Controlling The Individual

There is nothing liberal about liberalism except control.  Liberalism seeks to expand the power of government and that necessarily includes control over individuals. Liberalism demands that the freedom of individual be surrendered for the "greater good" of society.  The greater good usually involves limiting the freedom of an individual if (in the liberal view) it somehow results in furthering societal goals.  One of my favorite quotes states:

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.  (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Liberty means you can make decisions for your life.  Liberty means that you are responsible for you and your actions.  Socialism seeks to take away individual freedom and replace it with a societal nanny state that controls almost every aspect of your life.  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it is the left that seeks to control every aspect of your life from where you  live, what you drive, what you eat and what you buy. 

In England, Lord Smith of Finsbury wants to control the environment by controlling you.  

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

In order to properly calculate your usage, they would have to know every aspect of your life.  Proponents contend it would only effect those who were extravagant, but rarely is that the case.  You can see where this is going.

Some are starting to get it.

Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: "This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business."

Ya think?

VW

Comments

[BobF]

Of course these allowances won't affect Lord Smith just like they don't affect the high priest of the Gorminites, Al Gore

[John Hampton]

The unconstitutional legislation which the unholy trinity of Obama-Pelosi-Reid is ramming through is intended to criminalize all those who do not knuckle under to their tyranny. But look on the bright side - just think about the possibilities of all the new jobs it might create working in law enforcement and in our prison systems. Additionally, it will open new doors for redistribution of wealth when the assets and wealth of everyone thrown in prison is confiscated and auctioned off.

Sound far-fetched? In Hitler's Germany public auctioning of Jewish belongings began in 1941. Three to four thousand giant containers of furniture and clothing was auctioned just in Hamburg alone. Public auctions were held every working day between 1941 and 1945. The goods poured in from every corner of the Reich. The contents of approximately 72,000 apartments were sent to central collection points. Essen received 1,928 freight wagons, Cologne 1,457, Rostock 1,023 Hamburg 2,699. It was one of the biggest changes of ownership in modern history. A massive robbery in which the entire German population participated.

[Scott]

We've had some good discussions here about the meaning of the word "liberal," and while I respect a definition offered up by those who do not claim to be that themselves, I still prefer to describe myself as a liberal based on it's original (and still-used *actual* definition) intent: that is, a person who is "liberal" seeks NOT to control others, but to ensure freedoms for all. Interestingly, the same concepts that govern the word with the same root: "liberty."

And, you said: "Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it is the left that seeks to control every aspect of your life from where you live, what you drive, what you eat and what you buy." I'll only offer up that it is the Right who seeks to control every personal aspect of your life from where you live ("No blacks/Muslims allowed."), which wars you support, who you can marry and who you must worship.

People everywhere, wanting the same things, looking at those things from very different perspectives. Thus, it's the perspective that becomes all-important.

[John Hampton]

Seems I remember learning something in a college classroom about the word "liberal" as it is applied to and originally used by modern Democrats as something to do with the notion that statutes and constitutional principles should be "liberally" or loosely interpreted as opposed to strict interpretation. Seems to me that the word has been hijacked and twisted by the left. Another example of linguistic chicanery which has confused a lot of people. Perhaps I'm one of them.

[John Hampton]

Just how far should we be willing to allow this so-called liberalism to infect our culture and society?

If it's permissable for a 15- or 16-year old girl to marry a 30-year old man, does that mean we must also be open to allowing a 15-year old boy to marry a 30-year old man?

If the so-called constitutional principle of separation of church and state must be so rigidly applied to Christianity, why does does our government seem to be bending over backward to accomodate Muslims?

I live in a community which is falsely perceived to be one of the most discriminatory and prejudiced in the US (near Harrison, AR), yet I see no signs anywhere that state "No Blacks" or "No Muslims" and I have never seen nor heard of anyone being mistreated because of their ethnicity or religion. This town has been falsely labeled as a "sun-downer town" but as far back as the early sixties when I was living here as a boy, there were no such signs posted at the city limits.

Where does this notion come from that anyone has been compelled to support the War on Terror or our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? We don't even conscript people into military service.

This perspective that it's the perspective which is all important lends itself to the stupid expression I've heard so many times from ignorant people that, "It's all good."
No, it's not all good. If it was all good I would have been getting drunk and stoned with my kids and taking them down to get tattoos and multiple body-piercings and teaching them to show disdain and disrespect for their teachers in school.

[Rusty]

So, it's the liberals that want gov't to control your life?

So, if I think gov't should be able to tell you who you should be able to marry, I'm a liberal?

If I think gov't should be able to tell a women what she can do with her body, I'm a liberal?

If I think gov't should be able to tell me what drugs I can or can't take, I'm a liberal?

No, I think you have it wrong. Both liberal and conservatives want the gov't to run our lives. The difference is that liberals want the gov't in our wallets and out of our bedrooms and conservatives want just the opposite.

Liberals want gov't to legislate compassion, and conservatives want gov't to legislate morality.

[Violence Worker]

Legislating compassion? You have GOT to be kidding, right? You cannot legislate compassion. When compassion is mandated, it ceases to be compassion and it becomes a form of servitude.

Government has a vested interest in morality. Morality, in case you don't know, is more than sex. I refuse to be drawn into an Abortion argument, but many moral problems are also compassionate ones. I'll not be drawn into an abortion argument, but many people see stopping abortion as a compassionate issue.

But beyond that, wishing to control where I live, what I drive and and what I'm allowed to eat and drink goes way most conservatives advocate. Also, Rusty, you probably don't even know my personal views concerning marriage. Simply put, as long as a the states require a lisenceI happen to be for civil unions with the question of a marriage ceremony left up to the individual churches.

Also since it's is the states that deal with licensing, the feds need to stay out of it.'

Beyond that, the scope of control advocated by liberals is way wider than conservatives.

VW

[John Hampton]

Rusty, I find it truly astounding that you or anyone else can even pretend to rationally comprehend such a concept - legislation of compassion - and then attempt to convey it with a belief that it can be a reality. Anyone who advocates and supports the propagation and acceptance of such a fantastically out-of-touch, starry-eyed, idealistic view of the real world simply has an uneducated, inexperienced, and deluded grasp of the larger scheme of things. I just don't know how else to put it.

It must be the Kool-Aid. Stop drinking it, Rusty. It is hurting you.