentee ballot returned on the day of voting, some vote during early voting. There is a lot of individual freedom even in how we vote.
ninian,
Have you read Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”? If you had you would never believe the United States was founded and exists for collect freedom.
Olly:
I have never suggested the USA was founded on collective freedom. I’ve said the opposite. That it was founded on individual freedom that was never delivered in practice. Because within a Nation it can never be delivered. Because a Nation runs on the fuel of collective freedom and by virtue of that democracy.
So your argument is untenable.
ninny – I think what you are not realizing is that individual freedom has to have limits or there would be anarchy. The common refrain is “You cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.” You have a Constitutional Right to Free Speech, however it is limited when it might cause an unnecessary panic and people be killed.
That individual freedom is delivered every day. Some days we have to fight for it, some days we lose, most days we win.
Paul C Schulte:
There just may be a little light at the end of the tunnel. A State cannot function on anything other than consensus and this equates with collective freedom. There is no mechanism to run on individual freedom which ad you say would lead to anarchy.
So you finally accept my argument and you win a cigar 💡
ninny – if you consider a vote of the Supreme Court 5-4 consensus. There is never consensus.
Paul C. Schulte:
You have to make the best use of the system you voted to be created. If the system is bad consensus will change it.
If the Constitution had been well written in the first place you wouldn’t need any amendments.
ninny – the Constitution was designed to have additional amendments. All part of the greater plan. If the Magna Carta had been well written you wouldn’t have a Parliament.
Paul C. Schulte:
Well it had to have amendments because it was such an ill-conceived document. It has created a system of contradiction and confusion by your own admission. Having now had this point accepted by you, America now has a big job to reform and rebuild so that the system can be made to work for all Americans and not just Paul C. Schulte.
ninny – read the damn Constitution and amendments and get back to me. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Paul C. Schulte:
Its not about me reading anything.
Its about Freedom. You don’t have a society built on individual Freedom. You admitted it. A country has to function on collective freedom. That’s why you vote.
I really don’t think you understand what I’m talking about.
To Paul C. Schulte and Olly:
Yes I am standing by my argument, not just because it’s right, but because what you both are advocating is impossible in the real world. And I do believe that privately you reluctantly agree that what I am saying makes sense. Otherwise it wouldn’t upset you so much.
The world wants America to succeed. And it can only do this having a culture that is all embracing the strengths of all of its people. That’s how home success is generated. You don’t get this by gaining personal freedom at the expense of your fellow citizen. This isn’t socialism. Its common sense.
Texan: So I want to know how concepts of Individual Freedom and Collective Freedom of Democracy can be reconciled in America.
If not how can individual freedom be co-ordinated to run a country at the exclusion of Collective Freedom. And if this is so isn’t co-ordinated individual freedom really the same as collective freedom?
It is my case that in democracy collective freedom prevails and that’s what you’ve got.
@Ninian
The concepts of Individual Freedom and Collective Freedom in Democracy cannot ever be reconciled. It is as you said, one can only exist but neither can co-exist. The problem with you right now, ninian, is that you’re assuming that collective freedom can prevail in the name of democracy.
Let me assure you the underlining basis of democracy: two wolves with sharp, ravenous fangs and a lamb armed with liberty at the dinner table. What I am saying is, when freedom and liberty exists, it is because of the lamb that is armed. An unarmed lamb is to be slaughtered, and eaten by wolves because the unarmed lamb did not come equipped with the knowledge of liberty and freedom.
Democracy is majoritarian rule, or more known as mob rule. That’s what it is. It tramples the rights, beliefs, and practices of the minorities, i.e. polygynists such as those who practice it today and those who believe in it (like me for instance), polyandrists, etc. and so on. How can collective freedom exist if majoritarian votes exist?
A collective freedom is only achieved if EVERY single person is a collectivist and is free altogether. The one big major problem underlining your ideal collective freedom is that every “individual” is never always the same with another. The more I keep writing collectivist, it makes me wonder if you’re a Red. You know, the kind who worships Soviet Communism. Perhaps, it’s the McCarthyism I could remember in the videos and it stuck with me. Nevermind, so let’s carry on.
Individual freedom can be coordinated, yes; but it cannot be the same as collective freedom. Here’s why. Everyone is different, has their own abilities, interests and disinterests, goals and dreams, ambitions, etc. That’s what makes the Western world so appealing to immigrants from third world countries where conformity is required and uniformity is the major theme.
The reasons you see the US Navy now the masters of the sea is because they have individuals who man those ships, such as Olly himself. They are individuals with their own convictions. One may like Marvel Comics. Others might like Satanism. Several others might like Aerosmith, MC Hammer, or some other band. That’s what separates them from the others, the civilians and those in other military branches. However, each individual is trained in their job that they’re taught in. They’re coordinating. It’s not collective freedom when they do it. They are working together as a team but are free as individuals themselves. The major difference is when they’re on the job, regulations are the major back-breaking book landing on those who are derelict in their duties. When they’re off the job, they can relax, be themselves.
To be collectively free, all need to be marching in the right direction, looking up to Dear Leader, saluting with complete precision, stoic at all costs and carrying a rifle given by collectivists. Shouting songs of their dear leader, they are collectively free because they are collectivists. But are they truly free? No. They believe they are and they perhaps are right because that’s how they see it. But with other countries, their idea of freedom is so alien that collectivists who believe in sharing freedom with uniformity think it’s an abomination. They can’t possibly dream that every person in a collective is unique, different.
One can only exist. Individual freedom is what shapes up America into the nation it is today. Collective freedom is what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union. I should know because Russians, who were formerly Soviet, said they had a great time living in the Soviet Union and were free. They told me they were free to do whatever they wanted and are much like the West. The problem with that is they are not aware of what the Soviet Union has done, as a collective, to those who don’t proscribe to the Party and the leadership involved.
On an unrelated note, there was a Russian man. He worked for Novosti, a Russian news agency. Did you know what he said when I remarked that some of the stuff that Russia has been printing isn’t true? “I don’t care. It is my job to present the information. If Putin tells me to do this, I do this. if Putin tells me to do that, I do that! No changing it, no modifying it. This is my job, regardless of whether the news is true or not.”
That’s the sad fact. He is contributing to a collective freedom at the expense of his critical thinking skills. In the majority, he would be well loved among his “comrades”. If he stood in the minority, he’ll be on the next train to a gulag in Siberia.
To end it, Collective Freedom only exists in Democracy if people, who believe in individual freedom, either perished, did not exist, or failed to prevent the “Collective Freedom” from existing for good reason. On the other hand, if the Collective Freedom existed, and individuals arose with the idea of Individual Freedom, The majority of the Collective Freedom will attack them, jail them, and imprison them. Do look to North Korea, China, and other places that have a collectivist mindset.
Texan:
So it”s true what the say about Dixie……
Wide open spaces surrounded by teeth.
I don’t think I have ever heard anything like this before so I’m a little taken aback.
I do agree that the two freedoms cannot co-exist but I don’t understand the Lamb of Liberty especially when in your case it was the creation of Revolutionary War and a Civil War in which America lost more people than in all your other wars combined.
Arming citizens in today’s world to resist an autocratic state is an interesting concept but you can’t shoot down a stealth bomber with a pop gun. Not even in Texas.
If a new civil war broke out sophisticated arms aircraft and tanks would be acquired and the shotguns and all the other stuff you play with at home would make very little difference. They have been sold to you by sharp business men wanting to prize you from the contents of your wallet. So it’s amazing so many are taken in by all this. If you are serious about what you say you really need to go out and buy an half a dozen aircraft carriers or something more useful.
You need to fight a war you can win.
As far as I understand it the Soviet Block has collapsed and Russia is probably now more right wing than you are. So you need to look for another enemy.
Maybe that resides in your own mind. There certainly is a lot of pent up aggression inside you.
If this could be channeled into a more positive project you could do very well.
I don’t agree that North Korea has a collectivist system. I think it is the opposite of this. It’s more Maoist/Trotskyism in that there is self gratification of a leader who exploits the people for his own gain. In other words the leader shows no interest at all in the people. They exist for his gratification. It kind of like the argument you are making.
You want what YOU want. But you want this at the expense of others.
The world doesn’t work like that. Two World Wars have been fought to prevent imposition of an individual’s wish over the people.
It is after all “we the people” rather than “I the person”.
What I don’t understand is how “I the person” can be introduced into a democracy. There are too many against you I think.
You appear to advocating a Trotskyist System of control or as system of Anarchy with the abolishion of government. Is that how you see this working. It seems to me your ideas will have to be established by force? And if so who does this promote individual freedom? It promotes YOUR individual freedom but no one else’s. And if so how is this individual freedom for all? You see the paradox? What you are saying is physically impossible.
So your viewpoint needs some thought. And if you make the wrong choice it will be oblivion.
But there again your position could be just a “sock person” wind up? And you are making this posting to make the British look good?
Because it is difficult to believe that you are really serious.
Those pointing the finger have three more pointing right back at them, so the old saying goes…
The quesion remains, who among those who use their real names also use sock puppets on occasion? Using one’s real name doesn’t mean diddly squat.
Ninan
I have a good view of the British** After all….we are basically cousins and share the same history. I had great times when visiting England. The people (the ones I met) are very nice.
**Well…….Except for some of the cooking 🙂 The Irish aren’t much better either in the culinary departments. Can’t say about Scotland, having not had the opportunity to visit.
DBQ:
There is a saying:
The Englishman is a self made man who worships his maker.
The Scotsman gets what he wants and anything else he can lay his hands on.
The Welsh pray on their knees on Sunday – and on their neighbours the rest of the week.
And the Irishman never knows what he wants but is always prepared to die fighting for it.
As far as food is concerned thankfully because of the scale of immigration it is really good now. As long as you don’t eat English.
They say a Frenchman lives to eat and an Englishman eats to live.
So you may want to bring a burger…..🍔
I don’t think I’ve ever had a bad meal in the USA. I just can’t make myself understood. Maybe I need to wear a pair of jeans – but to be honest I’ve never worn a pair. Such is an English man abroad….
ninny –
The Irishman knows exactly what he wants, the English and Scots out of Ireland.
So your real name might not be Dust Bunny Queen after all ? I was too polite to ask you before. How did you get to choose your name?
LOL ninanpeckitt
You got me. Yup. Dust Bunny Queen is not my real name. 🙂 I chose it because it is indicative of my priorities in life and “obsessively” cleaning my house is not one of those. I had an aunt who was Mrs. Super Clean with everything in plastic. You were afraid to touch anything in her house. My house is clean, but lived in.
Plus I have a blog that talks about the dust bunnies that can collect in your mind. Those ideas and thoughts that sort of just lay about in the back corners accumulating more dust until….cough cough…..you bring one or two of those dusty thoughts to light.
Truly. I cannot be a sock puppet. First because my writing style is always the same. Second: It seems to be a ridiculous thing to do…… And mostly, because it is too much work. Like those dust bunnies. They can lay around until I feel like getting into spring cleaning and it is too much work to make sock puppets.
LOL, Dr. Peckitt. Ms DBQueen is the expert on who is and isn’t a sockpuppet. Of course her real name is DirtBirdieQooqoo. Just kidding that’s not really her name.
DBQ:
I think you should nominate me to host the Tonight Show. It would change your views on the British. That’s for sure.
Dr. Peckitt, you been trying to make sense to the conservative nut jobs of this country for weeks now. You won’t, it’s an exercise in futility.
Not me. Look to your own buddies, DBQ, there are a couple that have used sock puppets on many occasions. Such hypocrites you folks are.
Inga – we are looking right at you when we are talking about multiple sockpuppets. Many of us still remember your attempt to pull off over 17 sock puppets in one day.
Paul, I’m looking right back at you.
But what is a sockpuppet? I’ve heard many Americanisms but this is a new one on me. She isn’t related to Shari Lewis by chance and Lamb Chop?
Yes. Related to Shari Lewis….in a way.
It is when a user creates multiple online names and does several things. First it is to disguise who the person is. They then might
1. argue with themselves. As if the puppets were talking to each other. Hence the sock puppet analogy
2. Attack their original or more well known user name and try to get people to have sympathy and take sides.
3. Support their other selves and praise each other.
4. Contribute weird and off topic posts to derail threads or to make their opponents look crazy
5. Troll the threads….like in #4.
6. Attach other posters while trying to maintain a position of innocence for the original/more well known user.
Since most people post anonymously, it is easy for some to create multiple personae….sock puppets.
We have had, in the past, one poster use almost 19 different sock puppets (new and different user names) in one day, to insult other posters and create chaos. It is a malicious activity meant to disrupt the dialogue and control the flow of dialogue.
I can’t possibly do a sock puppet since it is very difficult for me to change my writing style. The inability of many people to be able to disguise their personal style is one of the main reasons that sock puppets are generally outed.
Dust Bunny Queen:
Wow😨
So your real name might not be Dust Bunny Queen after all ? I was too polite to ask you before. How did you get to choose your name?
Well I never…. you could all be the same person. If this is really true I could write a classic paper for publication in the JAMA. It could be the biggest case of Multiple Personality Disorder ever reported and would of course explain delusional tentendencies that crop up with regularity.
It really never occurred to me that you could all be sock people.
Quite fascinating.
So when Paul talks about Freedom in the First 10 Amendments, I can ask why didn’t they get it right the first time?
Well I’ve certainly learned something tonight.
ninny – I am who I am. I use my own name. Several of us do. Just like you use your name (I think).
Paul C Schulte:
I have an unusual name. I am the only person I know who received a letter with a Miss and Esq on the envelope. And that was after I sent them a photograph.
So it would appear that I am not what I seem. But I am not a sock person.
“What happens in America is no game.”
ninian,
I can assure you there are many of us that understand we are currently fighting against the progressive collectivist cause and THIS IS NO GAME! Instead of engaging us you may try to figure out the motives of the sockpuppets (Palsy Schmutz) in this blog because they actually want to shut down meaningful debate. Question their motives; get their opinion. Good luck!
Olly: Glad its no Game not like the British played in the Norwthwest Frontier (The Great Game)….
Look what happened to Afghanistan in the end……
But what is a sockpuppet? I’ve heard many Americanisms but this is a new one on me. She isn’t related to Shari Lewis by chance and Lamb Chop?
Palsy Schmutz actually hasn’t said that much at the moment.
I must say you Americans have very colourful names – sorry colorful names. When in Rome and all that….
Tootle Pip for now and the best of luck to you too.
ninny – Google sockpuppet slang
That was a shameless plug, olly
Olly: What happens in America is no game. It influences the whole world. Whether we like it or not.
The level of debate is somewhat disturbing and this has been recognised by some bloggers.
If America descends into extremism (as determined by global opinion) this does not bode well for all of us. The worry is that some Americans notably those with the loudest voices do not see it this way. In fact the only way they do see things is their way, regardless of anything else. The inability to negotiate and compromise is not uncommon in the areas of conflict around the world and the results are there for all to see. America is not immune to this and she has to come up with a solution.
Unfortunately the difficulties in doing this go back to the concepts of freedom as determined by the Founding Fathers and that is the point I was trying to make. Unless evolution of these concepts are permitted the consequences may be dire.
I hope to God I’m wrong but history does seem to repeat itself.
“My suggestion is for you to move your opinions along to a blog that is unconcerned with facts.”
olly maintains precisely just such a blog.
“You have finally grasped what I am trying to explain.”
If that belief helps you sleep at night then so be it.
What you don’t grasp is the fact we do not need your encouragement nor do we need whatever you believe you are teaching. You are merely standing on the shoulders of many others before you. They are less clumsy in their approach and far more accurate in their analysis. My suggestion is for you to move your opinions along to a blog that is unconcerned with facts.
Either way, thanks for playing.
Yes ninian, it would be only fitting that you would believe we veterans of the United States Navy are taught that racism and hatred are the only way to live. That would be consistent with your view that America exists for collective and not individual freedom. What you have failed to grasp is true freedom is found at the individual level and lost at the collective. There is certainly a large segment of our society that supports the collectivist mantra but that does not and will not ever replace the natural right of individual freedom.
That being said, for some unknown reason you believe you are teaching us something new. You have simply been approaching it from a different direction and many in this blog recognize it for what it is. Your revisionist OPINION as to our Founding Fathers vision for these United States is an old argument. The absurd notion our nation was founded on collective freedom completely ignores the entire body of evidence we were actually founded on individual rights.The loss of individual freedom to the collective is a threat and precisely what another large segment of our society is fighting against; your approach has done nothing more than highlight the collectivist agenda.
Additionally, The difference between 18th century America and that of our 21st century version is that the progressive collectivists desire to strip individualism out of our culture. You can opine all you want about the original intent of our founding but the facts do not support anything you have been saying. Ultimately, we united under one constitution but that law doesn’t stop at the collective level, it was designed to provide a defense of rights all the way down to the individual. When that fails to be the rule of law as originally intended, then that will be the point where we will once again reject the ‘current’ form of government. It will get messy.
To Olly
You have finally grasped what I am trying to explain.
True (Individual) Freedom is incompatible with Collective Freedom.
Whether that “does not and will not ever replace the natural right of individual freedom” remains to be seen.
The country might not function without some change in this direction. There again it might. Who knows?
I’m not trying to teach you anything. Some of us are unteachable and some of us are….. Which ones you and I are of no importance.
I’m only trying to encourage everyone to think for themselves and not regurgitate that which is considered politically correct not just in respect to the patriotic origins of the USA but with everything. To make your OWN mind up, and not have it made up by others.
As the song goes “It aint Necessarily so…” and as I have made you so angry about it, I must have got close to a “bulls-eye” I think. When folks get angry, that’s when the truth is often revealed. So I think we are getting there – slowly….. ever so slowly.
This issue might have no importance at all – but there could just be a chance that understanding what really went on all those years may help America make the right decisions in the future, whatever that might mean.
If I turn out to be absolutely wrong in every respect it is of no matter.
But I’m sure we all hope that America makes the right choices.
Try waving a confederate flag so that they’ll know you come in peace
ninian: You have to understand that olly spent much of his life in the U.S. Navy, an organization rife with hatred and racism, and anti-social beliefs. I’m not sure whether something about the organization creates sociopaths from within or is merely attractive to them from all walks of life. Either way, olly’s not here to learn but to shore up his self-esteem by proving how well he has rationalized his antipathy for society. He is a tough case of confirmation-bias.
Palsey Schmutz:
Well knock me down with a Big Mac Whopper🍔. And I thought I might be starting to win him over. Shows up my naivety 😩
At least I tried.
We speak a very different language. I remember going into a hamburger joint? in Boston many years ago to place an order and the lady on the till couldn’t understand anything I said – and vice versa. It was the number of choices I didn’t understand. Ive never understood American Eggs for example. Someone took pity on me eventually and ordered what I wanted.
That night we tried to check into a hotel. My friend went in to ask the rate and his wife went to use the “John”. He came back to the car and I asked what the rate was….”they don’t do short stay he said. It’s $100k per year”.
“What do you mean?” I asked.
“It’s an Old People’s Home 😂” he said….
Just then lights and sirens started and we turned around and saw Margaret stuck in the revolving entrance door.
They thought she was a “runner”.
So America awaits our next visit with some trepidation I think.
I can’t wait and I will do my best to visit Paul and Olly and all the other Anglophiles !
Palsey Schmutz – is this you Chuck?
The point is ninian that you are trying to put forth a theory of collective freedom that does exist in a society that believes in individual rights. I will not explain to you again about cultural transformation nor will I again explain to you the difference between current and future state as it relates to the DoI. America was founded on the individual with regards to rights and it is unjust to withhold those rights for the collective.Even when it comes to national security, we still regard individual freedom and liberty when trying to implement measures that promote the common defense.
You can state all you want what you ‘believe’ America is but that does not make it so. Collective Freedom is an oxymoron in the eyes of the individualist. Individual freedom will always come first. The collectivists will always be at the gate though, but our individualism will always prevail. It’s in our DNA. This is what led to our first revolution and it will be what drives our second.
Olly:
Yes that’s exactly what I am doing. I am demonstrating that Individual Freedom and Collective Freedom cannot co-exist. But that Collective Freedom is essential in the creation of a Nation. And that’s how the world works – as a family on Nations. The alternative is Anarchy.
I am asking where does that leave America? It professes to have Individual Freedoms and I am trying to demonstrate that this isn’t the case.
I am unsure as to whether my argument isn’t being grasped or whether it is grasped and being binned because it does not fit in with preconceived ideas that you have been taught in school from an early age.
Maybe its a bit of both? But usually hostility occurs when you touch a nerve. And this has clearly happened with my blogs. This is good though because the truth is eventually revealed.
But it is an important issue as you are going to lose some Individual Freedom as a matter of National Security in the current climate of global terrorism. The public will be protected one way or another.
I am just trying to explain why this is happening and I have to say I am amazed at some of the vitriolic responses from individuals who are clearly not living in the Real World.
I think that no one in the democratic world wants to see America fail. But if there is a lack of insight it puts the United States in great danger. You have seen the pent up vitriolic hostility posted in this blog, and if this is typical of American public opinion an apoptopic process is well and truly underway.
Texan: So I want to know how concepts of Individual Freedom and Collective Freedom of Democracy can be reconciled in America.
If not how can individual freedom be co-ordinated to run a country at the exclusion of Collective Freedom. And if this is so isn’t co-ordinated individual freedom really the same as collective freedom?
It is my case that in democracy collective freedom prevails and that’s what you’ve got.
This defies the historical concepts of individual freedom.
On your side you want to talk about the civil war or anything else as long as you don’t have to answer the question.
ninny – the individual freedom you are so concerned about is in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and in state constitutions.