What about human nature? What about the murderers and bands of theives? Would they stop you from acheiving?

That is a pathetic assumption, right there. Any examples from reality to back that up? Any successful anarchy experiments on societies numbering in the millions?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

So it is not excessive authority if the executive branch just indefinitely locked up anyone they felt deserved it, but did not execute them? And it was at the executive's discretion to decide when judicial review was warranted? I'm sure you know that our federal government was constructed upon the idea of separation of powers, and that putting the executive branch ahead of the checks of other branches is a slippery and dangerous slope.

As for your question, it is obviously loaded and I don't see how it really touches on this subject. Obviously such an event is a tragedy, but a tragedy should not be used to justify a semi-police state (not that I'm claiming that the US is at the point right now, though I'm sure an argument could be/has been made). A boost to the national-security state is certainly a "logical" solution to a national threat, but that does not make it the sole solution or even the best one. I'm no policymaker though.

I do agree that terrorism is a threat to which nation-states have to respond, and that conventional means are not necessarily the best means; however, when such a time for change becomes apparent, there are those out there who are poised for a power grab, and those out there that are fine with that. I don't know much about the Patriot Act, except that it is hugely controversial, so I can't really comment on it specifically. I just thought your comment about the rearrangement of the sequence of events was curious, not to mention dangerously acquiescent.

I guess I'm a part of the bandwagon that concurs there is a see-saw sort of relationship between liberty and security, and that an extreme on either side is not the best situation for mankind. The widespread argument over the Patriot Act just seems to be based upon where exactly that see-saw should be settled right now. Do you think that the Patriot Act is just right, perhaps, or has not gone far enough?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Now stop your rhetoric. You take most of my post apart and answer only to that which you take out of context. No reason to answer you at all. You seem to finly ignore this that came right after what you quoted:
Liberty can be impossible since we will be from the laws of nature if you'd like, but liberty is something that exists within the scope of humans.

What exactly was it that was so wrong about it? You seem to push one hellofa strawman here. That anarchism is the most extreme of liberty doesn't imply it is desirable - wheter it is desirable or not is a complete different discussion. You try to make my look I want anarchy and call me a fool for it... as said, totally different discussion.

You're making yourself look like a fool. I never said the world hasn't changed much, I said it was the same themes (problems) now as it was then. How much/little freedom we should have is something humans will probably discuss for all eternity, or as long as we exist anyway.

You can say football has changed alot in a hundred years (all the players, the suits, the teams, meterial etc.) but I'd doubt you'd call it a new game for that reason.


Oh, and:
0,0001 cm (small change)/ 1 day (little time)
lots of history (huge change)/ 300 years (much time)

Does it make it easier for you? Use the football analogy from now on, I guess you can understand that better?

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

and then you say
it was you who implied that nothing has changed since the 17th century, thematically wise, and then you try and make fun of me by pretending i came up with the dumb hair analogy! priceless. perhaps reality is much different than your 'thematic' framework?

Dont try to get personal with me just because i am critical of your views. Its OK buddy, this is a discussion board in the middle of cyberspace.

I simply implied that liberty means different things to different people, and you insist on generic and theoretical absolute definitions, and i take the path of critically analyzing reality. sorry.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean there hasn't been change since the 17th century, but I said the change isn't complete. Let's make it clearer:

300 years ago we fought for land/subjects/resources. Today we fight for oil/political agenda/ideologies etc. But we still fight for it, as in war. We still lie to our citizens/subjects to do it (now we use ideology and before we used religion, although there are exceptions both ways). Now as then, it is the people/inhabitants that die, not the people sending them to war, wheter a theocracy or democracy. So the pattern is still there, the actual change isn't really that big. That was my point.

Well, I'm a little hesitant to agree to this. I think you might have a broader idea of liberty, as in liberty including rights, and privileges (which does need protection). As I said, i my eyes, complete liberty means no organization/state/whatever to restrict your liberties. When no such organ that can restrict them exists, liberty is at its fullest. That doesn't mean that is the most desirable form of liberty. Much like alcohol.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I understand your point. Broad themes are still relevant, however it is in how these agendas, wars, and societies are constructed, governened, and mobilized where all the change has occurred, and i beleive enough to where we ought to start thinking for ourselves instead of looking back to the 'enlightenment.' In other words, the patterns still exist, but their execution and details have changed, perhaps arguably beyond recognition. For example, the nuclear age has encouraged superpowers to engage eachother in very different ways, including proxy wars, covert ops, etc.


Point taken. However, some do understand their 'liberty' as privaledges and rights. You are correct, liberty in its most simple definition is freedom to do whatever you want. The underlying point here is, which gets back to my criticism of hobbes, people gain much more than they lose when they 'trade' a little liberty for security, even if they don't like to accept it. We all know what would happen in a 'total liberty' situation. Life would be unpredictable, unstable, and unprotected. People would begin to form various relationships and alliances with others, which would slowly evolve into government. Choosing government is a rational choice.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Why is that? Because both "live in the closet?" (Veiled Ted Haggard/Jeff Guckert Gannon/Mark Foley/ad nauseum joke. . .)

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

How can you keep buying the Bush administrations scare tactics?

Give up your first Amendment rights, throw away Habeus Corpus, and dismiss the Geneva conventions.

These people have proven they can't be trusted with more powers. Just look at how they conducted themselves in the U.S. Attorney firings.

They fire loyal Republicans, who had stellar reviews as prosecutors because they aren't loyal Bushies.

Don't give me they "serve at the pleasure of the president baloney", any president with a glimmer of moral fiber does not ask a U.S. Attorney to let guilty suspects go free if they are party loyalists and hound suspects without evidence because they are party antagonists.

....i wonder if geneva conventions apply to animals...

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

I see the potential for terrorism in the United States as a reality. Call me crazy
not sure what you are talking about here, because i exercise my first amendment rights on daily/weekly basis.
Look at how every presidential administration has fired US attorneys.
I think in Washington, they call that politics, its been going for, oh i dont know, 200 years now!

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

my main beef with neocons are their social agenda's: banning welfare, banning abortion, moral mandates (what is/is not art, for example).
i side with them in regards to gun ownership.
Some 'neocons' believe government should have less power. I agree with this sentiment, except I find it contradicts their initiatives to outlaw abortion and such.
Thats just my response to the OP.

__________________

Neoconservatism is actually a virus that infects weak-minded humans. The virus is spread when a human encounter things that can move and sway weak minded humans. For example, many evangelicas have been know to spread the neoconservatism virus, but the virus can also be spread at conservative rallies, or Patrick Henry College.

A neocon is a person whose soul and mind are consumed and destroyed by the neoconservatism virus. Once both are destroyed the virus causes the human's body and behavior to change. Behaviorally, neocons will hide behind smoke and mirrors to hide their socially conservative agenda while at the same time seeking to make as much profit as possible without being held accountable for their actions. Their actions and behavior will never take into account the general well being of anyone whom they don't consider their peers. Neocons are found almost exclusively in the Republican Party, but Hillary Clinton is also a neocon. Most neocons develop bluish-gray skin, thinning hair and an emaciated look. Because of their unusual looks many have been known to slay humans and then wear the victim's skin to blend into society.

See below for some images of neocons.


Here's a neocon without the human skin.



Here's a neocon wearing a human's skin.
Neocon.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Could you name one that fits this?

Neoconservatives are believers in big-government - that is a core position of their ideology - it is necessary for enacting their big ideas and big policies to remake the world.

I thought I might attach this link, just so everyone could be sure how truly twisted their view point of society and humanity actually is.

YouTube - 1. The Neocons - Ideology and Fantasy (part 1 of 14)

And to think their ideal is currently at the top of the pile.

hmm... i consider myself a neo con. and i dont apply to any of those topics.. except gun ownership. maybe reducing welfare dependence and government.. but thats about it.

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7