When freedom went down in America

[Dr. Dickie]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, just thinking.
Real freedom in America took a big nose dive after Roosevelt decided that the Federal government could do whatever it wanted to as long as a majority of folks supported it (under depression conditions, loss of liberty was an easy sell to the masses). Of course freedom began to erode the day after the government was formed, I am taking about the exponential decline that began in the '30s.
But really isn't there more to this.
Prior to the turn of the century, America represented the great wilderness to most Europe. Untapped resources and the freedom to do what you wanted to make a living. Unbounded opportunity, as long as you were willing to bust your hump to get it. That is, the folks that founded this country and those that came here up to about 1900 were really mutant rugged individualists. They left the comparable safety of England, Germany, France, etc. to strike out on their own, to make it or die by their own strong back and abilities in the "New Country." They were wiling to fight, struggle, claw and die to live free. They came here because struggling was just what you did to out on your own.
BUT, after the turn of the century, and certainly after WWI, there was a huge influx of immigrants that came to America because "the roads were paved in gold." That is, not that they were not coming for opportunity and freedom, but they were not so much rugged individualists as they were hard working opportunists. They were leaving the hardship of Europe for the possibility of an easier life in America. Everyone in America was rich and lived the good life—at least that is what they believed. They did not come here to be free as much as they came here get a better life. Before, I go any farther, THIS IS NOT A BASH IMMIGRANTS thread, that is not what I am saying. Don’t go there, that is not the point. These people were not bad people, just different.
Europe has never been overwhelming for freedom. The French have always been big supporters of Communism, and the rest are Socialists to one degree or another. I am just saying that the mentality and culture of this country was a melting pot of ideas and thought. As more and more immigrants came here looking for something different than founders, the collective culture and though process of country changed, and we began the slide into a more European form of Socialist government that wants ease and safety at the expense of freedom.
Again, I am just thinking of what happened. To understand what happened can help in fixing what went wrong.
In the end, I think we are just mutants. We are throwbacks. There is an anti-freedom momentum that came from both internal and external sources that led us to where we are. It is not a surprise that folks do not want freedom and all the responsibility that it entails, that is not what America was to them. They just want what they came here for, the easy life.
I know there are a thousand reasons that we are at the place we are right now, but this sure fits right in there.
Any historians that can tell me that I am full of
Oh, this is gun related as the RKBA is simply one of many rights we throwbacks want to keep (but to focus on only one right, while allowing the rest to fall away will only delay the lost not prevent it).

 

[Thin Black Line]

Thinking can be a dangerous thing --just ask this lad:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KbRHt5GCGes

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Real freedom in America took a big nose dive after Roosevelt decided that the Federal government could do whatever it wanted to as long as a majority of folks supported it

Ever heard of Andrew Jackson?

 

[HankB]

Real freedom in America took a big nose dive after Roosevelt decided that the Federal government could do whatever it wanted to as long as a majority of folks supported it

Some people think freedom began evaporatiing when George Washington got away with using Federal troops to collect taxes during the so-called Whiskey Rebellion.

 

[Kaylee]

Malone - there have been many presidents in our past that did evil to one group or another. (Heck a significant portion of my family tree walked the Trail, and Jackson's name is still said with a spit by parts of my Mom's side of the family). Lincoln was another mixed bag.. did great things for some of us (albeit for dubious reasons according to his own journals) while at the same time imposing huge costs on us all.

So there are lots of smaller abuses from 1776 to the present day.

It doesn't change the fact that FDR and his packed court fundamentally changed the nature of the US in a way that was both unconstitutional and would ultimately prove detrimental to the country as a whole.

So I agree with the 1930's marker as the watershed.

-K

 

[Helmetcase]

It's not really that I'm unsympathetic to the "gee things were better when the Federal govt was teeny" argument--govt gets a lot of stuff wrong and screws up a lot of things. The erosion of personal freedoms we're seeing is of great concern to a socially libertarian type like me. I usually score off the charts on those "are you a libertarian" tests...

But I think a lot of the reason these kinds of ideas don't get much traction, why more people don't seem as alarmed as the original poster, is that lots of people are still alive who remember life before the New Deal.

There are a LOT of people who've studied history and also have an inclination about what pre-New Deal life was like.

And frankly...they'd look at the original poster's viewpoint and say..."ya know? Life wasn't the bed of roses that you think it was before 1940".

I think a lot of this "why can't we go back to the Federal govt we had under Madison" sentiment is noble, but it ignores how ****ty life was for 99% of the population in this country from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution through the Gilded Age and the Depression. It over-romanticizes what life was like before the New Deal. Even if your inclination is to argue that hey, it's not necessarily the New Deal that fixed that problem...well, even if you're right, it doesn't matter--most Americans actually do like the idea that the govt watches out for them and shields them what life was like before the New Deal.

 

[longeyes]

You are right:

We Americans are mutants.

Let's be proud of that.

 

[go_bang]

I think you'll find a few answers to the question of what happened to the free country that was the United States in this guys book:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

You can even read it online if you want:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

 

[JohnL2]

I don't believe freedom is dead. I think life in this country has become much more regimented. As have the way people tend to think. Their mindset.
You go to school. Get a general education and then go to work to support yourself and then you die. Pretty much sums it up.
As for school, it is what it is. I felt stymied sitting in classrooms where I could've learned most of the material on my own in a week of hard book cramming. I am sure a lot of other people have felt the same way. Probably an underlying reason why I made some choices right after school.
Fed up with classrooms.
The difference between being smart and being brilliant is that when you are smart you can learn the process. When you are brilliant you can make up a whole new process.
I think a definite strength of being an American is to try and be your own sovereign. In body and mind and a continual improvement upon that state.

Let's hope that never changes.

 

[30 cal slob]

take a xenomorph shooting.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

FedGov Size vs Bed-o-Roses

The point is often made that "things weren't so wonderful as you'd like to think" back when the government was small.

Allow me to introduce you to a logical fallacy called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

The essence of this fallacy is: since B happened after A, therefore B was caused by A.

Because the sun comes up after the rooster crows, therefore the rooster's crow makes the sun come up.

This becomes: Because life sucked before government got big, therefore big government is responsible for the good life you now have.

And this is FALSE.

The government is not responsible for prosperity. This directly implies that taxation is not responsible for prosperity.

The abridgement of rights is not responsible for prosperity.

Government doesn't create wealth. It doesn't advance technology. It doesn't create more freedom.

The fact that private citizens and businesses have out-invented and out-produced the government's oppressions does not mean that government oppression somehow makes invention and production happen.

The personal computer came from private enterprise. The internet, while originally fostered by .gov didn't become actually useful to the society until private enterprise got involved.

Let us not mislead ourselves.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

It is amazing, no where in what I said did I say that things were great before the government got big. No where did I say things suck since it did get big. I was merely pondering the reason there has been a change of thinking about having the federal government as a solution to problems, and the fact that America today does not want freedom.

All that you say is true Alfin. It is not a false analogy that our freedom has eroded as government has gotten bigger (since barring someone taking you captive, only government can reduce your freedoms--as they control what is illegal).

I don't believe freedom is dead.

I never said dead, but it is on a downhill slide. If you do not think so JohnL2, you have not been paying attention. Look around you and see what is illegal. Does the federal government have the power to set wages in the country? Where in Constitution does it say that? Does the government have the right to say what chemicals and compounds I have? Why?
Where I live, you cannot even change the toilet in your own house without a permit from the government. What business is it of theirs?
More regimented, as in more regulations is less freedom. Soon, if we have not already crossed that bridge, no one can go through life without committing a couple dozen crimes, soon maybe couple of thousand? Once we are all criminals don’t we need more government to solve the crime problem.

 

[Duckster]

Yes we have problems, but

I'm proud of the 22 years that I bled and have the scars in service to this country and through out my travels have found none better. Yes, we could do better, but be thankful for what you have and the right to bitch about it.

 

[Helmetcase]

The point is often made that "things weren't so wonderful as you'd like to think" back when the government was small.

Allow me to introduce you to a logical fallacy called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Allow me to suggest that you actually be bothered to read what the hell I actually wrote.

I made it pretty clear that I wasn't arguing that govt necessarily fixed what ailed us before the New Deal.

I also said it doesn't matter--most people just don't find the idea of going back to the way things were pre-New Deal all that attractive, and that it doesn't matter whether the New Deal is what fixed it or not. They don't find the idea of not having an FDA, a USDA, an EPA, a CIA, an NSA, etc all that attractive. Even if it is the case that the New Deal didn't make life better today than it was pre New Deal at all, the reality is that perception is reality, and the "let's pare the govt down to the size it was under Madison" argument doesn't win many converts because Americans, their protestations to the contrary, feel better with a strong central govt.

In other words...there's no post hoc ergo prompter hoc at work here. Nice try though.

 

[Prince Yamato]

While the original NFA laws were bad, you could still buy what you wanted, import from where you wanted, and didn't need to have to go through FFL dealers. I personally believe all the crap started in the 60s and 70s. It was the death of three people that resulted in the downturn of society: Martin Luther King, JR. John F. Kennedy, and Pope John XXIII. All three men had proprietary and somewhat revolutionary ideas about running society (civil rights, the fight against the soviets, and Vatican II), all three were assassinated or died before there ideas could be taken to fruition, and later, all these ideas were implemented by others who thought they "knew what [said person] wanted." Well, nothing worked out as planned, Civil Rights got botched thanks to the "progressive" Democrats who were trying to "follow in Kennedy's footsteps", and the Catholic Church (and I think this case could be made for some Protestant denominations as well) seeing a more liberal society tried to modernize (Buddy Christ anyone?). So Blacks, Christians, and Moderates got screwed, lets see, that covers roughly 90% of the Amerian public...

How does it affect your guns? Again NFA '34 was a tax law, not so much a "gun law". You could still get what you wanted, you just had to pay that crappy $200 tax. But the 60s onward gave us GCA '68, mport sporting clause, import machinegun ban, FOID, state gun laws aimed at curbing either blacks or the Klan (ironically, the north curbed blacks and the south went after the Klan). Anyone want to add to the list? Find a stupid gun law in your state. I'll bet it has its roots in the 60s. Please note, I'm not saying I'm ok with NFA '34. I think it's crap, but it was much more liveable, than the stupid GCA '68.

 

[Art Eatman]

Several points for perspective:

From a material standpoint, this whole country is a lot better off than ever before. Particularly better off than even pre-LBJ, much less pre-FDR. Hard for me to use the term "poverty" for folks who have beer, cigarettes, TV and a car.

I was born in 1934. This country wasn't a lot over 160 million. Now we're around 300 million, give or take a little. The bigger the crowd, the more the regimentation, I don't care if it's your local gun club or the population of a mega-city. Or a website; I recall when TFL was not yet at 2,000 members; much more informal in 1998. (THR started out pretty big.)

For some forty+ years, now, a large force in our society has been safety. You know, the Ralph Nader stuff; the world should not only be fool proof, it should be damned-fool proof. Seat belts. Air bags. Labels on stepladders. When people are raised from itty-bitty onward with the idea that there should be no consequences for anything, they scare easily.

People don't notice the loss of rights that they have not been using. How could they? Why should they? If you don't hunt, if you believe the cops will protect you, you're not concerned about the Second Amendment; you don't feel infringed upon. "Your ox isn't gored." And, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care who's looking?"

Again: From a material standpoint in this country, a great many of today's "basics" were luxuries when I was born. (Hey, a lot of them didn't even exist. We had hand-crank telephones and tube-type radios. No A/C or automatic transmissions.)

When people are mostly comfy-snuggly, it's hard to get them excited about abstract ideas...

Art

 

[thexrayboy]

I'd have to agree with the premise that FDR was a major factor in the changes that now torment free Americans. It was his goals and policies that started us down the path to the nanny state. Prior to FDR the government did not have an active hand in paying for and providing for the health and well being of citizens. It's duties were those to which it was assigned. Projects for the common good that were too large for smaller entities. These included defense, roads, bridges and dams of enormous sizes and other responsibilities best handled at a national level.

The founding of Social Security which was the first step down the road to the welfare state is a turning point. From that time on it has become more and more expedient for the government to take from those who have and give to those who have not. This has led to an entire class of entitlement driven voters who will vote for any candidate espousing any platform as long as the gravy train keeps stopping at their mail box with a government check every month. The change from a society that use to be self sufficient and
self responsible to one where the government is expected to "plan and invest for the future" has reduced us to a nation of dependence. Until we break the
habit of the welfare life we will never be rid of big government.

" A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have" This is the real world. You can't have it both ways and I vote for less government, I'll take care of myself.

Was life harder before FDR, I'm sure it was. Did the change from small to big
government that is the legacy of FDR and the new deal make this country wealthier and more successful? Prove it. I have never believed that a country can tax itself into prosperity. My belief is that we have become a country that is well off and comfortable not because of the increase in the size of the federal gov but in spite of that increase.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

....

 

[cuchulainn]

We "owe" much of our prospertity to Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Krushnev, Castro, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Mihn, the Ayatolla, Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin, etc.

War economies are more productive than peace economies. We've had a non-stop war economy since ~1939.

The flip side: Non-stop readiness for war isn't very healthy for liberty.

That's not a peacenik spiel, buy the way. The non-stop readiness for war mostly has been necessary. Nonetheless, it hasn't been good for liberty.

 

[Zoogster]

War economies are more productive than peace economies. We've had a non-stop war economy since ~1939.

The flip side: Non-stop readiness for war isn't very healthy for liberty.

War and conquest is human nature. Before we had modern armies and nukes threating to anhihilate anyone that questioned modern borders we had general ever changing borders throughout the world.

People are more comfortable living a higher quality of life than could continuously be provided by thier own resources and economy where everyone is getting back similar to what they put in. It just did not work out forever and required taking out a neighbor and clearing an area of thier population and gaining something for nothing(except the death of some of the conquerors). Eventualy some wanted to conquer more area, which holds off the inevitable, running out of enough resources and space that everything is affordable and easy and quality of life stays high.

In modern times we have debt and bankers to conquer some nations for other nations and enslave thier population to work off that debt by raising our quality of life, so it seems more humane, more civilized, and goes unnoticed. You don't think that those Islamic Extremists attacked the biggest world wide symbols of the World Trade Organization just because they were tall buildings do you? That organization is one of key players in keeping some countries on top at the expense of others. It keeps our quality of life good, by manipulating the world market in such a way to keep third world nations as third world so thier resources are cheap and thier nations easily managed and less of a threat, economicly, or militarily to civilized western society. Some people realize and dislike us for it. If you can control tariffs and taxes, loans and rates, you can control everything. However the world is always under a power struggle, and I think the western world is more humane than any other part of the world, so if it keeps itself on top then the results are bound to be better than if it was say Asia and thier cultural values calling the shots, or a United Middle East, or United South America causing us problems and telling us how things were going to be done in our half of the world. The current situation is the best for all.

If these things didn't happen, if the CIA was not creating instability and guerilla (terrorist) movements in other nations, and pitting bad nations against eachother and trying to keep them all balanced so none can defeat the other and unite into larger threats, then our quality of life and the value of our time would go down. What you could buy for the same hours of labor would be far less. So our lifestyle, and the amount of material possessions we can afford is dependent on these actions in the world.

My point is a constant state of war readiness is nothing new, wars or conquest are nothing new and have never stopped. Look up American conflicts and we have been in non stop wars since before our founding, and ever since. Whether it was English colonies vs French, or settlers vs natives. We had the times of the revolution against the British. We had had mini wars in between then and the war of 1812. We had "wars on terror" against pirates throughout the Caribbean and southern coast. We took Florida from the Spanish. We had the Mexican American war with Mexico when we took several states. The civil war with ourselves. We had the Spanish American war when we took Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines, and Guam. We played a large role in pressuring and intimidating parts of Asia into trade such as Japan in the 1800's which required a large military. In fact take a look at this, and it is not even a complete list, missing many things I can cite myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events
Just a glance at that list will show you we have not just been in a war economy since the 30's, but we have in fact never been out of one since our nations founding.
We have had some sort of war or military action every year or two since we have existed as a nation, and even before.

In America freedom appears to work out because we still have unused land left, this whole Western Hemisphere has has only been settled for a couple hundred years (and hardly exploited or devoloped by natives prior), and just a few decades ago we had many places in the 48 states where there was nothing but wilderness for hundreds of mile stretches. Where large parts of America looked as only parts of Alaska do now. Now as America catches up with Europe and other parts of the world in populating it's land area we are feeling more of the squeeze of population density, and part of the squeeze is on freedom. As more of our population is based on dense metropolitan cities. However a constant state of war or war economy has little to do with the freedoms of civilians unless it is used to restrict rights by politicians.

However the fading of Freedom and Liberty is most obvious with FDR and his policies. From the formal recognition and permanence of the FBI and its renaming to FBI, which would have been quite controversal because it is essentialy a "standing army" for federal use against US citizens, but a "necessary evil" as they fought gangsters and organized crime from a level not corrupted like the local agencies, even though today we see them as invaluable and helpful in law enforcement. To his New Deal and a swing towards socialism. To his packing of the Supreme court and NFA act among many other legislative decisions. Contrary to what you may think, a $200 tax in the depression of the 30's was a ban for all but the most elite of society, only inflation made it an easily attainable sum later on for the average American. The average American and politician however still felt at the time that the Federal government did not have the authority to ban or restrict any right, only to tax, so they banned through taxation with an unreasonable sum few could possibly afford.

FDR was a dictator, however just like with Julius Ceasar of Rome, he was seen by the people as a savior and embraced. He was popular and well liked. He served four terms, more than anyone previously or since, and is why we put term limits once we got him out of office. Admiting our country was taken over by a dictator however would set a precedence and is something we cannot do, or openly acknowledge, but it was done. Not all dictators are disliked by the people they rule. Our country has never been the same since.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

For some forty+ years, now, a large force in our society has been safety. You know, the Ralph Nader stuff; the world should not only be fool proof, it should be damned-fool proof. Seat belts. Air bags. Labels on stepladders. When people are raised from itty-bitty onward with the idea that there should be no consequences for anything, they scare easily.

You are right Art, that is what I was saying.
What I was getting at was Roosevelt was allowed to do what he did not just because the country was in a world of hurt at the time, but because the fundamental attitude in America had changed (and has changed--it is now firmly entrenched). Today it is equal outcome for all. The politicians openly preach Marxism, and the people applaud them--I am flabbergast.
What I was getting at was the shift in attitude. Prior to the turn of the century, America was a place where someone from Europe (I use Europe because the majority of immigrants came from there) could come and live life as they wanted to, on their terms. They did not have to be a baker (like their father), they could come to the land of wilderness and make a home for themselves. They knew they would face more danger and hardships than in Europe, but they could be who they wanted to be. The country represented the vast unknown, and so it attracted the mutate self-starters, the rugged individualist who only wanted the chance to live the way they wanted to. For sure a lot of kooks and nuts made their way to our shores (just as we are gun nuts and kooks today--we are the mutants).
After around the turn of the century (and certainly after WWI), America represented Economic prosperity to Europe. Europe was a disaster after WWI, and they fled for a chance to come to America and start over economically. They had the skills, they already were who they were. They did not come here to be who they were, they came to America to work hard and become rich (that was what America represented to them).
The latter brought an attitude that the government needed to make the country safe for them, the former only wanted to be left alone, they wanted relief FROM government. Again, the latter were hard working, good people, just with a different attitude. The former were hard working do-it-yourself mutants.
We are the mutants.
To us, TRKBA represents the ability to defend ourselves. To take care of ourselves, and we resent government intrusion into our lives (to varying degree, some tolerate it more than others--as everything in life). We are the mutants.
The question is, can this attitude of "the government is the solution to problems" be stopped? I am not talking about no government, but starting it to shrink back towards the Constitutionally mandated size. Because make no mistake, the same thought process that created Social Security, DEA, FDA, BATFE, etc. is what will strip your right to keep and bare arms. It will be for your own protection, your own good. After all, only the government should have those dangerous firesticks. The government is there to protected you, and the first step to getting you that protection is to get control of the danger, and guns are the danger. Just look at the news!! Think of the children!! Don't worry, once we have the guns under control, we can protect you much, much better from the bad guys. Your life will be ever so much safer and better, think of the children won't you!!
The founding fathers knew that it was government doing good things for the people that would lead to a loss of freedom. Read some of Jefferson and Madison, they clearly saw this; that is why they set up a country founded on the rule of law, not on the rule of men. The government could only do what it was granted the power to do BY THE LAW, not by popular vote of the people (only the HR was popularly voted in). They understood what weaselly little selfless rodents too many of us are deep down, so they set about to make it difficult for the weasels to take control.
That concept of the rule of law is gone right now, but it is the attitude that must change. Politicians are like silly-putty they take whatever shape they are forced to. Since we no longer go by the rule of law (and even if we could force the country to go back to that, the politicians would find away around it as long as the people wanted them to), we have to change the attitude, we have to get people to WANT freedom, not just say they want it.

.

..it doesn't matter--most Americans actually do like the idea that the govt watches out for them and shields them what life was like before the New Deal

Quite right Helmetcase, but as you say that doesn't mean the government was the solution. Many of the problems the country had did need to be addressed, and (I believe) many (most) would have worked themselves out through free enterprise and the growth of communications and travel. But, again, I am not saying that all the growth of the Federal government is evil and we should go back to the level we had under Madison (the world has changed, gotten a lot more complex, the government has to adapt to those changes). I am saying we should have the Federal government operate within the boundaries that it was given; and that requires the people to want that. It is not WHAT the government is doing, it is THAT the people WANT the government to do it-- it is this attitude that shocks me to no end. I grew up in the late 50's, early 60s and that was not the attitude I grew up around (and this was very liberal Maryland).
Mutant #1 out.

 

[pacodelahoya]

This country is a Constitutional Republic. The wants of the many do not outweigh the rights of the few... :banghead:

 

[cuchulainn]

Zoogster: My point is a constant state of war readiness is nothing new

It was for the USA after 1939, and I suspect that you're confusing miltary-ability and econmic-readiness (my fault for not making that clear).

WWII, The Cold War, Bush-1's "New World Order" and the War on Terror have created an economy on a scale that would not have existed if the USA's attitude toward war-readiness had remained as it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Zoogster: We have had some sort of war or military action every year or two since we have existed as a nation, and even before.

But our economy -- economy, not military -- was not constantly geared toward going to war. WWII and earlier wars often were marked by early ramp-up periods in production to support the war need. Since WWII, much of our economy (no, not all of it) has been geared towards producing what's needed for a major war.

And there's a big difference between limited military engagements every few years and major wars. Prior to WWII, the USA was not in a constant state of economic readiness to fight a major, global war. Since then, we have been.

And it's made our economy explode.

Zoogster: However the fading of Freedom and Liberty is most obvious with FDR and his policies.

Well, yes. I'm not looking at this as an either-or idea. That would be the false dichotomy fallacy

Yes, FDR made rights synonomous with needs. Bad meme -- people deserve to be given things simply because they need them; people have things taken from them simply because somone else needs them.

Art: ... safety ...

That's part of need=rights meme.