Gore Vidal on liberty
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2007
- The people who wrote the Constitution hated democracy
Says Vidal: We've always been an oligarchy of the well-to-do and are becoming even more so now. What freedoms we had have now been eliminated -- Magna Carta guaranteed us due process of law, the only good thing England left us.
Now that he's no longer with us its chilling to hear his warnings.
Gore Vidal will always be ahead of the curve What a giant. Love Gore's paintings of Gore in the background. Thanks Paul
I'd like to hear Gore's thoughts on how we address the guilt most Americans feel about the atrocities committed against the Indians during the founding of the Union. We desperately need some perspective on that part of our history so we can defend ourselves against people that wish to use that against us.
Apologies, accidental double post ...
You are absolutely correct. Despite all the complaints, people think things are OK, so do I, not great OK. I was just reminding JixMa that if things ever, ever become that bad, it is in the spirit of the constitution to take arms against the government.
That is one part of history that this country has not fully come to terms with. I also think it is one that has not been fully understood. It is about time.
what a brilliant idea to interview Gore Vidal. He is a national treasure
this was great, i'm happy to know that i'm not the only one with these thoughts. i knew it was a popular view but not this popular.
RIP Gore
By "people" if you mean direct democracy, you are correct. But I meant the people who run the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch, even some in the executive branch. They work independently to uphold the constitution, and act as check and balance against each other. That is why you cannot do any permanent damage without changing the constitution.
Surely there is more to the movie than that. It also shows you that such authoritarian governments do not last. And history proves it.
Collapsed/overthrown, depends on viewpoint, I think (I could be wrong). The bottom line is the people of that country decided that that system was no longer working for them and so flushed it down the toilet.
You are right. People rarley take to armed revolt. Quote from the declaration, 'Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.' The founding fathers understood this. They wanted the world to know that theirs was different.
yes. EVERYTHING is the fault of people who don't think.
He can't get away with it as long as people can still intrepret and enforce laws in the spirit and letter of the original text, we call the constitution. As long as the constitution exists as it is, we can and will do a lot of things that will make him look stupid. If that changes then the battle is lost for good.
Also as a last resort, you can take arms against the government. That is in accordance with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
I totally agree with you, but I wouldn't call Vindal sick, just mistaken.
Indeed. The Elector's College is a perfect example. To be a dampening force on the people.
Run on run on run on sentence.
By the way I don't think things are that bad, not even close. Just wanted to let everyone know that the founders of the US, had even that one covered.
agree
The Declaration of Independence guarantees all US citizens liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. I think despite all its struggles this country has managed to guarantee that right to most of its citizens, more today than it ever had. So what if safe guarding these rights means democracy gets compromised. An angry mob burning down my house has the majority on their side, but are they in the right? What happens to my freedom then, not to mention due process of the law?
Vidal is the Master
@Nintendomanwill The American Constitution does limit freedom. It's only because of the Bill of Rights, which was tacked onto the Constitution that there is any freedom in the US. Chomsky is a trained intellectual as is Vidal but for the real low-down see Michael Parenti's 'Myth of the Founding Fathers' - he's actually a trained historian who has studied the documents in detail. And then take a good look around. Oh, and next time you need a few billion bucks just call the White House.
I agree with you mostly, but you must also remember more recent history, and we cannot continue to turn a blind eye towards the unjust wars and operations that have been run in America's name and under the guise of national security.
If you read the "emancipation proclamation" very carefully you can see that they had no intentions on actually committing to creating equality for the blacks in this country. It says right in the obvious that "they have the right to own property" which was the issuance of Jim Crowism.
that's what my song "20 cent raise" vaguely refers to.
myspace com/oldhack
That makes communism sound like a dictatorship, which it was. However, the Russian people didnot think so. They really believed that supressing the rights of the individual for the welfare of the state can create an ideal world order. They where willing participants. Stalin took full advantage of their credulity at first, but they where becoming more sensible as time went. I think it is not an accident that there was a Gorbachev and a Boris Yelstin later on, rather than another Stalin.
Repeat, "not always a crime"
You would think so, but then how are you able to speak out?
I never claimed he was a liberal demcorat. All I claimed was that he understood the system was fundamentally flawed and was no longer willing to kill for it. He was willing to change it, which was the responsible thing to do.
What about Gorbachev? A young man who never remembered a time when the communists didnot rule? Who was sensible enough to see that the system was not working? I can say this much about him, if the system creates a person who doesnot think it works (rightly) and puts him in a position of power. That means it is truly broken. Why would such a person take arms against his like minded people, to prop up a system he doesnot believe in?
Long live communism and freedom
I would want to verify that. It seems too shcoking to be true. But given the closed and secretive nature of the Soviet system, I donot think the common man who lived, would have know about the magnitude of the catastrophy that was their country. I think that is the reason they could put up a good image and survive as long as they did.
His predictions were often wrong, and often right too.
The constitution and the bill of rights does not 'grant' us rights. It secures our inalienable (and I dare say natural rights) by codifying it and helping build institutions that reflect its values and protects what it represents.
Here is how I understand it. He didnot want the communist system to end and what is there today is not what he wanted. He wanted the communist system to change.
Gore Vidal seems to have an exaggerated sense of the horrors of reality. This administration has not caused any irreversible damage, for that they should amend the constitution, and good luck with that.
Basing your argument on a movie? The system is not perfect, but it can improve itself. Watch the news, heads of important people are rolling all over the place.
I understand where Vidal is coming from, but I think he's been unreasonably hard on the Founders. Nothing is perfect, but the Constitution isn't the problem in our society. Its the complete dismissal of the Constitution to support a media/politician circle-jerk where money and party affiliation are all that matter to acheiving power.
Read The Federalist papers, in No. 10 Madison talks about democracy and factions. He talks of the problems with democracy in that factions in a majority are able to oppress the minority. They were promoting a Republic, not a democracy. You don't need to be a scholar to read.
you notice, he always threatens to punch people in the face, During Debates, BTW In a very Effete manner!
You didnot take time to read what I said. Too strong emotons. I didnot say the government is reading our email becuase they care for us. I said the government doesnot care enough to read our email or listen to our phones, most of the time. But the fact that they can do, if they want to, seems wrong.
What I was taught about Americas civil war in my school was utter propaganda. I came home and told my mom what I had learned and she jumped my shit for ever believing that "Lincoln freed the slaves". Lincoln freed the slaves like Bush freed the Iraqis.
there's so much history left out of history books. it seems as tho there is just as much (or close to at least) propaganda in history books. you'll never here about east temor or the loss of the gold standard or daddy bushs' involvement with sadam during the 80s in a history book...all those things people should know. america, canada, the u.k. arn't perfect, no country is and the point of looking at history is to not repeat past mistakes. this is a perogative that has been stolen from us.
No he is not. You may think he is but he is not.
You make good points, but if you polish your language, more people will listen to you. Anyway that is up to you, not my problem.
There is nothing altruistic about wanting to be free. The aim of the Marshall plan was to prevent the spread of communism which was a threat to the American idea of an individual's right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. So what? Altruism is not always a virtue and self-interest is not always a crime.
I agree Madison was elitist but didn't he become more Jeffersonian as he went on?
60 million sounds exaggerated. And Stalin lived in a country without a free press or the internet. Most people admired Stalin and cried when he died, because they didnot know what he did. That came out after he had died. He took them for a ride, because they where used to trusting authority figures.
Long live eugenics and mccarthyism
Vidal is a statist elitist. He is the one with contempt for liberty just like the Bolsheviks who actually despised those whom they claimed to represent. Buckley was a great man.