Giuliani: "Freedom is about authority"

[KenH]

This quote from Rudy Giuliani is worse than anything I have ever heard Hillary Clinton say:

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

 

[StefanM]

That sounds like it's straight out of 1984...

"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! WAR IS PEACE!"

 

[Ps104_33]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Giuliani says here when taken in its total context. With freedom comes responsibility. Are you saying that authority is bad? I dont understand what the problem is here. Everyone has some sort of authority in their life that they live by. God and the Bible. Their own opinions. Karl Marx. L. Ron Hubbard. Who or what is yours?

 

[hillclimber1]

Hearing it the way Ken does it seems awful. But the way Rudy intended it, it's right on. Typical spinning.

 

[KenH]

Comment deleted. I was out of line. My apologies.

 

[KenH]

I Are you saying that authority is bad?

No. I agree with our Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. constitution to keep the federal government chained and the citizens free to pursue their personal dreams.

 

[just-want-peace]

An authoritarian tends to agree with other authoritarians, hillclimber1. Giuliani is an authoritarian and you agree with him. Hmmmmmm.

Guess this means that the libs have it right -- no matter what you do, it's always somebody else's fault!!

Now I'm sure (I think!?) this is NOT what you (Ken) meant, but to absolve yourself from ANY authority is exactly what it sounds like.

Perhaps you can be a little more explanatory as to what you REALLY meant by giving examples of limited, restrained authority that is acceptable in your view.

Incidentally, I agree with the other two who see no problem with Giuliani's statement as is, and I am a far cry from an authoritian.

Rebut the comments, not the commentor!!!!!:BangHead:

 

[KenH]

1) Rebut the comments, not the commentor!!!!!

2) Perhaps you can be a little more explanatory as to what you REALLY meant by giving examples of limited, restrained authority that is acceptable in your view.

1) You are correct. My bad. Comment deleted.

2) The U.S. constitution.

 

[just-want-peace]

2) The U.S. constitution.

Humor me; be a little more specific.

Let's take an extreme of each end.

Ok for traffic laws (stop lights, speed restrictions etc)?
to
Smoking ban in city limits, extending your own home?

Just as a guide, where does gov't intervention begin to exceed the constitution?

I'm not being facetious, cause I agree with you that we have WAY too much govt and would love to see it restrained, but without the responsibility part of the freedoms, there will soon be no freedoms.

I'm just looking for the tipping point for you.

 

[KenH]

Ok for traffic laws (stop lights, speed restrictions etc)? to Smoking ban in city limits, extending your own home?

If the federal government involves itself in any of these issues then it has gone beyond its constitutional boundaries.

 

[just-want-peace]

If the federal government involves itself in any of these issues then it has gone beyond its constitutional boundaries.

One last try!

I appreciate your concern, but if you were running for POTUS, and this concept were your platform, you would have to be more specific as to what IS denied the Feds by the constitution that is now law.

In other words, traffic control, as I see it, is not a violation of the constitution since the originators had absolutely no concept of "motorized travel". The attendent problems that would arise therein that HAD TO BE ADDRESSED lest pure chaos reign across the nation.

Now I totally agree that the govt should be much, much less intrusive than it is, but I fail to see how I can agree with your statement

This quote from Rudy Giuliani is worse than anything I have ever heard Hillary Clinton say:

Clarification is all I'm requesting.

Incidentally, I just realized that the quote by Giuliani has nothing to do with the Feds; just "authority", which makes my question to you even more important as to what you mean! Taken to the extreme, you could be saying that you agree that parents should have no authority over their kids.

I know this is NOT what you mean, but left as you state it that is a possible interpretation.

 

[KenH]

1) you would have to be more specific as to what IS denied the Feds by the constitution that is now law.

2) Incidentally, I just realized that the quote by Giuliani has nothing to do with the Feds

1) Perhaps this is the bottom line of our difference: I believe that the federal government can only do what the U.S. constitution authorizes it to do. It is not a matter of what it is denied from doing but what it is authorized to do.

2) The context of his statement, especially considering that he is running for president, is about government.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Hearing it the way Ken does it seems awful. But the way Rudy intended it, it's right on. Typical spinning.

By all means, please share with us "the way Rudy intended it."

BiR