Home

home
Stay Informed

stay informed
ideas

ideas
media library

media library


get involved




Login:
Password:
Register | Forgot login info


Elie Halevy Quote

The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organization.

ideas > Question everything or lose your freedom

Question everything or lose your freedom
The death of any democratic institution is paved by the people who refuse to question all assumptions perpetuated by the government. In the country that we live in today in the United States, many citizens assume that the word of a government official is often the final word without questioning the government official for such basic things as evidence, etc. As I grow older, I grow more skeptical of things that I hear from government officials because I realize that government officials are not neutral beings that serve the best interests of the people that elect them and pay their salaries. Therefore, I must be skeptical if I am to safeguard from liberties and freedoms. On a side note, most everything I hear from the remaining three presidential candidates should be questioned with a fine tooth comb, yet very few people question any of them and fail to question the assumptions that their statements are based upon. It is wisdom to question assumptions and ideas. It is foolishness to trust in a politician without questioning their assumptions and asking for the evidence that the assumptions are based on. I have learned that very few politicians know anything about economics, but they know much about leading the masses into believing they know something about economics. But I am kind of straying from my initial point. I would like to give a few examples of assumptions that think people should really question in order to hopefully open the eyes of a few more citizens so that they can question all ideas and the underlying assumptions of those who perpetuate the ideas.

First, I am not quite sure why our highways in Hawaii have speed limits of no higher than 55 miles per hour. Is there a scientific reason for this? I believe that the speed limit of 55 miles per hour is actually dangerous. While driving home at night every Sunday evening from Ewa Beach to Makiki, I often drive 65 or 70 mph on the H1 freeway. I follow the flow of traffic and see nothing dangerous with doing this. What is dangerous is that I often spend time watching my odometer not knowing whether or not a cop is behind me ready to pull me over. Iím thinking to myself, if I go 65 mph will he pull me over? How about 63 mph? There is nothing dangerous about me travelling this fast on H1. Is it more dangerous for me to constantly be checking my odometer to make sure Iím not breaking the speed limit or to just follow the flow of traffic and drive as fast as they drive? I suspect that more accidents are caused by drivers who fail to pay attention to what is in front of them than are caused by people breaking the 55 mph speed limit. Another point to be made is that there is a difference between driving fast and driving dangerously or recklessly. One can drive 70 mph on H1 and be safer than one who drives 55 mph. I suspect also that the speed limit is really a way to generate revenue. The Germans used to have a freeway where there was no speed limit. Did they view this as dangerous? I suspect not or they wouldnít have had it. So I ask the government to show me the evidence that a 55 mph limit is safer than no speed limit or even a 65 mph speed limit. What are the assumptions that they are living under.

Second, global warming is full of questionable assumptions. First, the main driver of the global warming crisis is the United Nations and other governmental agencies and non-government groups and non-profits. There is a difference between having a clean environment so that people can enjoy clean air and water and having a clean environment because man is supposedly creating global warming that will destroy the human race. The first is based in evidence. A clean environment with clean air and water is a good thing. The second is based in assumption after assumption and hysteria. There is so much evidence against the idea that human activity is creating global warming that will destroy the human race, yet this is what we hear from folks like Al Gore and the United Nations and other governments who wish to plan and control large groups of people. In the 1920s, the Earth was also experiencing global warming, yet New York, Miami, and other cities close to oceans were not flooded or inundated. Iím sure the ice caps melted back them as well. In the 1970s, there was global cooling even though the fossil fuel emissions in the atmosphere were higher than they were in the 1920s. I am not a scientific expert, but I am aware that the dominoes that Al Gore and his friends line up to prove global warming and the catastrophe it will supposedly be unleashed upon mankind is not the pretty picture that he wishes to portray. A few simple facts that Iíve mentioned above seem to get in that way. This global warming hysteria also assumes many things that havenít been proven. First, it assumes that the Earth has somehow reached some tipping point where it canít take anymore carbon based emissions in the atmosphere. Where is this level of no return? And how was it determined? Perhaps, the Earth can take much more than these global warming scaremongers think. Second, it assumes that the Earth and that people have no means of coping with this. The Earth is not as fragile as people make it out to be. People are pretty good at adapting to the circumstances that they live in. If it is true that global warming is caused by fossil fuel and carbon emissions, then can the global warming fanatics please explain the lack of flooding in coastal cities in the 1920s and the anomaly of global cooling in the 1970s? If they want to talk honestly about this, then explain those things. I will agree that it is good to have a clean environment so that people can enjoy clean air and water and land. These things are good and based on facts. I will not agree that man is creating global warming or that man has even a minimal effect on the warming of the planet. This is based on way too many assumptions at this moment in time. The science of this is contradictory and relatively new. Those that are driving it are generally the same people that wish for big government such as the liberals, environmentalists, and the socialists. They have been trying for decades to curb the power of the individual in exchange for the power of socialistic planning. The certainty with which they spread the gospel of global warming, in light of the basic facts that I pointed out earlier, is rather scary. I am not a scientist, but I see the contradictions and the questions, but then again zealots of any kind often are the last to admit they are wrong. And global warming advocates are often zealots with much to gain from government planning and control of the environment and the economy. There are just too many assumptions being made at this time with global warming to convince me that it is a crisis. I am convinced that the environment should be clean for people to enjoy, but that is entirely different from completely reorganizing humanity so as to fend off these severe consequences of global warming that the religion of Al Gore keeps proselytizing. Finally, why does Al Gore never debate the other side on this subject? Instead he name calls and demonizes those who question his conclusions. Does this sound like a man who wants to tell the truth? The truth is never afraid of the light. The truth seeks the light and will always stand up under scrutiny.

In conclusion, the quickest road to losing your freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution is the one where you fail to question the basic assumptions that politicians and the government base their ideas upon. The government, as is constituted now has a major conflict of interest between telling the people the whole truth, which would expose the government for what it is; or telling the people part of the truth in order to keep its power and in many cases grow its power. The government is no different from any other business, except in one regard. It produces nothing. It has appetites just like any business. It seeks to grow and control, but it produces nothing. That is why it must be limited. Nothing will stop it unless the people begin to question all the ideas and assumptions that emanate from the government and its tools.

Contact us