Log in

No account? Create an account
26 April 2013 @ 09:57 pm
A sobering view...  
This is from a guy on a local forum. He's not a tinfoil hat wearing anti government nut job, he's generally reasonable, thoughtful, and not particularly inflammatory.

    ... we don't have liberty. What we have is anonymity masquerading as freedom. When the lifeless eye of government falls on us we find out that we are just serfs absent an attentive master. In the recent gun control debates, Dick Durbin (D, IL) said "None of these rights are absolute, none of them." A right that is not absolute is just a privilege waiting to be taken away.

    Now you can say that everyone in Watertown complied willingly, that there was no order to stay inside, just a strong suggestion. But as a practical matter there is little difference. The man who flaunts the suggestion gets noticed. The anonymity falls, and rights go with them.

I realize it's a bit of a dramatic warning, but I really can't fault with it.
Liquid Tension Movementperspicuity on April 27th, 2013 03:02 am (UTC)
i seem to know a LOT of people, many of whom are not North Coasters, never lived here, never will.

Boston for them was a non-event

For Bostonians, who already perhaps traumatized by having a Logan plane hit NYC... and then this? really hard to say...

though i'm noticing that DURING the even, a lot of "oh noes, the police are bad, and mean, and we're afraid and i'm having panic attacks" as well as "ho hum, i can work at home, carry on" and even "don't like it, but what can we do?"

a lot of those same people are VERY VERY VERY angry now. not at the govt. somewhat at the bombers. but definitely at anyone that suggests they were under martial law, and took it like sheep.

"oh hell no, we're bad ass and independent".

hard to reconcile.

if your rights are taken away at the point of a gun, it's not so much about rights, as force. the govt just showing they have it. laws don't mean much then. lawyer up if you survive.

interesting facts are coming out. the next few weeks should be ... interesting. one of which "boat guy was NOT armed with a gun, he did not engage in a fire fight, so... wtf?"

that said: many people told the police to frakk off, and they were not searched. anyone that opened the door, opened themselves to scrutiny - many were escoreted at gun point from their homes. the police message was "do not open the door to anyone but the police"; what they should have said was "do not open the door to anyone, at all, who has a gun, period, full stop; do not talk to the police"

Co-conspirator of Squeemuffyjo on April 27th, 2013 01:53 pm (UTC)
I find it an interesting branch of anarchy with democracy. If you want to be "free" in the sense the author means, you won't elect someone to lead you, you won't ask anyone else to "take charge" and you will simply be in charge of you at all times and therefore, "free" because no one gets to tell you what to do or when to do it.

When our founding fathers demanded our independence, it was as a society, with leaders who could see the big picture and who could help steer us. We have the opportunity to lead, or to choose leaders ourselves instead of "God" ordaining them by DNA based on royalty.

So I think it is important to not lose track of the purpose of what "freedom" is. It's not to do and act as we feel like, that is for anarchists who don't want to live with others and who don't want to respect other people's boundaries. It is the ability to live within a society that allows us to participate in the decisions made for that society. Freedom is being able to form the rules within the structures of a society and, if you don't like them, binding together with others to propose alternatives. It's not being ruled by a king or queen or church.

So I guess I find a lot at fault with it. Mostly with the understanding of what "liberty" means. Some people want it to mean "outside of the context of society" and that ignores my boundaries in a way I'd like not to ignore theirs.