Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Smoking bans, metal detectors and seat belts were all commons sense laws put in place for safety and health, giving up those freedoms were well worth the price, same with gun control.
How about we limit your freedom of speech as well?
Smoking bans, metal detectors and seat belts were all commons sense laws put in place for safety and health, giving up those freedoms were well worth the price, same with gun control.
Hitler's persecution of the Jews was done "for the greater good".
The internment of Japanese Americans in WW2 was done "for the greater good".
Everything that Saddam Hussein did as a despotic, psychotic dictator was done "for the good of the people".
When are you going to wake up and realize that the government - any government - does not have your best interests at heart? We don't need any more laws designed to protect us from ourselves and cause us to fear the government. What we need to go back to is a government - or at least government officials - which fears the people's reaction to their stupidity. That is what made this country great for 200 years.
Hitler's persecution of the Jews was done "for the greater good".
The internment of Japanese Americans in WW2 was done "for the greater good".
Everything that Saddam Hussein did as a despotic, psychotic dictator was done "for the good of the people".
When are you going to wake up and realize that the government - any government - does not have your best interests at heart? We don't need any more laws designed to protect us from ourselves and cause us to fear the government. What we need to go back to is a government - or at least government officials - which fears the people's reaction to their stupidity. That is what made this country great for 200 years.
How do we go from seat belts being reasonable legislation to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, no one is taking the big leap. The world has changed, reasonable and what amount to very minor laws are a benefit to society. This is no longer the 1700's but some seem to think that nothing should ever change.
How do we go from seat belts being reasonable legislation to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, no one is taking the big leap. The world has changed, reasonable and what amount to very minor laws are a benefit to society. This is no longer the 1700's but some seem to think that nothing should ever change.
Governments have become more dangerous and racked up higher body counts since the 1700's, so there's more reasons than then to have a well armed population.
How do we go from seat belts being reasonable legislation to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, no one is taking the big leap. The world has changed, reasonable and what amount to very minor laws are a benefit to society. This is no longer the 1700's but some seem to think that nothing should ever change.
How do we go from "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to "laws infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms are acceptable"? Quite frankly, my leap of logic seems a lot less precarious than yours does.
In case you actually missed the analogy and aren't being purposely obtuse, my point was that throughout history different civilizations have accepted what seemed to be quite "reasonable" restrictions upon their freedoms and the ultimate outcome was usually something that they didn't care for.
Hitler is a great analogy for this point, because the German people threw massive support behind him before they realized that he was one wave short of a shipwreck. He pursued a lot of policies that were "for the good of the people" but eventually led to genocide, starvation, and the destruction of pretty near the entirety of what was, prior to Hitler, a fairly advanced country. It took them decades to come back to some semblance of their former power, and even that semblance was pretty thin.
Hussein is another great example, because he was quite possibly even more sociopathic than Hitler was - and that's saying something. Saddam made the vertically challenged, funny mustache wearing, self-loathing, half-Jewish but Jewish persecuting despotic Hitler look like a model citizen, in fact. Yet, I've heard people as recently as a couple of weeks ago say that we should have left Saddam in power because he had control of his people. The man should probably have been drowned at birth, quite frankly, or prevented with contraception, but there are actually people who believe that he was a good thing for Iraq.
The internment of Japanese Americans "for their own good and the good of the nation," however, is probably the best example of what happens when our government oversteps its bounds in pursuit of "perfectly reasonable" actions which benefit the "greater good." Our government destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of individuals for no other reason than that they looked like the people who attacked Pearl Harbor, and they did it based on such a specious piece of legislation that the Supreme Court actually put a halt to the practice. Of course, that halt came about 4 years to late for some of them, and much too late to avoid a cost of $1.6 BILLION to us, the taxpayers, but it did finally come to a halt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The man should probably have been drowned at birth, quite frankly, or prevented with contraception, but there are actually people who believe that he was a good thing for Iraq.
