Debate: American Exceptionalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam said:
Exceptionalism, don't know about that. Best game in town though, by a real long shot. Very far from perfect and as many have pointed out, probably backsliding. The difference is that we can recover the lost ground and advance beyond it.

Mr. Wllm.Legrand, other than opening the figurative pie hole, what are you doing to make it better? Many BM&G few do anything about it.

Sam
Click to expand...

Pie hole? I thought this was "debate", not a work party under your supervision..

As for what I do to make it better, I have a small business and am a productive member of society, am a well-informed citizen and a member of the unorganized militia. I have some small knowledge of the law, history, and the human condition. I am the worst threat to government, as I mention above, as I am an informed citizen.

You, sir, seem to be the one with the "figurative" pie-hole....
 
HankB said:
Please name the country (or countries) which you believe are greater - and why.
Click to expand...

Depends upon what facet of "freedom" you speak of.

Economic freedom? Many. Heck, it's easier to open and operate a business in Hong Kong than here. Far less regulation.

Though I love firearms, shoot competitively, hunt, etc., many are hung up on the firearms thing. I will be the first to admit that the U.S.A. WAS the last, great, hope for mankind. No longer. Read my previous posts. I mentioned the analogy about the U.S. being the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. DID YOU READ IT? DID YOU GET IT? I think not.

The point of comparison seems to be geographic. How about a temporal comparision.

How would you compare you level of freedom NOW as opposed to say, thirty years ago? In the interest of precise use of language, I would ask the comparison to be made in economic, personal freedom, especially your right to property and the ability to OWN the fruits of your own labor, or do what you wish with your own property. We can also add the influence of government upon your children and the neccesity of compliance with regulations. (There are several kind of law. Statutory is only one of them. You must also understand, as you do, I'm sure, that there are executive "rulings", or decrees that have the force of law. IRS, BATF, fill in the flippin' blank. One needs to figure that into the mix to determine how "FREE" you are.)

Were you more free to travel unmolested 10 years ago?

Were you more free to own the fruits of your labor 30 years ago (marginal tax rates and definition of taxable income)?

Were you more free to own any firearm you wanted 75 years ago?

How about your other freedoms, such as the what to do on your own property? The right of your children to be free from Child Protective Services? Etc., etc., ad nauseum...

Total freedom (absence of control by central authority, provided you DID NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE)?

Fifty years ago?

How about one hundred and fifty years ago?

The ball is in your court.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
Come on, just name a couple.

And give some examples of how they have more economic freedom, of course.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, I mentioned Hong Kong. Also Singapore, New Zealand, and, of course, Switzerland.

Don't believe me. Do a search on "Index of Economic Freedom". The (ever so leftist) Cato Institute publishes that every year. There are other sources.
Try this for a different perspective, but still buttresses my view:
www.mises.org/story/1724

Of course, your question and post awkwardly sidesteps the questions I posed in my previous post, probably because to answer those questions leads to the conclusion that I offered before. No matter. None is as blind as those that refuse to see. That is an pretty good description of those that still believe the myths of an America past. The worst offenders are those that placed their faith in the political parties of the nation, as I once did (lifelong Republican, voted for Bush the first time, Republican no longer).

To be able to look at things the way they ARE, based upon current conditions, examine contradictions between what you BELIEVE and what you can see with your own two eyes and reason through with your own mind, is a difficult thing to do. Most people (past youth) cannot do it, unless there is some event that happens to them directly, or to their family, that causes them to question the beliefs they've held since childhood.

It's okay. I understand. I had great faith in the nations institutions (including its government) until a decade or so ago.

"When you encounter a contradiction, reexamine your premises."
 
As an aside, Lone Gunman, I'm from Arizona. You use a famous Barry Goldwater quote in your sig line.

He was a true conservative (read: classical liberal, as opposed to the phony "conservatives" that litter the airwaves and Rome on the Potomac these days), as I try to be. He saw the handwriting on the wall decades ago. He would be what I would describe as a "fellow traveler" to my perspective..if you pardon the expression.
 
Absolutely correct your referencing the Declaration of Independence and those PRIMARY PRINCIPALS which the Founders created the first American Nation (Articles of Confederation vs. the second Constitution, a near revolution in substance).
Click to expand...

Your great wisdom doesn't extend to knowing the difference between principals and principles, apparently.

New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong as exemplars of greater freedom?

Hong Kong's part of the People's Republic of China. Switzerland exists by virtue of laundering money and letting other people fight their battles for them. Singapore is an authoritarian corporation-state that seems obsessed with corporal punishment. New Zealand has two industries, sheepherding and Peter Jackson, and, last time I checked, was quasi-socialistic.
 
longeyes said:
Your great wisdom doesn't extend to knowing the difference between principals and principles, apparently.
Click to expand...

A spelling Nazi, eh? I'll have to pay closer attention to the posts of the board grammarian for errors if he's to be so unforgiving. Is looking for such errors easier than addressing the substance of the message? ;)

And I guess you didn't read the link that addresses the very points you raised, did you? Figures. :rolleyes:
 
Monsieur Legrand,

Your beloved Hong Kong exists at the pleasure of the People's Republic of China, does it not? It's a bird in a cage, nothing more.
 
longeyes said:
New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong as exemplars of greater freedom?

Hong Kong's part of the People's Republic of China. Switzerland exists by virtue of laundering money and letting other people fight their battles for them. Singapore is an authoritarian corporation-state that seems obsessed with corporal punishment. New Zealand has two industries, sheepherding and Peter Jackson, and, last time I checked, was quasi-socialistic.
Click to expand...

I raise the point (SPECIFICALLY) of economic freedom. That was the point. I think you look more for arguments in other areas than those I raise.

This is getting WAY off topic. The point of American exceptionalism (or not, and why) has been answered. The point on economic freedom has been answered.

Answer instead the questions I raised regarding the state of freedom in present-day Amerika vs. America of the past.

The question of who, when, or how a nation is free, and by what standard is a good one. The start of any debate should be the defining of terms. I define freedom as the ability to OWN YOURSELF and the fruits of your labor. Within this definition is subsumed the idea of doing what you want, when you want, as long as it does not interfere with the same right of everyone else to do as they please. Right, any freedom, including freedom of speech, requires that a society tolerate the actions of others it does not approve, subject to the main limitation above (interference with the affairs or freedoms of others). It should be apparent that the main source of the abridgement of freedom is from government, not other people. If it comes from other people it is from the use of the STATE and STATE POWER to do so. America was ONCE a great nation that had a government that respected ideals, such as those within the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It NO LONGER is such a nation.

THAT is the point. The objections raised over this assertion have been pretty much answered in other posts above.

Get over it. When I see that I no longer have first-claim on the fruits of my labor (an important concept), then I do not own myself. This is a crucial distinction and change from what WAS to WHAT IS.

This "debate" is more like beating a dead horse. Or, as Dorothy Parker put it, "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.".
 
Khornet said:
Your beloved Hong Kong exists at the pleasure of the People's Republic of China, does it not? It's a bird in a cage, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Why don't you elaborate on where you see the state of freedom going in this country in the next 15 years, based upon the evidence of recent history? How much of your income to you expect to keep when debt service on on-budget and OFF BUDGET federal expenses come due?

What will be the state of freedom for your children, economically? How do you define freedom? Is the discussion a simple academic one, based upon "how free is the U.S. citizenry compared to other nations, NOW?" or are there other aspects to the question that demonstrate a tightening stricture on freedoms in almost every aspect of our lives? How many laws should people be subject if they are indeed free? Is there any such thing as "too much government interference" in one's life? If so, how would YOU define it? And speaking of self-ownership, tell me what is a "reasonable" level of taxation? Why? At what point do you say NO to government claims upon you, your life, the fruits of your labor, and the future of your children?

The posts of some here make me very curious as to exactly HOW they come to their opinions. First hand, by thinking them through, or second or third hand, as a result of what they have been told or taught? Thinking these kinds of things through is exactly what the government does its best to prevent you from doing, by dumbing people down in government schools and pandering to the lowest common denominator in discussion of public policy.
 
I think just about everyone who posts on the THR board recognizes that America of 2005 is not the America of 1885 or 1955. We know that our freedoms have been steadily encroached upon. We know that our futures are being mortgaged away. The question is, as someone else once asked: What is to be done?
 
longeyes said:
I think just about everyone who posts on the THR board recognizes that America of 2005 is not the America of 1885 or 1955. We know that our freedoms have been steadily encroached upon. We know that our futures are being mortgaged away. The question is, as someone else once asked: What is to be done?
Click to expand...

We lose freedoms as we react to crime, constrained by morality, reverse discrimination, and ethics in how effective our reaction might be. We throw money at a problem or pretend that some law will be effective, perhaps both. Our version of free range children is dropping them off at school or at the mall. They aren't very safe anywhere else, and we can't shoot or hang the cretins that make this necessary. We don't even hold them in prison, known to be a threat. Our way of life is a suicide pact, because we don't have any way to purge the gene pool, and we are unwilling to mandate birth control or sterility among those who are easily enough identified as the source of the problems. We aren't losing freedoms as much as we are using "freedom" against our best interests. There are all sorts of philosophical and practical problems here, but something isn't working.

All of this is why I support capital punishment (timely), euthanasia, assisted suicide, and mandatory sterilization. I do not support genocide but think some people need killin'. Those who insist upon injecting religion, perhaps ethics, into these questions don't seem to have a practical alternative. Their intervention causes further loss of freedoms.
 
Let's see, we have a post which included the phrase:
Wllm. Legrand said:
This ONCE WAS the greatest country in the world, as perhaps was probably the most free, but no longer
Click to expand...
If we're "no longer" the greatest country in the world, clearly the writer believes he knows of OTHER countries which are greater.

Curious about which these might be, I asked:
HankB said:
Please name the country (or countries) which you believe are greater - and why.
Click to expand...
Which drew the response in this thread's Post #54, in which Wllm. Legrand asked
Wllm. Legrand said:
I mentioned the analogy about the U.S. being the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. DID YOU READ IT? DID YOU GET IT? I think not.
Click to expand...
OK, getting past the implied insult, note that I didn't ask about where we were headed or if we were better off "x" years ago or if I thought everything was just peachy today, I wanted to know which countries Wllm. Legrand believed were greater than the USA.

Today. As HE stated in his post when he said we were no longer the greatest in the world.

Mr. Legrand, you used a lot of words, but I notice you avoided providing a direct answer to my question, posed your own instead, and went on to compare the USA today with the USA of yesteryear.

I also notice when others challenged your assertions about Hong Kong, Singapore, etc., you never defended your original mentions of them, but again went off on your own into a "USA-now vs. USA-then" direction.

You never answered my question, so I'll rephrase it slightly and ask again: If the USA - today - is no longer the greatest country in the world, please tell us which country - today! - is, and why.
 
RealGun said:
We aren't losing freedoms as much as we are using "freedom" against our best interests.
Click to expand...
We are in fact losing liberty, i.e., the legal authorization to act in accordance with our rights, but, as RealGun implied, we have a lot more freedom, i.e., the ability to do and be what we would like, including in the realm of immorality, without risk of punishment or even public scorn, than ever before in American history, and we are, as RealGun implied, using those freedoms to the destruction of liberty.

The difference between liberty and just plain freedom is that liberty implies the rule of law, which is a restraint on government, while freedom (i.e., the absence of restraint regarding our individual actions) does not. The founders wished to establish liberty on these shores, as distinct from plain old freedom.

Today, we are free to do all kinds of things we weren't free to do in, say, the 1950s, but at the same time our liberties have been steadily and dramatically contracting, and this tendency shows no signs of slowing down. To the contrary, it is accelerating.
 
The Real Hawkeye said:
We are in fact losing liberty, i.e., the legal authorization to act in accordance with our rights, but, as RealGun implied, we have a lot more freedom, i.e., the ability to do and be what we would like, including in the realm of immorality, without risk of punishment or even public scorn, than ever before in American history, and we are, as RealGun implied, using those freedoms to the destruction of liberty.
Click to expand...

Mandating a standard of morality is not liberty by anyone's definition. It isn't easy to make a clear distinction between liberty and freedom or find an exact difference in connotation. I prefer thinking of freedom as independence and thinking of liberty as lack of restraint, especially despotic. You could reverse these definitions and not be off the mark.
 
We have allowed ourselves to be incrementally enslaved by encroaching government and then by escapist consumerism. America was always about self-reliance, control of one's own destiny, and the ability to say NO. That's been lost as too many Americans just say yes, yes, and yes, and exchange America's precious heritage of liberty for a materialistic toyland. You can't divorce economics from morality, try as we might.
 
The founding principles

will always be under pressure, gaining here and retreating there. Nothing about that invalidates the Founders' ideas, and it does not change the fact that the ideas on which America was founded are supreme in the world.

M. Legrand, with respect to where freedom is going in America these days, I might point out that we are recovering from a long period of ascendancy of socialist thinking. School choice, tax reform, the fading of trade unionism, the return of America's willingness to make war for freedom, the revisiting of the matter of Affirmative action, the emergence of more numerous and more eloquent advocates of conservative ideals...all tell me that freedom is on the march.

RE: Switzerland. Admittedly a very free country. But much of her liberty and prosperity has depended historically on a fundamentally immoral foreign policy. I admire her policy of armed neutrality in the sense that we all should be armed but peaceful, but Switzerland has consistently stood aside and let others fight for freedom.

A little advice regarding the close of your last post: temper-tantrums don't win arguments. And making insulting assumptions about how your opponents come to their position is a sure way to make them ignore your ideas.

An amusing anecdote, though, about the Swiss. An old postcard fron before the 1914 war showed the Kaiser towering over a little Swiss infantryman. The Kaiser asks, "What will you 250,000 Swiss do when half a million Germans attack?"

"Shoot twice and go home," said the Swiss.

You might enjoy 'La Place De La Concorde Suisse" by John McPhee... a wonderful study of the Swiss military system.
 
Khornet asked the question and HankB covered the territory nicely. :)

All you naysayers. I haven't heard about any of you leaving. If this place is so bad, why not? :uhoh: :evil:
 
BigG said:
Khornet asked the question and HankB covered the territory nicely. :)

All you naysayers. I haven't heard about any of you leaving. If this place is so bad, why not? :uhoh: :evil:
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, that kind of reply is probably the most childish kind of pap anyone can hear from a supposed adult. What's especially bad is that the person who spouts that kind of knee-jerk, unthinking, mental-shortcut kind of blurb actually THINKS it makes sense. Well, there is no special test for posting ont he internet.

Because it's home. Even despite the fact that it's flawed. I don't leave even with fools and poltroons in it, just the same as I still do my job despite it's many aspects that I find displeasing. Even despite the fact that average American couldn't factor a quadratic equation or read a world map, or even tell you two of the rights articulated in the First Amendment. Even then, it's still home.

Grow up.
 
longeyes said:
Okay. How about a War of Expulsion to throw out all the dead-beats? You up for that?

Or maybe you have a better plan for stopping the insanity?
Click to expand...
So, tell us, Longeyes, did you vote for the President and Congressbeings who ushered in the single largest increase in Federal welfare-type largess in living memory, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit?

How many "deadbeats" do you suppose the U. S. would be receiving if there were no such giveaways?

As for your private "war of expulsion," how do you propose to identify "deadbeats? By skin color, perhaps? By accent? By your own opinion? How will you be sure -- and what will you say to the survivors after you make an error?

Do you remember what happened in the last country to "declare war on parasites?" Or in the one before that?

Illegals will sink or swim in the dominant culture, just as all immigrants have before them. Used to be, it was The Yellow Peril; now it's brown. It's still not a real peril.

--Herself
 
As for your private "war of expulsion," how do you propose to identify "deadbeats? By skin color, perhaps? By accent? By your own opinion? How will you be sure -- and what will you say to the survivors after you make an error?
Click to expand...

Well, Herself, you know, I figured I'd begin with anyone who talks about himself/herself in the third person, then move on to the vainglorious, and finally to the merely foolish.

If you want to play Emma Lazarus and embrace the wretched with both arms, feel free, I won't stop you--assuming you keep them all at your place, out of my sight, and on your tab. I'm sure you have plenty of room and plenty of provender at the Herself Mansion on the Hill.

What makes you think, Herself, that I identify the deadbeats by skin color or accent? It's a very cheap shot to accuse anyone you disagree with of racism, though no doubt that swells your breast with feelings of enormous generosity (alas, at the expense of others). My concern is the law and the right of American citizens not to have their wealth expropriated to satisfy the vanity and greed of the pro-illegal alien lobby.
 
longeyes said:
We have allowed ourselves to be incrementally enslaved by encroaching government and then by escapist consumerism. America was always about self-reliance, control of one's own destiny, and the ability to say NO. That's been lost as too many Americans just say yes, yes, and yes, and exchange America's precious heritage of liberty for a materialistic toyland. You can't divorce economics from morality, try as we might.
Click to expand...


you hit the nail on the head, weak moral/ethical policies and the inconsistencies contained thereof in what U.S. leaders have said vs. done...that's why "they" hate us...because it's in this unrelenting pursuit of greed, power and mindles consumption that America's International interventionist foreign policies have caused irreversible, almost impossibly solvable international disdain and hatred towards Americans...just look at the failed attempts to establish "stable" democracies..Somalia, Lebanon, Haiti, Afganistan, Nicaragua, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm..etc, etc..we have caused more damage to "them/our image than we have solved problems that are too complex to dismiss with simple ideological rhetoric..Stop the nonsense! bring back our brothers,daughters, fathers, mothers, friends and neighbors...it's not worth the pain! it's not worth the loss of innocent young lives! This is not going to go away because GWB says," the mission is accomplished" we must seek to disdain/reproach both indifference and ignorance towards the plight of other's...we don't have the market cornered on the moral high ground. we are nationalistic and patriotic, you bet. we are different, yes...socially, economically and morally, but that is us, not them...it's their choice. punish those that deserve it (terrorists), i have no sympathy for them..no doubt...but come on, folks!..yes, we do have certain obligations to deal with "those" responsible for terrorism..moreso, we as Americans need to understand what our obligations are to our fellow mankind...nothing is simple. we have not dealt/ or seem willing to deal overseas with our obligations to other countries in a social, contextual, relational and more importantly, historical sense...i liken our current foreign policies to an abusive parent. He/She abuses the/a child physically and psychologically, but does so under the "but i only do this because i love you" rationalization SMACK! WHAM! SMACK! didn't someone say," those that do not remember history are bound to repeat it"?....alas, worse is He that don't want to see. So much for the high road...YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
  • Locked
Modern American Exceptionalism And The 2nd Amendment
Replies
2
Views
401
Art Eatman
A
N
  • Locked
Pro / Anti Where do we agree?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Chipper
C
E
  • Locked
Kill an American
Replies
17
Views
1K
echo3mike
E
whipper
  • Locked
To kill an American
Replies
8
Views
1K
Hawk
H
D
  • Locked
(Bad news for Dems) Life Keeps Getting Better, Americans Say
Replies
0
Views
273
Desertdog
D
Back
Top