Cognitive dissonance among the supposedly free

C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
For 200-some years, the government has been telling us that they don't owe anyone any level of protection. You all know it; most of you cite this philosophy in defense of your decision to own firearms.

Then why the screaming blue hell do you believe it when that same government - the one that has in no uncertain terms disavowed all responsibility for our safety - tells us that they're going shove their unlubed hands into your private life, ostensibly in the name of keeping us safe from terrorists, and you'll gorram well bend over and like it?

It's called cognitive dissonance. It's the same mental breakdown that allows Rosie O'Donnell to castigate us while keeping an armed bodyguard on her payroll.

Those of you who blindly accept any level of government intrusion into your life, even something as apparently innocuous as keeping track of all communication between everyone in the entire country, would do well to read a few documents. The first would be our Declaration of Independence. The second would be the Constitution; you'll find that nowhere in this document, which precisely delineates the government's powers, is the government given the right or authority to monitor us. The third would be the Bill of Rights. In Article IV, Uncle is told in extremely plain language that he can't do what you're happily accepting, if not actively encouraging. By refusing to acknowledge this, you're saying that you know better than the Founders. As much as I respect some people here, none of you - nor I, for that matter - are anywhere near their level of sagacity and foresight.

Putting "1984" on your list of reading materials wouldn't go amiss either, although you who have perfected the art of cognitive dissonance - also known as doublethink - would entirely miss the point.

The Founders knew, and said flat out, that you do not ever cede power over your own life to arbitrary authority. If you do, you are unworthy to call yourself a free American, because you happily grovel at the boots of those who would destroy you without a second thought. This country was founded on dissent and disrespect for authority; deny that, and you deny what the Founders fought for.

But hey, if you have nothing to hide, why not invite the ATF into your home to catalog all of your guns and every cartridge? Why complain about filling out a 4473 every single time you buy a new gun? After all, you have nothing to lose.

Nothing, that is, except your freedom.
 
Regarding Rosie O'Donnell... Not sure it's a valid comparison. Unspoken (yet not necessarily unrealized) mind-set of being above the people is more likely than dissonance in this case. Of course, no politician would admit to that even at risk of looking dissonancish :)
 
For 200-some years, the government has been telling us that they don't owe anyone any level of protection. .
Click to expand...

Actually that is a simplification of a rather complex legal principle that varies from state to state

he second would be the Constitution; you'll find that nowhere in this document, which precisely delineates the government's powers, is the government given the right or authority to monitor us.
Click to expand...

Constitional Silence on the issue does not mean that the power does not exist.

In Article IV, Uncle is told in extremely plain language that he can't do what you're happily accepting, if not actively encouraging.
Click to expand...

O really? Where is that plain language.?

This country was founded on dissent and disrespect for authority; deny that, and you deny what the Founders fought for.
Click to expand...

Show me where the founders fouded this country on disrepsect for authority

WildnicepolemicbutlikeallpolemicsAlaska
 
WA, have you ever actually read the Declaration? Apparently not, so I'll summarise:

"Hey, George: get out of our face, you assclown."
 
WOW,:eek:

I can't believe what an intelligent, and insightful thread this is ALREADY! Usually these threads go on for AT LEAST 7-8 posts before they get into the "If you don't come right out and agree with me then my only recourse will be to get real belligerent and stupid" crap.

I agree that things are going downhill pretty quikly, but this emotionally charged, combative attitude toward the people who would side with you will accomplish nothing but raise hostilaties and hinder the cause. I have nothing but respect for WA and know that he would defend any rights he thought were in danger. Read around on this site and i'm sure you will come to agree. Authority is authority, and certain respect should be given even if you don't agree with it. Our enemy is not a king on distant shores, and these are different times. If you hope to accomplish any good then you will have to learn to be a little more tactfull, a little more...political.

If you try to discuss this with a little more respect instead of trying to be so commanding and talking down to everyone, I think you will find that ALMOST everyone here is actually on your side.

nicopropstowildalaskatine.
 
I think we're having a clash of word choice here. The Founders definitely did not trust, like or bow to "authority". Whether that is disrespect or not is academic.


Our Constitution is all about keeping government in check so it can only serve, rather than be served by the populace. National defense is the biggest and worst sticking point in this philosophy because it requires taxes, conscription and secrecy.

The answer isn't pleasant: Vigilance. The government and public MUST constantly be at odds so neither can damage the necessary defense or the necessary freedoms. There isn't a simple answer, and threads like this one keep the wound open so we don't forget the problem.


Unthinking allegiance to either point of view is where the trouble starts.
 
Last edited:
and these are different times.
Click to expand...
I swear, if I hear this once more I will just scream.
- Human Nature has not changed in the past 250 years
- The nature of government has not changed in the past 250 years

The only thing that has changed in the past 250 years is the balance of power. Government today has far more power in terms of technology and brute force than King George could ever have dreamed.
Rich
 
Combative, am I?

You're bloody well right I'm combative. When my rights and freedom are being undermined by my supposed allies, I get irate. I have no need or desire to play nicey-nice with people who apparently failed their high school civics classes.

I find it mind-boggling that the same people who scream about "just one more gun law, to protect teh chilruns" have no problem with "just one more anti-terrorism law, to protect everyone and make everything perfect forever." Good Bog, people, are you really that blind? Why can you not understand that erosion of rights applies to ALL rights, not just your oh-so-precious guns?
 
Spurious placement of words in his mouth, Handy.
He didn't accuse any of us of "taking his rights"; he accused us of "undermining" them. And many of us do.
Rich
 
People on this forum actively support the destruction of our rights; including their own. The end result is the same.
 
coinneach said:
...you'll find that nowhere in this document, which precisely delineates the government's powers, is the government given the right or authority to monitor us.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
WildAlaska said:
Constitional (sic) Silence on the issue does not mean that the power does not exist.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does mean that, given the following:

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But for far too long the following has been taken totally out of context by all three branches of the federal government:

Article I, section 8, clause 1: ...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

If that phrase (as underlined) meant what our government seems to want it to mean, then the founders had no reason to continue writing further. But they did. They listed a whole bunch of other stuff, which negates the current supposed meaning of that "general welfare" phrase... It is not a clause unto itself. It part and parcel of the Taxation clause and must be set in context for the reasons of taxation, not a power or reason unto itself.

Thank you FDR!! Single handidly, this President and the Congress and the Judiciary that backed him have completely negated the rest of Section 8... Except when they find it convenient to further expand powers via the Commerce Clause and/or the Necessary and Proper (the "elastic") Clause.

Wild, even arguing that these so-called hidden powers are there, once the 10th was ratified, it effectively changed the construction of the constitution to disallow anything which was not enumerated. Yet ever has the Court whittled away even this protection.

This is not the wild speculation of some redneck from po-dunk Idaho. This is the history of federal power grabbing by all three federal branches.
 
Hey Coinneach, I agree with you. But this is a discussion forum, and your perception of your rights doesn't invalidate everyone else's.

The people who support the government intrusion are supporting something that no court in this country has labeled illegal or unConstitutional. This sort of thing is not so black and white that everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist.


My post was only in agreement that you aren't going to make many converts with this tact.


Rich, if you believe Coinneach is 100% right, why subject the topic to any sort of discussion? Lock it and make it a sticky.

If you want it discussed, perhaps a collegiate tone is appropriate.
 
Handy, there is nothing to debate. Freedom is not negotiable, and those who would bargain that freedom away don't deserve it. You know, just like a certain Mr Franklin said a couple hundred years ago.
 
Two sets of "Founders," gang, and they only slightly overlap: "Founders," as in Declaration of Independance and Articles of Confederation, and "Framers," as in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Our Revolution was followed -- as most are -- by a second, quieter revolution in which the reins of power were gathered and more tightly held.

First group, "Founders," was very loosely organized and represented a huge variety of ideas and approaches, including some that were very disrespectful of "authority" and tended to demand it justify itself. Second group, "Framers," was more unified (though still deeply divided; a large contingent of delegates opposed the Constitution in its final form, some of them are why there is a Bill of Rights), much more in favor of a strong central government, and many of them tended later to arrogate more powers to it than were actually granted.

Interestingly, one of the arguments advanced against adoption of a Bill of Rights was that it implied those were the only rights recognized, while it was claimed to be perfectly clear that the Constitution granted to the Federal government only those powers specifically listed therein, reserving all other rights and powers to the People or, through them, to the States; this flies in the face of Wild Alaska's claim but, sadly, case law since then favors WA's take over the Federalist Framers reading.

The Constitution is (in my opinion) deeply flawed and has, in its strengths and its weaknesses, given us the government we have (that last part isn't opinion, it's a tautology). The emergence of a two-party system, nowhere described in any of the founding documents, has provided an additional layer of complication.

As for people disagreeing, why, that's as American as apple pie or baseball; it's what we do. We can get really upset about it or understand that it is a big country, big enough for all sorts of ideas -- good, bad, and way, way out there. People can disagree without one or the other having to be evil.
 
Last edited:
Rich, if you believe Coinneach is 100% right, why subject the topic to any sort of discussion? Lock it and make it a sticky.
Click to expand...
Where did I say I agreed completely with Coin? What I said was I disagreed completely with you twisting his words.

That's a sticky I can live without, thanks. ;)
Rich
 
Rich, you're taking issue with my word choice, which appeared to be because you dislike the actual content of my post: That Coinneach was being overly combative.


If you actually just dislike my choice of words, let me rephrase:

Coinneach, no one on this site truly believes they are actively undermining your rights. If you would like to demonstrate to them that they in fact are in error, a less combative tone may work better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top