Here come de judge.
Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States in 1928
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
This was in 1928. Further back about a hundred and fifty years Alexis de Toqueville, a Frenchman, ironically, worried about the same thing.
He warned about "the kind of despotism to which democratic societies are usually and especially susceptible ...the passion for equality will give rise to a certain kind of degradation in which citizens will surrender their freedom democratically to a tutelary power."
"Above these [citizens] an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens. It does not make them desperate, but it constantly thwarts them and brings them to renounce the use of their wills. Thus little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls."
My italics and emphasis. I could've emphasized everything, though.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
thesagejournal
shmadoff
the constitutionalist
Joseph Cole
Darren Wolfe
t t
Salon.com
Comments
keep it up John.
A perfect description of today's conservative movement.
Nice to see you embracing liberalism through Tocqueville. Now, if we could get y'all to embrace his strong belief in the separation of church and state, we'd be closer to seeing you cast off the crutches of rigid ideology - both social and economic - and have something to contribute.
Rated for John Boni's bold statement of Liberalism!
Don ... Al .... spot on. Nothing more be said.
Paul .... communicating with you is like talking to someone trapped in a paper bag that measures everything by your concept of liberalism as manifested in the Constitution.
Yeah. Okay. It's a "liberal" document. Okay. I get that. I get that. Okay? I get that.
Liberal then and liberal now are two different birds. You're talking about classical liberalism. The liberalism today is social liberalism, and it's run amok, fueled by an Oprahesque emotionality that cries unfair at everything that's, well, unfair.
But they try to use the government to make what's unfair fair. JFK said life isn't fair. He's right. Deal with it.
Further, whatever makes you think I'm not for the separation of Church and State. These are just chain-saw assumptions the left makes about everyone who disagrees with them. He doesn't like the Dems and/or Obama, so lump him as a theocrat or he must be a religious nut. Jesus, Paul, you know better than that.
The Constitution is a liberal document. I get it. Fins. I surrender. I get it. Here's the white flag. I get it.
Sorry to cause such confusion by the obvious statement that Tocqueville was a liberal. I was, of course, half prodding, half being serious. It's fun to point out to those conservatives who rail against liberalism that conservatism itself has contributed nothing to our liberal system except, as Hartz, I believe said : "ejaculations of class interest."
Tocqueville was expressing thoughts on liberalism, not "classical," or your inventive and loosely applied "social" liberalism, which is merely an excuse for the so-called conservative's propaganda labeling. Invent a meaning to match your use...convenient. He was speaking of extremes, not granting validity to the radical conservative error that says social spending is socialism.
I get the thrust of your efforts here, to seek philosophical approval of the trite and phantasmagoric conservative vision of "enemy within" socialism, where whatever is a public service invites pogoms and the destruction of liberty. In this shopworn conservative fantasy our Greatest Generation, with their New Deal and public hospital system become socialists, as do our Founders with their "socialistic" restrictions on corporations.
No, John, you don't get it. What you get is a slice of a thought from a much wider philosophy that would see today's conservatives as the threat to liberty, applying a 'moral" regimentation and a "Nanny State" distinguished from left wing socialism by only a few silken degrees, mainly measured by who benefits.
You can't slip a piece of paper between the essential thrust of the radical left or right wings - both will bludgeon liberty in the name of liberty, the only difference being there IS NO radical leftist socialist movement in America. It's an invention of the very real radical right wing, used to justify their own rigid and obviously (i.e. this economic collapse) flawed ideology.
I mention separation of church and state because the opposite of it is the goal of the GOP, whether you buy into it or not.
PS - If you're going to make my argument for me, could you at least make it a good one?
this subject is way over your head, what you claim proves it.
Perhaps.
This thread needed it's first stupid, cheapshot comment. Whew!
So I went over to your blog to see what kind of post YOU put out there on OS's front lines and guess what .... it's empty! Blank! Perhaps that reflects the space between your ears.
Ah, well ... even Tennile had something to say.
Congrats on your part in “Army Wives”. I have been away too. I am honored that you would use the "Stunning Quotes" idea.. I in regards to P.J. and his insistence that we all are wrong about the definition of "liberalism"...I am reminded of your Rabbi praying at the wall joke. P.J. blocked me from commenting on his site because I razed him about it so much. He apologized to me also.
Rated