Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[oldbadger]

The right to property has decreased since the 1920's, the right to privacy has decreased since the 1970's, the right to keep and bear arms has decreased since the 1930's, the freedom of the press has decreased since 2000s, the right to be free from unreasonable search has declined since the 2000s, the right to free speech has declined sine the 2000s, the right to to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has declined since the 2000s, the privilege of writing of habeas corpus has often been on shaky grounds, (and recent times have proved no exception) and I am sure we can find many more examples. While this process is sometimes understandable the more recent erosion post 9/11 has certainly been exponential. In fact many of the past erosion could have been viewed as a refining process in which some rights were chipped away for legitimate interests while others were built up in a process which tried to value the rights with a countries needs. With 9/11 the needs of the country seemed to increase largely regarding government reach and government security.

Hmmmm......... reads as if your country is just descending downhill...... sorry to hear that.

I am more curious how you cannot see this?

Things must be bad......... you even want to interrogate folks who ask questions!
It's probably because I don't live in America, I suppose.

The UK is as-good-as or better than, say, the twenties or at any time before.

 

[Curious George]

Hmmmm......... reads as if your country is just descending downhill...... sorry to hear that.


Things must be bad......... you even want to interrogate folks who ask questions!
It's probably because I don't live in America, I suppose.

The UK is as-good-as or better than, say, the twenties or at any time before.

Well regarding the quality of life we can find arguments for and against it being "better." Even with civil rights there have been areas of improvement. Your question was concerning how civil liberties have been eroded. If you ask about the downside, you are only going to hear about the downside. The harder question regards the necessity of this erosion. What level is necessary what level is excessive? From my understanding, these trends toward increased security, surveillance, and civil rights violations are not unique to the U.S. Though I admit, I am not familiar with legislation and legal decisions abroad.

I by no means intend to paint an Orwellian State or a land ruled by martial law. But one cannot ignore that civil rights are in some areas distinctly less than at other times in history.

Is this not also the case in the U.K.?

 

[oldbadger]

. ................................ From my understanding, these trends toward increased security, surveillance, and civil rights violations are not unique to the U.S. Though I admit, I am not familiar with legislation and legal decisions abroad.

How can increased security and surveillance be bad?
The UK has more public and private CCTV coverage than any other country in the World, and all adding to our personal safety and reassurance. How can that be bad? Obviously bad folks must hate it!

And IT is catching out more corruption and crime in every part of commerce, industry, local and national government, services etc etc...... which does mean that folks might try to be a bit better behaved now. But obviously bad bosses and officials must hate it!

I by no means intend to paint an Orwellian State or a land ruled by martial law. But one cannot ignore that civil rights are in some areas distinctly less than at other times in history.

Oh that's sad..... for you. Over here we are just about to get our Human Rights Legislation back when we leave Europe, and a very good lump of law that is.
And our Equality Act 2010 brings (brought) together all previous legislation covering protection for all, regardless of nationality, race, colour, creed, religion, gender, marital status, sexuality, age, ability/disability and more........... so not too bad there, either.
And we now have minimum wage for all employees which the government is 'watch-dogging' to catch out any offenders.

Is this not also the case in the U.K.?

It's my perception that the UK is OK, my only niggle being that when, in 2015, I applied to a few home improvement companies for a 'commission-only' 'self-acquired-leads' 'self-employed' job with them so that I could work for a couple of hours each afternoon (I'm retired but can get bored) ........ work that I was once very good at, I discovered that they could not let me do that anymore because self-employed sales-persons now have to have a regular basic-weekly-pay which means that such companies can only work with full time employees, sadly. Sometimes the cotton-wool insulation can get a bit stuffy!!!

And whereas 40 years ago I used to build sea rowing boats and just row far across the estuary to see my father at an island on the other side I certainly wouldn't just 'do' that even if I still had the physique for it because the Coastguard's radar can detect individual seagulls out there now ( !!! ) and such eccentric behaviour would surely attract very close attention! Maybe it's good thing that such activity is more difficult now, because I still freeze up at memory of some of the wickedly close shaves I used to get into out there. Was totally daft, which might explain quite a lot to you now.....

 

[Curious George]

How can increased security and surveillance be bad?
The UK has more public and private CCTV coverage than any other country in the World, and all adding to our personal safety and reassurance. How can that be bad? Obviously bad folks must hate it!

And IT is catching out more corruption and crime in every part of commerce, industry, local and national government, services etc etc...... which does mean that folks might try to be a bit better behaved now. But obviously bad bosses and officials must hate it!


Oh that's sad..... for you. Over here we are just about to get our Human Rights Legislation back when we leave Europe, and a very good lump of law that is.
And our Equality Act 2010 brings (brought) together all previous legislation covering protection for all, regardless of nationality, race, colour, creed, religion, gender, marital status, sexuality, age, ability/disability and more........... so not too bad there, either.
And we now have minimum wage for all employees which the government is 'watch-dogging' to catch out any offenders.


It's my perception that the UK is OK, my only niggle being that when, in 2015, I applied to a few home improvement companies for a 'commission-only' 'self-acquired-leads' 'self-employed' job with them so that I could work for a couple of hours each afternoon (I'm retired but can get bored) ........ work that I was once very good at, I discovered that they could not let me do that anymore because self-employed sales-persons now have to have a regular basic-weekly-pay which means that such companies can only work with full time employees, sadly. Sometimes the cotton-wool insulation can get a bit stuffy!!!

And whereas 40 years ago I used to build sea rowing boats and just row far across the estuary to see my father at an island on the other side I certainly wouldn't just 'do' that even if I still had the physique for it because the Coastguard's radar can detect individual seagulls out there now ( !!! ) and such eccentric behaviour would surely attract very close attention! Maybe it's good thing that such activity is more difficult now, because I still freeze up at memory of some of the wickedly close shaves I used to get into out there. Was totally daft, which might explain quite a lot to you now.....

No defence: the erosion of PACE rights - The Justice Gap

Thoughts?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Wanting to live in a Sharia state isn't that nuanced of a question.

But is that the way the question was worded in these polls? The nuances of wording can make all the difference.

Regardless of the varieties of Sharia that exist, it boils down to the simple idea that laws come from Allah, not from men.

That is true. But you can be for the idea that you should live according to what Allah has said in relation to family law, say, but much less comfortable about what Allah has said in relation to criminal law, say, especially the so-called Hudud punishments.

I think your defense of Muslims is painting them like simpletons. I reiterate that my orientation is to take people at their word

And I reiterate that that is not how I view Muslims at all. In fact, my point is a broader one about polls and surveys in general. One has to look carefully at the way questions have been worded, and arguably also not only people's varying understandings of what the subject means but also who is asking the questions/has commissioned the poll/survey and how they might be perceived by the respondents - that can also make a difference to how these things should be understood.

especially when their word is consistent with the evidence in the world.

Please explain what you mean here.

 

[icehorse]

Please explain what you mean here.

In response to the claim that many Muslims want to live under Sharia, here's an article that looks at Muslim majority countries around the world. The bottom line is that very few have democracies that function well:

https://www.quora.com/Which-Muslim-majority-countries-are-the-most-democratic

The larger point (to me at least), is that it's a mistake to think of Islam as just another religion. It is a totalitarian ideology that happens to have a religious facet. And because of that, it shouldn't be surprising that so many Muslims, given the degree to which Muslim societies indoctrinate their children, want Sharia. About half of the world's Muslims perform the 5-times-a-day prayer. Any cognitive scientist will tell you that this extremely repetitive practice will lock the messages into the performer's brain. This is not about poorly worded polls, this is common sense.

 

[shmogie]

Where do you see 'unborn fetus' in the following legal definition of a person:

"A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised."

Since an unborn fetus is incapable of having rights and of being charged with duties, it cannot be a person, according to the legal definition by Black's Law given above. On the contrary, it must have rights exercised over it by persons who are capable of having rights and charged with duties. Legally, then, it is a 'thing', as defined by law.



From the POV of the mother, she is fully expecting to bring the pregnancy to term. She has expectations of bringing up a person. In this sense, the unborn fetus is a potential person. The father and would-be siblings also have these expectations. Double murder makes sense in this case. But in the case of an abortion, the mother is doing and thinking exactly the opposite. She has no expectation of bringing the pregnancy to term in order to raise a child into a person, and it is her right to make that decision. There is no malice here as there is in a murder. In fact, I would guess that in most cases, it pains the mother horribly to make this decision.

If a vandal destroys a sculptor's work in progress which he fully expects to bring to completion, especially if it is a commissioned work for which he is expecting monetary gain, that is one thing. But if the sculptor destroys the work himself, that is another. It is, at all times, HIS creation.[/QUOTE Lets take your definition, which, for the most part is wrong. Does a baby a second after birth have any rights? Do people who would be considered vegetables have any rights ? Severely mentally challenged people ? They can't assume any responsibilities or duty's, are they just things ? Can they just be liquidated at someone else's will ? NO
They have the inherent, God given, natural, right to life. This right is TOTALLY protected by the Constitution.

According to what you believe, a second before birth a baby is of no value, may be killed, and it's life means nothing.

Why does a matter of seconds have control of a person being a thing, or not ? Do you think this is logical, or legal if not screened by privacy ? BTW, Blacks isn't a final authority, and it's concepts are at times negated at trial, or in University law discussions in class. I assure you, when one of these exemplar murders occurs, the investigating officer and the DA's office don't ask the mother if she intended to bring her baby to term, before they decide to file charges. It is irrelevant. Her intent means nothing, the murderer's does.

You failed to address my question regarding babies born alive in a botched abortion who are ignored and left to die. Could the medical people responsible do the same legally to a living baby they discover in a trash can ? NO. Other than being screened by privacy, what is the difference ? As I stated elsewhere, though morally repugnant to me to me, my morality regarding abortion is irrelevant, the law is what counts. Therefore, making the argument that aborting an embryo because it is a human would be a reach for the secular. However, there can be no doubt that a being with a functioning brain, beating heart, etc. is a human. Therefore I support abortion in the first trimester, or in extremely serious circumstances.

To reiterate, In the Declaration of Independence the very FIRST right that can never be abridged is The RIGHT TO LIFE. This right applies to every person, born or unborn.

Saying you just have to look the other way as this right is ignored is a bizarre finding.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

In response to the claim that many Muslims want to live under Sharia, here's an article that looks at Muslim majority countries around the world. The bottom line is that very few have democracies that function well:

https://www.quora.com/Which-Muslim-majority-countries-are-the-most-democratic

But no Muslim majority country in the world operates according to the standards of Sharia (in its entirety).

 

[shmogie]

The right to property has decreased since the 1920's, the right to privacy has decreased since the 1970's, the right to keep and bear arms has decreased since the 1930's, the freedom of the press has decreased since 2000s, the right to be free from unreasonable search has declined since the 2000s, the right to free speech has declined sine the 2000s, the right to to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has declined since the 2000s, the privilege of writing of habeas corpus has often been on shaky grounds, (and recent times have proved no exception) and I am sure we can find many more examples. While this process is sometimes understandable the more recent erosion post 9/11 has certainly been exponential. In fact many of the past erosion could have been viewed as a refining process in which some rights were chipped away for legitimate interests while others were built up in a process which tried to value the rights with a countries needs. With 9/11 the needs of the country seemed to increase largely regarding government reach and government security.

I am more curious how you cannot see this?

I agree with most of what you have written, but the right to be free of cruel and unusual punish has diminished ? Except for, perhaps, prisoner overcrowding, I don';t see how this could be true. Crooks call a prison term a visit to the country club, and it is.

 

[shmogie]

But no Muslim majority country in the world operates according to the standards of Sharia (in its entirety).

Perhaps. But they make life hell for non muslims. Christians, Sikh's, Bahai, and others are very often murdered in pogroms promulgated by muslim government, or by imam's in the local mosque. Looking the other way is the habit of authorities in these country's.

 

[icehorse]

But no Muslim majority country in the world operates according to the standards of Sharia (in its entirety).

who cares?

(I mean really, this seems like a distinction without a difference, no?)

If you want me to take your response seriously, then I think it's fair for me to ask you this: "How much Sharia is okay with you?"

 

[shmogie]

who cares?

(I mean really, this seems like a distinction without a difference, no?)

If you want me to take your response seriously, then I think it's fair for me to ask you this: "How much Sharia is okay with you?"

ZERO

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Go back and re read your definition of a person very carefully.

I never gave you a definition of person.

Furthermore, I've told you repeatedly that it doesn't matter to me how you define a person - that calling an embryo a person doesn't change the moral argument.

Furthermore, you keep conflating the legal and moral arguments. For the fifth or tenth time, I repeat: I don't care about legalisms or semantics.

My only interest in the law is that it support the moral argument I made, which is that I believe that a woman should have the right to choose if her early term or life-threatening pregnancy goes to term, not the church using the power of the state. And at this point in time, that is the position of the law as well.

Since you refuse to even acknowledge that this is my position, and continue returning to you legalistic and semantically charged appeals to emotion, we are at an impasse here.

Do you even have a moral argument here - one based in right and wrong rather than what you think the constitution and statutes referring to persons say? See if you can state one without using legalism and without resorting to words like murder, baby, and child to refer to legal feticide. Try using neutral language rather than emotive language, and see if you can still make a moral argument.

I think that the best you can do is to say the opposite of what I did - that you think it is right and good that the church impose its values on all American women, Christian or not, and make lawful feticide a crime again because you feel that the value of the life of the fetus outweigh the needs and wishes of the pregnant woman.

And if that is correct, we are done with this issue. Note though, that you are attempting to contract rights of Americans to protect embryos and fetuses.

The baby is both a human and has rights

Back to the legal, and to the maudlin, lugubrious language? OK - lets look at the llegal for awhile

What rights does the fetus have? According to you, these are enumerated in the Constitution. If you're going to refer to your personhood statues relating to whether one person or two were killed when a pregnant woman and her fetus are both killed, then by your own reckoning, being born is but a privilege not guaranteed by any right.

Can I play? The fetus isn't a citizen. Let's make that word the focal point of the discussion instead of person, human, baby, child, or murder. Therefore, not being a citizen, the fetus has no rights.

Do you see what I did there? I just dismissed your entire argument using semantics and a legalism. Are you willing to let that happen? Probably not. I'm petty sure that you're going to claim that that distinction is irrelevant. If so, welcome to my world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Now, do you understand why the Supreme court under warren didn´t address the very issue you are harping about ? It could´t. These laws already established an unborn child as a person.

If laws did it, it's a privilege, remember? Recall when I said that if the speed limit was increased from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, drivers just acquired the right to drive 60 MPH, and you quickly pointed out that that was a privilege, not a right, according to a legal definition. Well, now you're claiming that statute confer rights.

And the law can revoke privileges. The speed limit can be lowered again, and the statues regarding the personhood of embryos and fetuses superseded.

l Agree with you in part, in that all rights, as Jefferson said, come from the creator

I don't.

What creator? Where is it, and where is the list of rights it granted us?

Why did nobody have them until a certain group of people got together, debated them, wrote them out, went to war to get them, continued to fight to defend them, established police systems to enforce them and courts to interpret them, and provided a mechanism to amend them?

What was this creators role in any of that?

Why didn't man have these rights from the outset? Why did they not exist through the Middle Ages, when the Christian god allegedly proclaimed that the king ruled under its authority and was to be obeyed? Why do so many people still not have these rights?

Couching these rights as god given was likely a necessary ploy to manufacture consent for a revolution against the king in defiance of scripture. What else can you tell people that believe the following:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

Many have speculated, and I agree, that the majority was afraid to do this, for fear of backlash, or their own conscienceś. Like Pilate, they found a way to conveniently wash their hands of the matter.

Wash their hands of what matter? You seem to think that those justices share your values, and travailed over the matter, losing sleep for months or years thereafter wracked in guilt.

I'll bet not. They may have had some misgivings coming to a decision, but they undoubtedly did what they considered was right and moved on.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you murder something that isn´t a human ? If you can murder an unborn baby, does that not make it human with that most basic natural right, the right to life ?

Where is the right of a fetus or embryo to be born into a home in which you are not wanted enumerated? Please show me the amendment

Who's making up rights now?

A total legal pool of stupidity to me that will continually be attacked and be controversial and an area of conflict till resolved.

Yes, as long as the church has the cultural hegemony to mount this attack, it will continue. The church cannot be a good neighbor in a pluralistic society and coexist with people of other values, allowing them to choose abortion even if they think their god disapproves. Like kudzu, it incessantly tries to pierce the wall separating church and state and spread through government to impose its will on all.

You may recall the ARIS and Pew data I presented to you here recently showing the decline in those in America self-identifying as Christian since 1990, which trend predicts minority status for Christians by the late 2030's, at which time, the church can begin to join the Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Druids, and all of the rest of the religious groups that have nno say over how America works, but only over how their own lives work as it should be.

How do pagans into the Viking pantheon think Odin feels about abortion? Yeah, me neither. And neither of us likely care.

When Christianity reaches that point, the conflict you describe will cease.

I have addressed every argument you have made. I have learned that you are so frustrated because I refuse to accept your terminology.

I'm not frustrated. Why should I be? Abortion is safe and legal in America.

Also, I don't care if you accept my terminology. I'm telling you that I reject yours.

You refuse to look at the only thing that truly matters, the law.

I've told you why. And I've discussed legal issues with you in this post anyway.

Also, I think you meant the only thing that matters to you. The moral argument matters more to me.

I have asked you simple legal questions regarding the humanity of an unborn baby, you self servingly ignore them because the answers put the lie to your positions.

How does anything I do here serve myself? I am not a candidate for an abortion in America (or anywhere else). This is a perfectly selfless campaign. I'm male and not living in the States.

I ignore your questions about humanity because I have already conceded that a human fetus is human, and not a factor in the moral equation. The argument is the same if applied to a dog. What makes aborting a litter of puppies moral or immoral? Does it become moral because they are not human? Those aren't my values.

As to islam being the same as Christianity´ ön paper¨ I have responded with what is written ¨on paper"'about the matter. That particular ball is completely in your court.

Spoiler: off topic digression

I didn't see a response to my detailed description of the commonalities between the two religions, which you seemed to have dismissed out of hand, or to my claim that the major difference between how Christians in the States and Saudis in Saudi Arabia live was not due to differences in the religions, but the presence or absence of a few centuries of humanism in the West.

I also suggested that had the American colonies remained theocratic and the Arabs gotten the humanist constitution and formed a secular state, that it would be the Christians pushing homosexuals off of towers and burning blasphemers alive in cages as Arabs lived lives resembling American lives.

Then I introduced the dominionists, who are indistinguishable from the ayatollah's, and who would lead America back into that darkness if able, You scoffed that I pointed at extremists, but those are the people that run authoritarian governments.

The entire response I recall seeing from you the scoffing at the dominionists, and a sentence or two using the words absurd and ignorance. There was no rebuttal to my argument, nor an argument of your own. Unrebuted, naturally my position is unchanged, and it feels well supported.

There is no ball in either court on this matter now. I've made my case and you've opted to ignore it and claim that you didn't. Some might call that the ball being in your court, but we both know that this game is over.

 

[Religious questioner]

Mapped: The world's most (and least) free countries

Is freedom on the rise, or is it in Decline?

There is no doubt the United States has lost a fair amount of freedom the past few decades and has slipped in it's ratings as a free and open country.

Opinions?

The pride in the United States is honor and loyalty we showed that through out the existence of this wonderful country, maybe if we trust that we will break the breakdowns and exceed expectations even more we might not need to worry about being free

 

[Religious questioner]

Care to substantiate that claim?

Or maybe the citizens should respect the fact that they are most likely safe unlike others out there, and if there is freedom, then they would let us help and be free and I may be wrong about this but I do not fear that people won’t use their freedom incorrectly

 

[oldbadger]

No defence: the erosion of PACE rights - The Justice Gap

Thoughts?

Oh I didn't even have to read the link.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (circa 1985) defined exact Police Procedures for all Constabularies in England and Wales and they have to be followed.............! Not much erosion there.

But the Police 'Caution' (Miranda?) was adjusted several years later to address situations where crime suspects just refuse to answer questions or speak. Previously the Caution was spoken to the suspect immediately at the point where suspicion (or arrest) became evident, something like : You do not have to say anything but anything that you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you.

And so some suspects just refused to answer questions, which they some time later decided to give answers to Court, Police or whoever. Our Parliament decided that such gaps needed to be closed and so the Police Caution was changed to (something close to): You do not have to say anything., but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now which you decide to rely on later (in Court?).

And so now where suspects who have information which could help an investigation withold it, they cannot so easily decide later to suddenly tell a Jury, Magistrate or judge all about it.

Fair enough, I'd say.

In the UK many offences where convicts get fines, or probation, community service or home-gaiting would end up in Prison in the USA.................. we are mostly amazed at how easily one can get jailed or imprisoned there! And we repeatedly hear about convicts being able to pay bail to get out of jail in the S, a kind of bail which is different from ours. Pay the fine or do the time............... if we cannot pay the fine a Court can agree to a payment scheme.

And over here we don't get arrests noted on to our Criminal Records...... thus influencing many careers and Jobs, we only get Court Convictions or Police Cautions (where a crime has been admitted) on our records.

The UK is a much more reasonable place imo.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Perhaps. But they make life hell for non muslims. Christians, Sikh's, Bahai, and others are very often murdered in pogroms promulgated by muslim government, or by imam's in the local mosque. Looking the other way is the habit of authorities in these country's.

Oh I agree, but to be fair, that isn't Sharia.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

The larger point (to me at least), is that it's a mistake to think of Islam as just another religion. It is a totalitarian ideology that happens to have a religious facet. And because of that, it shouldn't be surprising that so many Muslims, given the degree to which Muslim societies indoctrinate their children, want Sharia.

It's defenders would say it's a complete religion, rather than a totalitarian ideology. And arguably all societies 'indoctrinate' their children in the set of values that they hold to be important.

About half of the world's Muslims perform the 5-times-a-day prayer. Any cognitive scientist will tell you that this extremely repetitive practice will lock the messages into the performer's brain. This is not about poorly worded polls, this is common sense.

Do you know what the content of the 5-times-daily prayer actually is? It doesn't lock in messages any different from those of other religions.