The neo-cons and/or the remnants of the Christian coalition, given the power, can be just as controlling and destructive to freedom and individualism as the progressive left. Hummm.. that statement should piss off just about....ummm.... everybody.

I am saying, even now, you are not as free as you like to believe you are. If you were to cause enough of a threat to the status quo of those in power or their beneficiaries you would be stopped by character assassination or force of law. Look at the IRS targeting and politicians labeling the tea party as terrorists. Look at Ben Carson being labeled a radical threat.

This is not new. Just look at the slanders of McCarthyism by the right. Or, how free were my friends that were forcibly sent to Vietnam to die for a war the government lost and in the end mattered little. Government has the power to force young men to go to war and you think they can't force you to work if they choose to? What about "workfare"? Isn't that the government forcing someone to work.

66% of Utah is federally owned. 81% of Nevada is federally owned. More than half of the west has been taken by the federal government. The EPA has taken or taken control of unknown amounts of land or at least rendered large amounts unusable through regulation. The federal government didn't buy any of it. They took it or took control of it.

The government can take anything from you any time they want to. We no longer live in a free society. We live in a highly regulated society. You cannot crawl out of bed without breaking some law or regulation. Over a million regulations as of 2010 and increasing by leaps and bounds since. Laws or regulations that could be used to shut you up or hurt or destroy you financially or even imprison you if someone in power should choose to do so. By "someone in power" I mean any politician or even a random bureaucrat. Happens much more often than you think.

Idealistically you believe you do own what you have built. You hang onto that illusion as long as the government allows you to. I am in agreement with you on what government idealistically should be. What government idealistically is and what we have given it the power to become are quite different.

Where do I get my view of government? Personal experience.

We would not be allowed to quit en masse. Nor would the government or it's beneficiaries go away quietly. Resistance is futile.

Check for another way to enter. If the front door is blocked, I always check around back.

So... 1 in 3 or 4 people without insurance took the government up on a free or deeply discounted service. Something that they didn't have, and, it is presumed by the government, most likely needed. Something that they were also threatened with a penalty if they didn't take it. And yet, only 25% to 33% signed up for it. Probably a much smaller percentage once those who had and lost insurance are factored out. How is this in any way a success by any measurement?

Without the freedom to be offensive there is no need for freedom of speech or expression. Everything one might say or do can and will be offensive to someone who disagrees or disapproves of you or your point of view. Lately, political correct pundits have even expanded beyond your speech and expression and into your thoughts with the concept of "unconscious bias".

I worked in a state run facility in the 70's in Georgia that did exactly that. Do some research on 20th century progressives. How about the Tuskegee experiments. Or 20th century eugenics experiments. All the early progressives that Hillary admired. Programs that ran well into the 50's, 60's and 70's. Not that some progressive programs haven't eventually turned into useful programs and knowledge, but, progressive social engineering, planned parenthood and the study of genetics has a pretty dark history with dark motives. How about progressives today who want to control what you eat, drink, buy etc for the good of society at the detriment of the individual choices? I could go on for a long time but you get the idea. To believe that progressive social meddling in individual choices is any different or somehow more justified or righteous or acceptable than religious meddling is just blind hypocrisy.

Progressives.. if they believed it was for the betterment of society as a whole. If if fits their ideology of social engineering a better society over individual rights.

Checks and Balances have been destroyed due to political policy. Makes no difference whether liberal or conservative. All the "we the people" and particularly our future generations are the victims.

I have got to wonder what % of people over 21 can honestly say that they have not, not even once, at any time in their lives, driven while under the influence. I would venture to say that, if everyone was totally honest, that a small minority could say never. Much the same as a small minority, 20% or 30%, could honestly say they have never tried smoking pot.

Rolse didn't say that... I did. Who should be ashamed? Though I don't necessarily agree with some of the suggestions in the article dated 9/17/2014 in the somewhat moderate to liberal Washington Post, the problem is clearly stated. "the number of young firms going under within the first few years has increased. Consequently, for the first time in 30 years, business deaths now outnumber business births, according to the U.S. Census Bureau."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/more-businesses-are-closing-than-starting-can-congress-help-turn-that-around/2014/09/17/06576cb8-385a-11e4-8601-97ba88884ffd_story.html

See post three up 13:58:48 about some of what was in the original law. Also, many more changes were added in 1939, only 4 years after the 1935 bill. Not really many years later.

I agree.. to some extent. What would your propose as a solution to run away crony capitalism by a over-reaching central government?

One more thing. The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. Obviously not simply a retirement program with only people paying in able to draw out benefits.

The ability to make any and all changes were built into the original law. Only reason to include that clause is because they anticipated or intended to make changes.

Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."