"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

I agree 100%. Jefferson is one of my favorite founders. When one is dependent on any other entity or person other than oneself one is not truly free.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin, Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993

I agree. With every bit we put in the Government's hands, we give away an equal bit of freedom.

Total agreement.

I agree 100 percent with the quote.

I'm waiting for this thread to turn into a bashing of the founders. That is what I have been hearing a lot of lately. How the founders were trash because most of them owned slaves.

The founding fathers for the most part were absolute geniuses. It's a shame that in many regards, their beliefs on how our country should carry on has been tossed to the curb.

bigdaddy2003 wrote: I agree 100 percent with the quote.

I'm waiting for this thread to turn into a bashing of the founders. That is what I have been hearing a lot of lately. How the founders were trash because most of them owned slaves.

Lol, any links or anything to this?

I've not heard that from any rational being, essentially.

Well, How bout this...hasn't our government been big and strong enough to take away everything we have for a long time now? Suppose BHO turned into a tyrant and used his Muslim Voodoo to turn the military against regular citizens...don't you think the feds could take down our national guards pretty handily and then take everything we have and then give it to King Obama so that he may reign forever pillaging white women and defiling Christian artifacts? I mean, even if we all exercised our right to bear arms and had AR-15's, could we really stop our huge military from taking everything we have if it came down to that?

Seems to me that maxim essentially argues just as much against a strong, centrally controlled military just as much as it might argue against "handouts." Thus, if we're to put faith in this maxim, ought it not follow that we ought to have disdain for our large military much in the same way we have disdain for social welfare policies?

In regards to Majorspark...you've suggested that being dependent on others for things makes us not "truly free"...but, doesn't that make sense? When human beings interact and form a society, contracting together, they are agreeing to give up some freedoms in exchange for their own safety. If you really believe that giving up even an ounce liberty is wrong...it seems to me you ought to be an anarchist; an interesting political philosophy but surely one wherein, when manifested, life is nasty brutish and short no?

In most instances, I've given up my liberty to defend myself and give deference to the police, etc. Even though we really are not "truly free" in the same sense of a rugged individual roaming the wilderness, free from the constraints of laws, we are still so "radically free" as the existentialists would say. We have so much freedom, that the little we give up to form social contracts creates wonderful, new and exciting possibilities for all of us.

BoatShoes wrote: Well, How bout this...hasn't our government been big and strong enough to take away everything we have for a long time now?

BS,

Really, it doesn't matter what people didn't complain about yesterday, does it? People are complaining today, and since it is today, that is what the focus is.
They are complaining today because they see an indebted future that nobody in our history ever experienced before.
Yes, we've been building up to this for almost 100 years. No one person is responsible. But if people are going to start taking names, pay attention, and start to resist the way our government continues to manage, so what?

I fail to see the usefulness of that argument.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: Well, How bout this...hasn't our government been big and strong enough to take away everything we have for a long time now?

BS,

Really, it doesn't matter what people didn't complain about yesterday, does it? People are complaining today, and since it is today, that is what the focus is.
They are complaining today because they see an indebted future that nobody in our history ever experienced before.
Yes, we've been building up to this for almost 100 years. No one person is responsible. But if people are going to start taking names, pay attention, and start to resist the way our government continues to manage, so what?

I fail to see the usefulness of that argument.

I suppose my over arching point is...that I think the whole, "I hate big government" mystique is, for the most part, a fraud.

Granted there are genuine, small government libertarian sorts out there and on the Huddle who hate big military as much as they hate big welfare. You all know who you are.

But, I believe, perhaps I'm wrong, that if BHO and the dems were up on the hill talking about a 1 trillion dollar increase in the Navy...at least half of the people appealing to quotes like the one by Jefferson posted by the OP.

I don't believe there would be as much of an attitude of "standing up to these feds who've been robbing us" if it was an R doing the spending or if the D's were spending it on the military...and hence, that's why I appeal to the last 30 years...

But you're right...people are standing up now...so perhaps they're being sincere and it just takes a liberal president to turn on the light bulb? I don't know.

It's like, if someone is raiding your fridge and blowing up your credit card and stealing money out of your wallet...something seems funny if you suddenly start complaining about it after 30 years, no?

The founding fathers were quite the group, amazing when you think about it, what they created.

I had the opportunity to intern at the State Library for a semester while in graduate school, and they've got quite the random collection of letters signed by Adams, Washington, Jefferson, etc.

Amazing to look at them and think that they actually wrote those letters, that their hands touched the same thing that i was touching. Rather unreal.

BS,

I get what you're saying. I'm more of the mind I guess that President Obama just happens to be President at the wrong time. The whole "wrong place wrong time" kinda thing.
I think if McCain would have won...he'd be on blast too.
Same with HillBill.

No matter what sorry sucker we put up there, they'd still be getting 37 kinds of hell.

Good point, Center, i completely agree.

The type of person that would make many Americans happy was not a candidate, is not a member of Congress currently, aside from a select few, and they're pretty much completely fed up with both the R's and the D's.

Well, How bout this...hasn't our government been big and strong enough to take away everything we have for a long time now? Suppose BHO turned into a tyrant and used his Muslim Voodoo to turn the military against regular citizens...don't you think the feds could take down our national guards pretty handily and then take everything we have and then give it to King Obama so that he may reign forever pillaging white women and defiling Christian artifacts? I mean, even if we all exercised our right to bear arms and had AR-15's, could we really stop our huge military from taking everything we have if it came down to that?

Look at what's happening in Afghanistan if you want to know what could happen here. If Barack sent the military into American streets, the people wouldn't be meeting them with tanks. As long as we are armed, we could find a way to defend ourselves. There are some 300 million Americans. If a quarter of them armed and rose up to defend themselves, do you think our military would stand a chance against 75 million armed and pissed Americans? Also, how much of a military do you think Obama could round up if their mission was to march down the streets of New York and slaughter their families and neighbors?

Seems to me that maxim essentially argues just as much against a strong, centrally controlled military just as much as it might argue against "handouts." Thus, if we're to put faith in this maxim, ought it not follow that we ought to have disdain for our large military much in the same way we have disdain for social welfare policies?

Our military spending is out of control, but defending this country is the one thing the federal government is supposed to do. I would not support spending $1 trillion on anything right now, but that is a different discussion. The argument wouldn't be that our federal military should be weaker, but that our state militias should be stronger. Still, as long as individual citizens have the right to arm themselves, no federal army would be strong enough to impose the will of a totalitarian government here.

In regards to Majorspark...you've suggested that being dependent on others for things makes us not "truly free"...but, doesn't that make sense? When human beings interact and form a society, contracting together, they are agreeing to give up some freedoms in exchange for their own safety. If you really believe that giving up even an ounce liberty is wrong...it seems to me you ought to be an anarchist; an interesting political philosophy but surely one wherein, when manifested, life is nasty brutish and short no?

In most instances, I've given up my liberty to defend myself and give deference to the police, etc. Even though we really are not "truly free" in the same sense of a rugged individual roaming the wilderness, free from the constraints of laws, we are still so "radically free" as the existentialists would say. We have so much freedom, that the little we give up to form social contracts creates wonderful, new and exciting possibilities for all of us.

If we choose to sacrifice some form of freedom to allow the police to protect us or to form a social contract, then that means we were free to make that choice. When that freedom is legislated away and we are forced to make that choice, then we are not a free society. The founders never said anything about living free without laws. You are just arguing the semantics of major's choice of words "truly free". He meant truly free as in the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution.

ernest_t_bass wrote: "Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

It is a great quote. It has already happened though. It has been that way for a long time.

They have stolen great amounts of personal liberty such as privacy through fear mongering.

I guess the bright side is people are just now starting to realize it. The dark side is that people are so polarized in their thinking that they believe either of the parties today will correct the situation.

They will not not the Republicans and not the Democrats but they have succeeded in polarizing the nation with people blindly giving loyalty and actually identifying with a party.

I have seen many times that if someone make a comment like " The Republican party is horrible." or " The Democratic party is horrible." people actually identify themselves and feel personally insulted.

The big government parties both Democrat and Republican have been successful at making the government larger, and until both parties are ousted and other parties can have a voice it will continue to get bigger and bigger.

BoatShoes wrote:In regards to Majorspark...you've suggested that being dependent on others for things makes us not "truly free"...but, doesn't that make sense? When human beings interact and form a society, contracting together, they are agreeing to give up some freedoms in exchange for their own safety. If you really believe that giving up even an ounce liberty is wrong...it seems to me you ought to be an anarchist; an interesting political philosophy but surely one wherein, when manifested, life is nasty brutish and short no?

Anarchist? Where did I say I was against any social contracts. My statement is 100% true. It does not mean that chosing to contract together with my fellow citizens is wrong, just that now I will have to follow the terms of that contract. I does not mean that it is wrong to depend on another just that the freedom of the dependent to do as he pleases is lost to the provider.

For instance. If I am dependent on another to provide me with food, Am I free to eat whatever I want? Can I order the lobster and wash it down with $100/bottle wine? If one provides for his own food he is free to eat whatever he wants and no one has power to tell him otherwise.

Marriage is a social contract. If you choose to join another person in marriage, have you lost freedom?. Sure. Was it wrong? No.

What I do not agree with is these social contracts being legislated in washington on behalf of all 300 million of us. Many times half the nation is against them and forced to take part. This nation is diverse with many different needs, values, etc. These social issues are best taken care of by the states and local communities by the people that know them best.

Before federal involvement in assuring ones social security, people were not dying in the streets of starvation. We were much better off finacially. People and the states took care of themselves.

CenterBHSFan wrote: BS,

I get what you're saying. I'm more of the mind I guess that President Obama just happens to be President at the wrong time. The whole "wrong place wrong time" kinda thing.
I think if McCain would have won...he'd be on blast too.
Same with HillBill.

No matter what sorry sucker we put up there, they'd still be getting 37 kinds of hell.

Exactly. Come up to the front and claim your prize. Happy to see that someone actually gets it.

CenterBHS,

I have been saying the same thing in regards to if McCain had won the election, things would still be a mess, and we would not have a small government. But, the problem is, many who were against Obama from before he was elected have a deep seated belief that Obama has single handedly damaged the country, and refuse to accept how much of a mess this country has been in long before he took office.