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.
.
.
.
.
.
"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom." Thomas Paine.
.
.
.
.
Actually that was attributed mostly to Jefferson, but I don't see how a 200 year old quote is relevant to the OP. I can discuss the OP without referencing the Founders.
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
— Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
— Thomas Jefferson
"A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy."
— Thomas Jefferson
Actually that was attributed mostly to Jefferson, but I don't see how a 200 year old quote is relevant to the OP. I can discuss the OP without referencing the Founders.
if the OP's opening question "do you agree with these two statements" and then the 2 statements are "1. When people are afraid of the government, you have fascism.....2. When the government is afraid of the people, you have liberty.".....and there is a reletive quote from the past...yes it is relevant.
it would be like a person asking your opinion on entitlements...and you responding with "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. JFK"...it is a quote relating to the question
if the OP's opening question "do you agree with these two statements" and then the 2 statements are "1. When people are afraid of the government, you have fascism.....2. When the government is afraid of the people, you have liberty.".....and there is a reletive quote from the past...yes it is relevant.
The OP asked if I agreed with the statement. It didn't ask if the statement was quoted by one of the Founders, so no, I don't see how it's relevant. I don't even know the context. If you think it's relevant, tell us what Jefferson said, but that he made the quote is meaningless to me.
Quote:
it would be like a person asking your opinion on entitlements...and you responding with "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. JFK"...it is a quote relating to the question
No, it's nothing like that. The quote and the OP are basically identical, so repeating the OP doesn't answer the question. The JFK quote provides an opinion, so it does answer the question.
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
— Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
— Thomas Jefferson
"A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy."
— Thomas Jefferson
That's a good idea for an OP - whether we agree with those quotes from Jefferson, but I was discussing government, the people and fear.
I never cease to be amazed at how people throw around terms like 'fascism' without having any understanding of what they mean; clearly the OP and those voting 'yes' don't have a clue as to what fascism actually is. There are plenty of regime types which may cause a majority of the population living under them to be afraid but which are not fascist by any stretch of the imagination. For example, the government of the USSR, particularly under Stalin, was great at striking fear into the hearts of its citizens yet was not fascist. Today North Korea is a country which has a ridiculously cruel regime but which is most certainly NOT fascist.
Fascism is one form of authoritarianism found on the right-wing of the political spectrum. It is a system of governance in which there is only one political party, in which a core elite has essentially absolute power and in which the judicial system is two-tiered (meaning that the laws do not apply to all citizens equally and discrimination is formally institutionalized). Fascism is further characterized as being extremely nationalistic, xenophobic and militaristic. It also tends to allow for a capitalist economy.
In other words, while there is virtually no liberty in a fascist country, the lack of liberty does not in any way imply the existence of fascism.
Other. Way too oversimplified. Politics is not a two-player game, "people vs. government".
Exactly; the poster speaks of 'people' as if the people were an undifferentiated mass of like-minded people with the same characteristics and interests. In reality, any society can be broken down into an enormous number of subgroups, all of which have different interests, capabilities, etc. It rarely makes any real sense to speak of 'the people' as if it were some singular entity.
Same thing applies to all but the most simple governments. The government is not some monolithic unitary actor; it is comprised of a multitude of different agencies, branches and individual actors. This becomes especially apparent if one looks at the governments in developing countries where different agencies, subagencies, etc. may be pursuing radically different ends.
I voted Yes because I agree they both are true, but there are exceptions.
A government that fears the people could easily break down into anarchy which is far from liberty. Its more like lawlessness...
Then look at all the African nations where bandits roam around with AK-47s and the government dares not get involved. That would not be considered liberty either.
But in other cases it could be true that if a government "respects" it people and realizes its a mutually beneficial relationship, you can achieve liberty.
I also agree that the average american is beaten down and brainwashed to believe that any criticisms of the USA are anti-american, and with that as the dominant mindset, there is little hope for change until it becomes unbearable and erupts into chaos.
Exactly; the poster speaks of 'people' as if the people were an undifferentiated mass of like-minded people with the same characteristics and interests. In reality, any society can be broken down into an enormous number of subgroups, all of which have different interests, capabilities, etc. It rarely makes any real sense to speak of 'the people' as if it were some singular entity.
.
They seemed to be a singular unit the day after 9-11,no matter what the subgroup,background whatever...
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.
