Category Archives: Government Oppression

The Centrelink #notmydebt fiasco is simply ongoing government oppression of society's most vulnerable, writes Jade Manson.

I AM ONE of the lucky people who have received a false debt notice from Centrelink.

The letter states:

We have completed our review of your employment income details and made a decision to change the amount you were entitled to receive.

You might notice it does not say I received more than I was entitled to. Rather, the Government has changed their mind about how much to pay me after the fact.

The debt notices scandal, or should I say scam, has been blamed on faulty government technology. When I received the notice, I was not surprised. It just seems typical of the Government, with its expertise in combining bullying and incompetence. The notice refers to a period over five years ago, when I was working casually as a checkout operator at Coles and I diligently reported my income at the time on a fortnightly basis.

Over the past six months, almost 200,000 debt notices have been delivered. They continue to be sent out at up to 20,000 per week, which is approximately the same amount that were sent for the whole of 2015. Meanwhile, Centrelink seems to be in no hurry to rectify the problem. There are plans to send out 1.7 million debt notices, in order to grab back $4 billion from welfare recipients. Pressure on the Government to do something about it is high, however. A national day of action, which I attended, was held against the false debt notices on the 31January.

These notices could be sent to anyone who has been on welfare sometime in the past sevenyears. The stress caused to thousands of Australians constitutes serious harassment by the Government. It is extremely concerning that vulnerable people, such as those suffering from mental illnesses or disabilities, are being targetedand could be driven to suicide. An estimated 20 per centof people on Newstart have a recorded illness or a disability with a partial capacity to work.

One financially struggling student who has anxiety and depression said about their $1,400 debt notice:

Christmas time is already very hard for me and before I saw that it was a widespread issue I felt so alone I was contemplating suicide my mental health has spiraled since and I feel like this is hanging over me like a cloud.

It is a likely outcome that people in receipt of the notices will be unmotivated to fix the problem, due to a reduced capacity for work and dealing with stressful bureaucratic systems. Instead, many people are likely to pay this falsely incurred debt.

Perhaps this was the Governments plan all along. It seems like an experiment in how far the government can push people before there is public outcry. The fact that the number of debt notices sent seems to have slowly increased since 2016 is an indication of this. It is further supported by the fact that after people began to speak out, they have reduced the rate of debt notices being sent out but not cancelled the automated system entirely. If the people behind this system are not fired, then it is further indication that the false debt notices were sent out intentionally in order to raise revenue.

These debt notices amount to the government stealing money from Australian citizens. Not only that but this situation further oppresses people on welfare and contributes to the public stigma toward us. An anonymous Centrelink whistleblower has reported that workers have been ordered not to correct the debt notices, or look into debts unless the client submits a formal request for review, while Alan Tudge insists that "the system is working". The whistleblower also reported that only 20 out of hundreds of reviewed cases turned out to be legitimate debts.

The debts come with an attached ten per cent recovery feeand the government plans to charge interest on debtsand remove the six year limit for debt repayments. As well as this, they are threatening gaol for those who do not pay their debts.

The flawed debt recovery system uses Australian Tax Office data, which averages out earnings over a year. Then if there is a discrepancy between the payment based on average earnings and the total payments for the year, a debt will be incurred. Over 1 million people have been reported to have a "discrepancy" in their payments. If someone works casually or takes leave, they are more likely to receive a debt notice.

This is blatantly wrong, as any person who works casually may be paid more one fortnight and less the next, resulting in their needing to rely on welfare for the fortnight they are not paid enough to live on. This is why the current welfare system is set up to pay people based on their fortnightly income.

The mistakes in the debt system could have been avoided with a basic knowledge of math and begs the question of whether the government is employing the right people to set up these systems. It follows a similar failure with the 2016 Census, when the system crashed, as it did not have the capacity for everyone in Australia to log in to fill out the online form on the same day. This resulted in at least $30 million in unexpected costs and an incomplete census.

Online tools such Centrelink Online Accounts and the NDIS Participant Portal have been subject to frequent crashes and "technical difficulties". The NDIS portal crashed for over a month last year, leaving people with disabilities unable to claim the payments to which they were entitled.

Online tools can increase efficiency when they function correctly but wreak havoc when they dont. It seems that there is a lack of funding and effort put into government online systems. Additionally, they dont take into account people who struggle with technology, who need to be able to submit claims and personal information with paper forms, such as the elderly or the intellectually disabled. This makes obvious sense if what you are interested in is consumer satisfaction. If a supermarket entirely got rid of people who work on checkouts, there would be outragebut the government creates havoc and people remain silent.

Department of Human Services clients have many complex circumstancesand need someone with empathy to understand their situation, which a machine is incapable of doing. Technology has not yet progressed to a stage where the algorithms used can take into account the complexity of personal circumstances. Even if it had, I dont believe we can trust the people currently in power to create these systems to judge how much people get paid. This latest incident proves that the current Coalition Government is incapable of creating a fair and just society and, instead, they would like to further punish vulnerable people.

The Government needs to understand that the poverty cycle leads to deteriorating health and mental health, which leads to a reduced capacity to work and reduced income. It means people cannot afford things which help in finding work such as a car, or even stable accommodation. The demeaning treatment by job agencies and the Coalition Government, the public stigma, along with the isolation of poverty, leads to reduced self-esteem and mental health. Perhaps if people didnt have to spend as long dealing with Centrelink, they would have more time and energy to look for work. Bullying by the Government only further drains their time and energy, leading to a reduced capacity to find and hold employment.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Turnbull Governments priority is not to provide services to the public, particularly when it comes to people on welfare. Instead, its policy appears to be to frustrate people into submission. From the faulty online portals, to the much complained about telephone on-hold music, the long wait times and poor customer service, it seems obvious their aim is to make the lives of welfare recipients as difficult as possible.

Meanwhile, they intend to make life as easy as possible for large corporationsby refusing to crack down on tax-dodging, which could bring in over $50 billion per year. This would well and truly cancel out our already relatively small budget deficit and remove the need for the government to hassle people in the poorest sections of society for extra money although I suspect they would do this anyway.

For anyone in a similar situation, even if you dont think its worth your time to fight the debt notice, do it for everyone else who the Government oppresses. Show them they cant get away with money grabbing and service slashing. As well as fighting these debt notices individually, I think there needs to be a class action lawsuit, to have the system that is sending out these debt notices cancelled as soon as possible, before irreversible harm is done to those in the poorest sections of society.

If you would like information on how to fight your debt notice, go to GetUp!s FraudStop website. To read more peoples stories about wrongly issued debts, visit the #NotMyDebt website.

You can follow Jade on Twitter @JadeAlanaM.

Centrelink Bogus Debts Clawback Fiasco (image via@VCOSS).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Get the facts.Subscribe to IA for just $5.

Originally posted here:

Centrelink bogus debts: How far can the vulnerable be pushed before they break? - Independent Australia

If youve been waking up recently and feeling as though youve landed in the middle of George Orwells 1984, youre not alone. Trumps familiar dismissal of the media with regard to his character, actions and policy has gone beyond the expected display of petulance. The Trump administrations actions of late reflect tactics of censorship, gaslighting and downright absurdity that can only be defined as information oppression.

Trumps war on environmentalism has begun with glaring censorship. Of course, Trump and his administration make no secret of their disinterest in issues regarding climate or the environment, and the institutions dedicated to protecting both.

To begin, one of the very first actions made by the Trump administration was to remove pages concerning climate change, among many others, from the White House website. During the Obama administration the page had been filled with factual evidence regarding human accountability, and detailed the government projects in place in that work to combat further environmental degradation and climate change. The vital information was previously freely available to the public and it ceased to exist less than a day after Trumps inauguration.

The White House page outlines the administrations agenda, and this elimination clearly announced that not only does the Trump administration not see climate change as a concern, but that the public shouldnt either. This restriction actively prevents public knowledge of, and thereby discussion about an issue with which Trump and his team disagree.

The administration has since forwarded its acts of censorship onto the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Numerous reports reveal that the Trump administration has been impeding the free exchange of information from several agencies including the EPA, and that the EPA has been ordered to limit its speech regarding climate change.

Two EPA communications officials were ordered to remove information about climate change from the agencys website. While this information would still exist in archives, it would be effectively inaccessible to the public.

Moreover, after the National Park Service retweeted messages that negatively compared the crowd sizes at Barack Obamas 2009 inauguration to Donald Trumps inauguration, representatives from the Trump administration asked the Interior Departments digital team to halt all use of Twitter. The National Park Service complied, and the White House claimed that they ordered the tweeting halt out of fear that the Twitter was hacked.

The idea behind this action is unsurprising as Trump has never taken a joke at his expense lightly. Yet to require a nation organization to suspend its use of public social media is a bevy of censorship and a blatant infringement on freedom of speech. Just days after the inauguration, a suspension of an organizations social media privileges is indicative of an administration that already feels it can abuse its power by imposing censorship on its federal organizations if and when it feels threatened.

The Badlands National Park Twitter gave Trump a taste of his own medicine by posting a slew of tweets reporting scientifically accurate information regarding climate change. Almost amusingly, the Badlands National Park service retaliated against Trump in the presidents preferred forum for bullying and distributing false information. The Park Services tweets have since been removed.

Other agencies are also targets for future liquidation. Trump and his administration also plan to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well as privatize The Corporation for Public Broadcasting in an effort to substantially slash government spending. This massive elimination would entail syphoning virtually all funding to programs such as The Institute of Museum and Library Services, which provides grants to the countrys public museums and libraries.

Eliminating the NEA and NEH keeps intellectual and artistic resources from the public and would effectively suppresses public discussion about, exploration of and investment in the humanities. And in reality, these spending cuts amount to a very minimal portion of the overall government budget. So why go to such lengths to inhibit the public from utilizing artistic and educational services?

Defunding these departments simply compounds a frightening message that has been in the making for months: the accessibility of public information is not necessary if it does not actively support Trumps agenda.

Two weeks ago, the Trump administration temporarily blacklisted CNN for allegedly promoting fake news about the administration. A White House spokesperson addressed the matter, explaining that the administration will be sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda.

After one week of refusing to allow Trump officials on CNN, a White House spokesperson explained that the ban would not be permanent, but gave no indication as to when it will be fully lifted. Until this freezing out comes to an end, the Trump administration is vigorously ostracizing a news media source for challenging, sometimes opposing, and demanding explanation from new White House representatives.

And of course, the media has not be able to forget about Kellyanne Conways use of alternative facts as a defense against accusations that the White House had knowingly lied to the press about inauguration turnout, among other trivialities. Rightfully so, the media has not let up on the administration for its defense of alternative facts as a legitimate case for knowingly distributing falsehoods en masse.

While the concept of alternative facts seems rightfully absurd and even laughable, it actually serves as one of the most terrifying stunts the administration has pulled to date. If Trump and his cronies have been attempting to blur the line between fact and fiction all along, theyre succeeding, and its a kind of evil genius.

It is easy to dismiss Trumps relationship with the media as petulant, in some cases even amusing. But what has been unfolded and escalating in the few days since Trump has taken office has proven to be more than one mans feud with the media. The administrations actions are a threat to responsible journalism, public faith in its elected officials, and even logic itself in cases where terms like alternative facts are seen by a presidential administration as unproblematic.

The U.S. Holocaust Museum felt so compelled by the Trump administrations recent actions as to publicize a poster outlining the Early Warning Signs of Fascism. One of the principal steps in this process: controlled mass media.

In isolation, each of the administrations tactics reflect the same sort of cynicism about the media which Trump displayed throughout his entire campaign. But this pattern of shady actions that seem to excommunicate information and opinion deviant from the views of the Trump administration, and Trump himself suggests and end goal of homogenous thought.

So is Trump waging war on the media? Science? Facts, themselves? It may be too early to tell. However, the administrations escalating techniques for media control and information suppression require an escalating imperative for the defense of truth above all else.

This volatile situation play out in a variety of ways, certain messages must be upheld loud and clear: facts are not at anyones discretion to debate, science does not cease to be true simply because you give it the cold-shoulder, and the disruption of free exchange of information should be fought in every capacity.

See the rest here:

Understanding Information Oppression in the Era of Trump - MediaFile

Luanda The minister of Former Combatants e Veterans of the Motherland, Cndido Pereira Van-Dunen, Saturday, in Luanda, that the Angolans' courage and bravery in the struggle for national liberation has broken the chains of oppression towards freedom.

The Government official who was speaking on the sidelines of the central event of the celebrations of the 56th anniversary of February 4, the Day of the Beginning of the Armed Struggle for National Liberation, said it was necessary to thank and praise the courage of the Angolans who have done everything to achieve national freedom.

In his view, the event should serve as a commitment to the maintenance of peace, democracy and national unity.

For the municipal administrator of Cazenga, Victor Nataniel Narciso, the current memorial is a gesture that symbolizes a place where started part of the execution of the actions that led the Angolans to the prisons of Luanda to save the political prisoners.

He said it was a great privilege that there were still survivors of these heroes who continue to pass the testimony to the new generation on what they did, went through and achieved in this heroic deed.

Read the original here:

Angolans Bravery Broke Down Chains of Colonial Oppression - Minister - AllAfrica.com

By Aniema Umoh

WARRITHE National Association of Itsekiri Graduates, NAIG, has said the Federal Government is yet to address fears of Itsekiri forefathers against oppression, economic and political marginalisation by the federal, state governments and our hostile neighbours, several decades after the Itsekiri Leaders of Thought, ILOT, raised the concerns to the Federal Government.

NAIG recalled that ILOT had raised the fears in a letter addressed to the then Military Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed in 1976.

The Itsekiri graduates body in a statement titled: The visit of the Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo to the Niger Delta: Our Position, noted that their fears manifested in the form of the Warri crisis between 1997 and 2003 on the guise of purported relocation of a local government headquarters.

NAIG claimed that the same people that carried out a genocidal attack on the Itsekiri people are threatening war over a genuine call by the Olu of Warri, concerning land under his over-lordship and cited several court cases which conferred the ownership of the land, where the National Maritime University, NMU, in Warri South-West Local Government Area is situated on the Omadino people, who are Itsekiri.

The statement, signed by three members of the associations publicity committee, Messrs Solomon Sholuwa, Dede Shuwa and Toju Apoh, backed the Olu of Warris demand for the establishment of a Naval Base in the Escravos-Ogheye Waterways, dredging of Escravos Bar and Koko River, revitalisation of Warri Port, commencement of construction work at the Gas Revolution Industrial Park, GRIP, project at Ogidigben as well as the Koko-Ogheye-Lekki Road and Omadino Escravos Highway.

While noting that these projects had the potential of creating over 300,000 jobs for Niger Delta youths at the construction stages, NAIG said: We want sustenance of peace in the Niger Delta as this will help allay the fears of multinationals who have refused to relocate their corporate headquarters to their areas of operation despite the call by Federal Government under the Goodluck Jonathan administration.

Continued here:

FG yet to address our forefathers' fear of oppression NAIG ... - Vanguard

In 1939, a bill was placed before Congress seeking to allow 20,000 Jewish refugee children into America to escape the horrors of the Holocaust. In a flurry of America-first sentiment, the bill died on the Senate floor, and the would-be refugees were left to their fate. Seventy-one years to date after the largest Nazi death camp was liberated, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, President Trump signed a new executive order once again leaving refugees to their plight, this time in war-torn Syria. Though a federal judge has temporarily stayed Trumps order, its moral consequences and implicit forewarnings cannot be ignored.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day is not the only event at odds with the signing of Trumps executive orderjust one day prior, around half a million people marched on Washington in a so-called March for Life, protesting abortion. The juxtaposition of this march, endorsed at the highest levels of the current administration, and the signing of an executive order the very next day which could essentially be a death warrant for thousands, is striking. The pro-life movement characterizes itself as fighting for the human right to life for those who by definition can have no voice in American political discourse: the unborn. But by and large, pro-lifers voted for Donald Trump and supported his most recent executive order. In doing so, they denied some of the most powerless people in the world, those lost and struggling in war zones, facing government oppression, and rampant violence, the possibility of escape. At the same time as the March for Life, those boarding planes to America, so close to safety, were turned away before they could reach Americas golden door.

What assurances could have allowed people so committed to preserving life to vote overwhelmingly for the man who, from the beginning, promised to limit all Muslim entry into the country? Could simple math have convinced them to decide avoiding nearly one million abortions per year is more worthwhile than saving tens of thousands of potential Syrian refugees? More likely, voters were persuaded by the rhetoric behind Trumps executive order, which prioritized American lives over all others. This sentiment eerily echoes the denial of the Wagner-Rogers bill in 1939 which was designed to protect Jewish refugees but deemed less important than prioritizing American problems. Today, widespread fear of Islamic terrorists has led many to believe foreigners and refugees pose a substantial threat to public safety. While this fear may be legitimate, if overstated or even misguided, the relief some may feel as a result of Trumps newest action is certainly not.

Neither of the 9/11 hijackers, nor the San Bernardino and Orlando shooters, nor the Boston bombers came from any of the seven countries included in Trumps 90-day travel ban. In the name of national security, Trumps executive order mysteriously exempted Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, countries from which terrorists who targeted the United States originated. Besides its inaccurate targets, the executive order attempts to decrease a threat thats not that large to begin with. There is only a 1 in 3.6 billion chance of being killed by a refugee terrorist. In fact, in 2015 more people in the United States were killed by toddlers than by terrorists. Given these facts, this executive order represents nothing more than an arbitrary display of power. It is a poorly-executed, poorly-designed attempt to combat a systemic problem that cannot be fixed by changing any current immigration standards, since the most recent terror attacks on U.S. soil were perpetrated by Americans. This executive order is nothing more than a band-aid to make the public feel like a wound has been healed, an action for actions sake. While the Trump administration can pat itself on the back for beginning to carry out one of its most controversial, yet central, campaign promises, the largest impact of the order will not be protecting American lives, as purported, but instead upturning the lives of green-card-holding American nationals and abandoning refugees in need.

Trumps clear disregard for the material consequences of this executive order can be seen in his administrations rapid attempts to backtrack on the policy. In response to a flurry of nationwide protests, administration officials have backpedaled and claimed green-card holders will now be allowed back in. However, they will still be subject to random questioning, and nothing can erase the night of fear they faced, thinking they would not be re-admitted, nor the lingering uncertainty that will continue to haunt them. This kind of rash action cannot be the new normal. It seems that peoples lives and futures are now subject to the whims of a man evidently quick with action but slow with thoughta demagogue few within his adopted party are prepared to confront.

As we remember the mistakes America made during the Holocaust and the lives this country could have saved, we must also consider how we are helping those most in need of empathy and aid: the tempest-tost and huddled masses displaced by war and horror. We must stand for our ideals instead of being cowed by fear or overtaken by nationalistic rhetoric. Two events this week, Holocaust Remembrance Day and the anti-abortion march on Washington, have asked us to consider life; let us consider it, and realize that this executive order is as anti-life as it is un-American.

Image Credit: Flickr/Takver

More:

A Modern Choice on Life - Harvard Political Review

In what could be coined a tale of two countries, recent demonstrations in Washington, D.C., reflected very disparate versions of what some Americans value.

The Jan. 27 March for Life was a peaceful gathering of hundreds of thousands of people, including huge numbers of young people, to renounce Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

The March for Life was and is a joyful embrace of life and a way of voicing our rights not to pay for abortion or other anti-life measures with our tax dollars or through mandated health care plans. Its about exposing the dangers of abortion euphemistically called womens health care when, in fact, more than 120 independent studies show the link between abortion and increased breast cancer risks. (It took only seven studies linking tobacco use to cancer for the federal government to mandate a warning on all tobacco products).

Because overturning Roe v. Wade doesnt outlaw abortion it only returns abortion laws to the states the March for Life is not so much about taking away a womans rights as it is about helping women in despair to pursue less harmful options.

Above all, the March for Life is about standing up for the voiceless and restoring America to a nation that doesnt kill its unborn and frail, but rather affirms the dignity and value of all human lives, from conception to natural death.

In stark contrast, the recent Womens March, which took place to protest President Donald Trump, exposed a foul-mouthed, furious display of leftist ideology, and in particular, a rabid obsession with a womans right to prevent and/or terminate pregnancy at taxpayer expense.

As one protester put it, Were here because Donald Trump doesnt reflect our countrys values. But which values do they mean? Do they reject Trumps values of tighter national security, increased jobs, lower taxes, and better access to more affordable health care? Do they dismiss our presidents call for unity, an end to prejudice, the upholding of law, limited government, and the elimination of terrorism? Do they spurn free speech, self-defense, and freedom of religion? Or do they just object to the fact that the lefts previously uninhibited march toward a less free, one-world socialist government was essentially stopped in its tracks by Trumps victory?

Regardless, from the unmentionable body-part-shaped balloons and threats to blow up the White House, to the degrading use of f-bombs and one hysterical, screaming celebrity meltdown over womens personal biology, I didnt just see hateful behavior in the way these women expressed themselves; I saw self-hatred.

Instead of encouraging women to embrace their dignity, know their value, and celebrate the God-given miracle of their bodies ability to bring forth life, the most vocal protesters depicted themselves as angry, poorly mannered ruffians infatuated with the entitlement to sexual relations without personal responsibility. But doesnt this just reduce women to the sex-object status that feminists of the Sexual Revolution originally claimed to despise?

If these women so adamantly want government to stay out of our bedrooms, why do they then demand government to financially support what goes on in those bedrooms via taxpayer-funded contraception and abortion? Are they so spoiled by Americas benevolence that theyre blinded to their own hypocrisy? If they want a real cause, how about when they scream for government to keep its hands off our bodies, they point the finger at certain foreign governments that actually force women to undergo abortion?

While some of these angry Womens March protesters berated Americas treatment of women (ostensibly all due to Americas election of Donald Trump), I wonder if it ever occurred to them that in some countries, like Sharia-compliant ones, theyd never even be able to voice their complaints so freely. Certainly theyd never be allowed in public without the presence of, or at least the permission of, a man.

Where is their outrage about this, or about young girls getting shot for simply trying to go to school in some countries? Why dont they scream in protest over the genital mutilation of baby girls in Sharia-law countries? Why dont these cushioned American women demand their fellow females rights in certain countries to drive a car, travel freely, or obtain higher education without the need for male consent? I can see why the Womens March co-chair, Linda Sarsour, an outspoken advocate of Sharia Law, would remain silent. But what about the rest?

Its embarrassing to see free American women going ballistic over perceived oppression when real oppression exists. And while anti-Trump protesters repeat their mantra that Love Trumps Hate, all I can say is, if vulgarity, death threats, and worship at the altar of abortion are signs of love, I shudder to think of what their version of actual hate would look like.

(Julie Szydlowski is a resident of Shelby Township and has a blog, The Right Track, on the Source website.)

See the article here:

Opinion: While true oppression exists, hypocrisy of some women is clear - Shelby Township Source Newspapers

Why governments aren't all that different from street gangs 3/12/2016 - At some point, you may have heard someone call the government a "gang of thieves writ large," which is a generalization of a quote attributed to libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard. However, if you're not familiar with the philosophy behind that quote, you might mistakenly believe that it is nothing... Have you ever felt like the government doesn't really care what you think? 3/2/2016 - Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the government represent the people? (Article republished from Represent.Us.) Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion... A message to Libertarians about the FDA 2/6/2016 - "When I ran for a seat in the US Congress in 1994, I was very aggressive in demanding that we go after the FDA as a rogue criminal agency. Others, at the time, who were in favor of Health Freedom, said I should dial back my rhetoric; all we needed was a good law that would protect our right to take... The emergence of Orwellian newspeak and the death of free speech 1/23/2016 - "If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it....... UK government caught running ISIS Twitter accounts 1/7/2016 - Americans are rightfully concerned that jihadis from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are already on U.S. soil, but apparently we're not the only Western nation with an ISIS problem. Britain, it seems, has one as well. As reported by the UK's Mirror, hackers have made the claim that several... DHS gives TSA authority to forcibly irradiate Americans against their will 1/3/2016 - Americans who understand the health risks of full-body TSA X-ray scanners will choose to opt out of the invasive scan. The TSA requires those who opt out of the full-body scan to undergo a physically invasive full-body pat down. Now, a new rule created by the Department of Homeland Security will... Propaganda at your expense: U.S. govt. is second largest P.R. firm in the world 12/23/2015 - It's no secret that many people feel that the U.S. Government is synonymous with all things shady, filled with half-truths, loopholes and lingo that sounds fancy, but is really a self-serving set of words designed to offer minimal benefits to the rest of society. Supporting these opinions is a finding... The dire state of our nation (what you won't hear from the politicians) 12/10/2015 - "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." --... Vaccine vs. Virus: Which is the bigger threat? 12/3/2015 - Mainstream media clamor for mandatory vaccines, ignoring official statistics that show the drug is more dangerous than the disease. Should government force parents to vaccinate their children? The deaths of more than 100 children have been officially linked to receiving a measles vaccine during the... Evidence of vaccine injuries memory-holed from U.S. government website 11/9/2015 - The federal government, perhaps at the behest of the Obama administration, has been quietly removing vaccine injury court data from a publicly reported chart that at one time was updated monthly, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson reported recently on her web site. "In March, the federal government... U.S. government STEALS American family's land near Area 51 Air Force base 10/31/2015 - For decades, the U.S. government has maintained that "there's nothing to see" at its secretive Air Force base designated as "Area 51." Certainly not Martians or other creatures from outer space, as many have theorized. And yet, for some reason, Uncle Sam seems to have something to hide out there... DARPA creates search engine to expose the dark web to government surveillance 10/21/2015 - The Defense Department's most secretive research division has created a new computer program giving America's spies a powerful tool to search the so-called "dark web," where some of the most sophisticated terrorist organizations operate. DARPA - the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - recently... The Gestapo is alive and well in Obama's America 10/18/2015 - Hi. I'm Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. Barack Obama is going rogue. By every metric,[1] the Obama economy is melting down. We are seeing the beginning stages of another recession, at best, or a total economic meltdown, at worst. (Story by Wayne Allyn Root, republished from PersonalLiberty.com) At... Russian government to outlaw all GMO food products to protect citizens' health 10/3/2015 - As the American people are being force-fed GMOs and petitioning their government for honest food labels, other countries around the world are already removing the transgenic ingredients from their food supply. As Americans beg to know what kind of agro-chemicals and GMOs are in their food, the Russian... UK government to require registration of all religious leaders 9/16/2015 10:29:24 AM - In September 1620, pilgrims from England set sail for the "new world," hoping to find new opportunities and escape religious persecution. Today, hundreds of years later, its possible British subjects might once again be forced to flee religious oppression. Canada's National Post reports that religious... Government water police state almost here 7/30/2015 - Anyone who says that liberty, freedom and individualism has thrived under the Obama administration has either been living in a cave or is far too partisan to acknowledge what's really been going on. The Obamaites have long used the power of the federal bureaucracy that the president controls to limit,... New Zealand government takes further steps to ease raw milk prohibition 7/17/2015 - It's not exactly a complete scrapping of the country's antiquated prohibition laws governing the production and sale of raw milk, but the government of New Zealand has responded to consumer demand and made it at least somewhat easier for individuals and families to access this highly sought-after food... Supreme Court rules against federal seizure of farmer's crop production 7/15/2015 - The U.S. Supreme Court has either been a bane on the Constitution or a champion of civil rights with rulings handed down in recent days, but one issue in particular that appears to win approval of a large majority of Americans garnered far fewer headlines and attention. On June 22, in one effort,... See all 2206 government feature articles. Robots: Japan: Robot: WHO: Future: World: Sales: Canada: Pharmaceutical industry: The FDA: Drug company profits: Drugs from Canada: Drug monopoly: FDA: SAMe: Consumers: Today's Top Stories on NaturalNews

Today | Week | Month | Year

See All Top Headlines...

CounterThink Cartoons are free to view and download. They cover topics like health, environment and freedom.

The Consumer Wellness Center is a non-profit organization offering nutrition education grants to programs that help children and expectant mothers around the world.

Food Investigations is a series of mini-documentaries exposing the truth about dangerous ingredients in the food supply.

Webseed.com offers alternative health programs, documentaries and more.

The Honest Food Guide is a free, downloadable public health and nutrition chart that dares to tell the truth about what foods we should really be eating.

HealingFoodReference.com offers a free online reference database of healing foods, phytonutrients and plant-based medicines that prevent or treat diseases and health conditions.

HerbReference.com is a free, online reference library that lists medicinal herbs and their health benefits.

NutrientReference.com is a free online reference database of phytonutrients (natural medicines found in foods) and their health benefits. Lists diseases, foods, herbs and more.

Read the original here:

Government news, articles and information:

Then 'MAKE SURE' your vote is counted! http://www.votersunite.org/

Why did 65 US Senators break a solemn oath? Watch. Listen http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oath-of-office.htm

The Case for Impeachment C-Span2 Book TV 8/2/06 With Dave Lindorff and Barbara Oskansky Website: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

HOW TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT Includes 6 part videos: 'The Case for Impeachment' http://www.apfn.org/apfn/impeach_pres.htm

Cointelpro, Provacateurs,Disinfo Agents.

Citizen's Rule Book 44 pages Download here: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf

Quality pocketsized hardcopies of this booklet may be obtained from: Whitten Printers (602) 258-6406 1001 S 5th St., Phoenix, AZ 85004 Editoral Work by Webster Adams PAPER-HOUSE PUBLICATIONS "Stronger than Steel" 4th Revision

"Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others. . .they send forth a ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy

Philosophy Of Liberty (Flash) http://www.apfn.org/flash/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english.swf

March 29, 2000

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. --Harry S. Truman

APFN Contents Page:Click Here

Message Board

APFN Home Page

"The American Dream" Fire 'em all!

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

American Patriot Friends Network a/k/a American Patriot Fax Network was founded Feb. 21, 1993. We started with faxing daily reports from the Weaver-Harris trials. Then on Feb. 28 1993, The BATF launched Operation Showtime - "The Siege on the Branch Davidians". From this point, it's been the Death of Vince Foster, the Oklahoma Bombing, TWA-800, The Train Deaths, Bio-War, on and on. We are not anti-government, we are anti-corrupt-government. A Patriot is one who loves God, Family and Country.....

We believe Patriots should rule America.... Please join in the fight with us in seeking TRUTH, JUSTICE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS....

Join our e-mail list and build your own e-mail/Fax networking contacts.

Without Justice, there is JUST_US

EXCELLENT!! Download & WATCH THIS! (Flash Player) http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pentagon121.swf

The Attack on America 9/11 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm

9/11 Philip Marshall and His Two Children Silenced for Telling the Truth http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bamboozle.htm

OBAMA'S DRONES WAR ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drones.htm

SMART METERS and Agenda 21 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/smartmeters.htm

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Gun-law.htm

APFN Pogo Radio Your Way http://www.apfn.net/pogo.htm

APFN iPod Download Page http://www.apfn.org/iPod/index.htm

America Media Columnists (500) Listed By Names

"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."

http://www.icss.com/usflag/american.creed.html

Freedom is ANYTHING BUT FREE!

".... a network of net-worker's...."

Dedication:

I was born an American. I live as an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this with absolute disregard to personal consequences. What are the personal consequences?

What is the individual man with all the good or evil that may betide him, in comparison with the good and evil which may befall a great country, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country's fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless, No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer or if he fall, in the defense of the liberties and Constitution of his country.

...Daniel Webster

APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS Without Justice, there is JUST_US! http://www.apfn.org

If you would like to donate a contribution to APFN: Mail to: 7558 West Thunderbird Rd. Ste. 1-#115 Peoria, Arizona 85381

Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Home Page

APFN Contents Page

You can subscribe to this RSS feed in a number of ways, including the following:

One-click subscriptions

If you use one of the following web-based News Readers, click on the appropriate button to subscribe to the RSS feed.

E-Mail apfn@apfn.org

Visit link:

American Patriot Friends Network APFN

Dr. Jim L. Riley Regis University Denver, CO

1990

Moderate Ideologies along with moderate political viewpoints may be correctly seen as occupying positions between the more extreme wings of the spectrum. In terms of the extent of power of the State moderate ideologies strike a balance between individual rights, freedoms and obligations and the coercive power of the State to mandate or prohibit certain behaviors by people. This "balanced" view brings forth various implications regarding governmental structure, electoral procedures, the rule of Law, economic concerns, and other important issues present in all organized societies. Likewise considerations regarding time help define the boundaries of moderate ideologies.

Change is inevitable in society, in governmental arrangements and relationships, in leadership, in public policies and throughout the political world. Ideologies of the moderate varieties seek change at a pace that enables progress to occur but neither so fast that the destruction of stability and order in society becomes more likely, nor so slow as to foster stagnation and status quo permanence. Clearly then, there is considerable room for disagreement and dispute over what is the proper balance in all of these concerns. These disputable arenas contribute profoundly to struggles among those who support different moderate ideologies.

Liberalism has occupied an important position in the moderate varieties of political ideologies for well over two centuries. Although its dimensions differ from society to society (where it is permitted to endure), there do exist core elements which can be identified, examined and understood. At the outset let it be noted that common parlance often misapprehends and violates the reality of liberalism. Calling someone a "bleeding heart liberal" is worse than an insult, it is largely meaningless insofar as conveying accurate information. Describing one public policy or another as "liberal" sheds precious little light on the nature of governmental activities.

The first glimmerings of liberalism may be discovered in the expansive political role being sought by increasingly large numbers of individuals and, more significantly, discreet groups of people with identifiable common interests. In the latter part of the 18th Century great forces were at work undermining existing political arrangements in Europe. Whereas the British had been experiencing a gradual expansion of the rights of ordinary citizens as well as the landed nobility as against the Monarch, such forces were largely held in check in France until the Revolution of 1789. Unlike in France the British had no central instrument of oppression such as a centrally controlled standing army ready to do the bidding of the monarch. British liberalism sought not to overthrow the Monarchy but to reign in its powers by expanding the role of the representatives of the people.

Certainly it was John Locke (1632-1704) who best expressed the principles of Liberalism in the British (and American) tradition. His Two Treatises of Government (first published in 1690) constitutes a most important statement on the liberal political philosophy that has so much influenced politics in succeeding centuries. At the center of his writings are basic values that today remain as under girding for the entire liberal view. Government exists to serve the people and community it governs. Its power is limited by concepts of natural rights of individuals and moral or natural law. Among these natural rights was the concept of the right to acquire and dispose of property. "Life, liberty and estate" belonged to individuals quite apart from any grant from society or its instrument Government.

The basic duty of government is to protect the common good and private rights which were seen to be inextricably related if not the same thing. Individuals agree to limits on their behavior by granting to government certain limited powers but only if the government rules on behalf of the common good and in the protection of private rights. For reasons of convenience and mutual benefit people enter into a compact whereby they willingly relinquish some of their freedom of action and in return gain security and stability in their daily lives. As Locke wrote: "Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent."

The only way whereby any one divests himself of his Natural Liberty, and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to join and unite into a Community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it. (Locke, Two Treatises of Government, NY: New American Library, 1963, pp.374-75.)

Should government become tyrannical and deviate from this Compact with the people, then the people had the right of revolution to overthrow the government which had broken the Compact. This right of revolution is based solidly on the notion that people may, when confronted with injustice, take actions to bring about basic changes in government. Society and government were separate entities and the dissolution of the latter did not imply the destruction of the former. Governments were bound by laws just as were individuals. Moreover, these laws, could not legitimately violate principles of natural justice; indeed if a contravening of principles of natural justice were was done then the actions of the government were not laws in the true sense of the term.

For Locke principles of natural justice were grounded in a right to own and dispose of property. Debate over what constitutes these principles has continued to the present time. In France the development of liberalism took decidedly different turns. A corrupt and parasitic nobility sought to maintain its grip on power at all costs and with no recognition of the rights of the populace at large. The demand for equality as part of the concept of liberalism was an invitation to complete rejection of the ancien regime and to do so in an uncompromising and violent manner.

A revolution devoted in 1789 to principles of individual rights degenerated by 1793 into the dictatorship of the Jacobins and the accompanying terror of mob rule. At this point in time the ideology supporting the French Revolution became extremist rather than moderate and laid the foundation for the eventual success of Napoleon Bonaparte who offered stability and order in place of the chaos of post-revolutionary France.

Because of common ethnic, cultural, legal, political and even geographic factors, liberal development in the United States initially took more from the British than the French. While the early stages of the American Revolution did borrow heavily from British political thought subsequent development had more in common with the French. Thomas Jefferson certainly was influenced by developments in both countries. The Declaration of Independence written by Jefferson in 1776 contains concepts developed by Locke and others in the British liberal tradition. However, following his tenure as Ambassador to France during the 1780's Jefferson was evidently deeply influenced by French political thought and attempted to channel American liberal political development in directions parallel to those in France. These views contained a greater emphasis on popular control of government, deeply ingrained suspicions of institutionalized power, a decidedly anti-clerical orientation and in general an
almost fanatical faith in the common people and their wisdom.

These initial successes of liberal movements had, as the name itself implies, a fundamental purpose: to liberate people from oppression. While the methods of liberation, as well as the sources of the oppression may be quite different depending on the time and the place in question, liberation is inevitably the fundamental purpose of liberal political thinking and liberal political movements.

To seek such a goal certain assumptions, not necessarily provable, had to be made. Natural rights as expanded upon by Locke is the first of these. As Jefferson wrote, there are "inalienable" rights that each individual has that may not be legitimately denied by government or any other instrument of society. Initially these rights were to be protected primarily from governments whose tendency it was to diminish, ignore or abuse these rights. Restraints on government in the form of Constitutions or other devices were necessary to the goal of individual freedom. Among the early restraints on government were those protecting largely unfettered rights to acquire and dispose of property, both real and personal. These so-called "economic freedoms" were supplemented with a host of political freedoms including rights to express controversial political views and to organize political opposition to the prevailing group in power.

Natural rights and limited government are corollary concepts. The acceptance of one concept necessarily implies acceptance of the other. Whenever there is a parent there is a child; whenever there is a husband there is a wife. Similarly, whenever there is a right belonging to an individual there is a duty on the part of some other entity -- government or person -- to respect and/or protect that right. If people have the right to freely express their ideas then it necessarily follows that government cannot legitimately suppress such expression or punish those who utter unpopular remarks or otherwise offend government officials. Not only is government power to restrain and to punish limited, but government also has the duty to protect those who, because of their unconventional views, may be in danger from non-governmental threats.

In Europe by the late 19th Century and in the United States by the early 20th Century liberalism began to shift its emphasis from protecting individuals from oppressive governments to using government as a device to enable individuals to achieve a more meaningful and rewarding life. Government was seen as a positive force in shaping human affairs and society, but only if it was used properly and controlled by the people. Liberalism had come to recognize that powerful institutions in society had to be controlled and regulated by the instrument of the people if true liberation was to occur.

In particular the growth of vast economic empires in the hey-day of capitalism generated a widely held view that only government could reign in these powerful enterprises and provide the citizenry with the means to deal with them effectively. Rights to form labor unions for the purpose of collective bargaining were among the major liberal goals. Regulations were promulgated regarding safety rules, wages, maximum hours, minimum wages and working conditions generally. The liberal credo thus shifted dramatically from a call for less government to cries for more government but in the name of empowering people to deal effectively with the vast powers of modern society.

Faith in the potential reasonableness and goodness of people runs as another constant thread throughout the liberal ideology. This is not to say that the liberal view rested on the assumption that all people were reasonable and good, but that it is the responsibility of society in general and government in specific, to adopt structures and policies that maximize this potential. Taken to its ultimate conclusion this position reaches the absurdity of a totally rationalistic society where all is planned carefully and with perfect premeditation.

Rationality constitutes a similar if not identical cornerstone of liberal philosophy. This emphasis on mankind's rational potential supports quite well the modern liberal position calling for the use of government to solve social, political and economic problems. Government is viewed as the only representative agent of people capable of bringing to bea both rational problem solving techniques and the authority to carry such policies out at the societal level. Social development ought not to be left to chance but planning and governmental power must be brought to bear on problems that are too large, too intractable, or too complex for the private or non-public sector to deal with effectively and/or equitably.

Capitalism or the free market economy runs counter to this Twenthieth Century version of liberalism. A free market, by definition, is uncontrolled by government and is, therefore, in opposition to the modern liberal emphasis on rational social planning. The original liberal orientation toward freedom from social, economic, religious and governmental institutions fit much more comfortably with capitalism than does the modernist version of liberalism.

It must be remembered that liberalism and capitalism were products of roughly the same period of history: the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Each had as its core the concept of liberation. What were called the "excesses" of capitalism -- massive concentrations of wealth in the hands of a relative few individuals and corporations, urban blight, worker alienation and exploitation, environmental degradation, etc. -- became targets for liberal rationalists.

These social maladies demanded, in the liberal view, governmental remedies. Uncontrolled economic activity was thus viewed as a new form of oppression and thereby in need of regulation, restraint and control by government. The nature and scope of the limits on government have inevitably been and will continue to be a source of never ending debate and disagreement. Students of politics have a never ending dispute over what constitutes the proper balance between necessary governmental power and restraints needed to protect individual rights.

In general, the Twenthieth Century liberal view has been to stress the need for governmental restraints in the "political" realm such as freedoms of expression, but to seek expansive governmental powers in "economic" and "social" arenas in the name of protecting the disadvantaged and powerless groups who otherwise find themselves at the mercies of entrenched institutions criticized for running roughshod over hapless and helpless adversaries. Corporations must be controlled. The economy must be regulated. Moneyed interests must be tightly restricted. Private discrimination against individual members of minority groups that have been traditionally borne the brunt of societal bigotry must be outlawed and vigorously pursued by governmental agents. Thus, governments must be selectively limited in this modern liberal view.

The initial liberal concept that the government which governs least, governs best has been discarded by liberals and, ironically, claimed, at least in part, by conservatives. Government itself, in the liberal view, must be popularly controlled and directed. While modern liberal purists might opt for direct democracy in which each adult member of the citizenry takes a personal hand in making policies, the existence of governmental units with populations in the millions makes this impracticable if not undesirable. Even Locke did not support "direct democracy." Indeed, he would have denied the right to vote to the poor unp
ropertied segments of society.

The modern liberal position is that representatives, chosen in freely contested elections permitting universal adult participation, should act in the name of and on behalf of the people. Majority rule through popularly elected representatives is imperative for a legitimate government to exist. People would be morally obliged to follow the limited dictates of the majority dominated government but only if its policies observed the rights of the people.

One of the most important political rights is that of the minority to criticize government polices and to try and become the majority. Minority rights are part of the concept of majority rule in the liberal view. The nature of these rights is subject to change over time as has been seen. Change in society is warmly embraced by liberal supporters. A brighter day can be obtained by combining the various precepts discussed above. Society is constantly evolving. Thoughtful and responsible people should nurture and guide this process in the name of human liberation and progress. That which exists is not sacred nor perfect. Nothing is protected by divine intervention. Through careful analysis, using mankind's rational capabilities institutions, beliefs, and values can be consciously shaped and molded to produce a better world.

In summary, liberalism has embraced several fundamental but imprecise elements. Moreover, at different points in history the liberal ideology has emphasized different aspects of its basic principles. Those elements which have appeared as fundamental to liberalism may be seen as: 1. the idea of a compact between the people and their government 2. the right of revolution if the compact is violated 3. natural rights as belonging to all people 4. faith in and support of human rational potential 5. limited powers of government 6. majority rule tempered by minority rights 7. support of change in society

Frederich Hegel's (1770-1831) view was that the process of dialectics constitutes the mechanism by which ideas change. Out of each thesis (or idea) necessarily arises an anti-thesis (or challenging idea) which inevitably becomes a synthesis of the two. Whether this is indeed the driving force in human intellectual development may never be known, but the development of conservatism bears a close resemblance to this process.

Whereas liberalism sought to liberate mankind from oppressive institutions (be they governments, religious institutions, oppressive social customs and traditions, or vast economic enterprises), conservatism developed as a reaction to what was perceived as dangerous tendencies within the liberal movements toward radicalism and a wholesale rejection of the past as valuable. There was and is an element within conservatism that holds the past in reverence and views with skepticism most change, particularly if it was planned change. If, however, conservatism means nothing more than a rationale' justifying the maintenance of the status quo then it cannot be correctly adjudged an ideology for it would be content neutral. Conservatism could, in that instance, be used to support political systems ranging from democratic to communist to fascist to anarchistic.

A closer examination of conservatism does reveals a more meaningful doctrine than merely conserving that which exists. Whereas liberalism embraces societal and governmental change as both necessary and desirable, conservatism does indeed adopt a much more doubtful view of the desirability of altering proven institutions and societal values. Respect for authority, custom, and tradition permeate a conservative value system. In particular, changes in the moral ordering of society are seen as very suspicious and probably harmful. Aside from this ingrained suspicion of change there are at rock bottom values within the conservative tradition that remain constant.

Once again it is an Englishman who first expounded the moderate political doctrine in question. Edmund Burke (1729-97) did not create conservatism but as Locke did for liberalism, became its most eloquent spokesman and advocate. In numerous pamphlets this scholar-politician put on paper what was to become the anti-thesis to liberalism run riot (in Burke's view). Throughout his long and lustrous career within the British political system Burke expressed a profound admiration for the success of the British "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89 in which the Parliament asserted its power as against royal prerogatives.

The Bill of Rights was adopted which limited the power of the Monarch and protected itself from arbitrary royal enactments. His was a passion for justice, sound governmental administration, devotion to religion and unrelenting opposition to tyranny. For over twenty-five years he was the leading intellectual force in Whig party politics in Great Britain. As a Member of Parliament he supported the American independence movement largely on practical grounds. He continuously advocated policies that produced peace and prosperity.

What galvanized Burke most intensely was the French Revolution. In his work Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) ideas were set forth that shaped political thinking down to the present time. His intense opposition to and condemnation of the French Revolution as destructive to French society did irreparable damage to his political career and caused estrangements with old friends. Ultimately the Whig party itself was split asunder over this issue.

Burke had long be reluctant to engage in a discussion of the general principles of his ideas. He initially felt that broad abstractions were to be avoided. The French Revolution, however, forced his basic views out in the open. In his refutation of the justifications of the French Revolution Burke attempted to destroy the logic behind the revolutionist reliance on reason and logic as tools guiding social change. Human beings did have rights, Burke did readily admit, but they were conventional not natural. These rights were organically related to society and could not be divorced from it.

People need to have a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves; something that will endure beyond their own short lives. Base feelings of love and loyalty bind members of society together giving them a sense of purpose that permits and encourages self-sacrifice for the larger purposes of the community. Deep emotional attachment will nurture a sense of duty and responsibility that ultimately produce a better society for all. Society is not held together by abstract principles such as a "social contract" but by people bound together through a sense of history, shared experiences and common beliefs. The role of irrationality in society can be ignored only at the risk of misunderstanding a most important inherent characteristic in all mankind. Human institutions have evolved over time and are not the product of rationally constructed plans of action.

Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure -- but the state ought to be considered as something far better and more significant "than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern." The State us not to be taken as something of a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence. . . "It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. . . . Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, l
inking the lower with the higher natures connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds ass physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place." (Reflections 1790, Works, Vol. II p. 368)In this statement Burke makes little distinction between state and society.

The overall message is crystal clear: that which binds humans together is far more than any commercial contract which is subject to abrogation at will. No well-reasoned rationale' can justify overturning what time immemorial has produced. Moreover, reason running rampant becomes raging radicalism inevitably destined to destroy much of what generations of human experience has produced.

The religious foundations of society almost inexorably come to support conservative political doctrine. Burke himself exhibited a devotion to religion and to the religious foundations of the just state. Government, the State and society in general were all part of a divine order though which God's will exhibits itself. This religious orientation in Burke's conservatism may be found in most, if not all, conservative movements. Regimes that call themselves "Marxist" have been seen to resort to religious-like defenses when confronted with serious challenges. Stalin urged Soviet citizens in the second world war to come to the defense of "Mother Russia." More commonly those espousing a conservative position refer to some "divine" purpose inherent in their society and state. At best this places moral obligations on the state to follow policies that are just and fair (however these terms may be defined). At worst this "divine" purpose becomes a justification for domination of peoples outside the "chosen" ones. Without this religious anchor the development of some "special" social cause or purpose becomes very difficult to maintain.

Just as mankind's need to have some transcendental system of belief in an ordered universe was seen an necessary, so too was a government which emphasized order, custom, and tradition. Order is needed to reign in mankind's ingrained selfish tendencies and proclivity toward savagery. The state, which is the enforcement arm of society, must rule in a strong and resolute manner providing swift, sure and harsh punishment for those who violate the law. Proper respect for the roles and responsibilities of private institutions must be observed by government and support should be provided. Custom and tradition should receive their due for they are the outgrowth of generations of experience. Reverence for that which has stood the test of time is ignored at the risk of instability, disorder and social disintegration. A sense of community that is both broad and deep is needed if long-term adherence to social values is to be obtained. This sense of community is no conscious, voluntary and rational decision that one chooses to accept. Society is no debating group says the conservative.

Moreover, people must feel they are a part of something larger and more important than themselves. Pride in and love for the institutions and traditions of one's society go beyond mere knowledge and willful acceptance of these things. From the earliest childhood and continuing throughout life individuals need to be made a part of the great traditions of his/her people. Accomplishments in the arts and sciences, cherished customs, linguistic uniqueness, religious traditions, economic practices, and especially established human relationships including marriage and family values must be embraced and supported with fervor. Symbols need to be revered and treated with the utmost respect for they represent the very basic elements of society.

The nature of humanity, according to conservative doctrine, is far less admirable than seen in the liberal view. All humans are essential self oriented and in pursuit of their own best interests as they see those interests These irrational drives and self-serving tendencies must be tempered by social control mechanisms that are the outgrowth of centuries of experience. In addition to this selfish characteristic of humans, conservatives believe that the concept of equality is both inaccurate and undesirable. People are not equal in their abilities or value to society. Those who are more able and who contribute more to the well being of their community are deserving of greater rewards. These rewards include not only enhanced material wealth, elevated social status but also a greater role in the governance structure. While traditional conservative doctrine supported the notion of a hereditary aristocracy, modern conservatives support what might be called an aristocracy of talent and morality. Societies leaders should be chosen from those individuals who have by their own talents demonstrated superior abilities through recognized achievements.

But even they cannot properly be given unlimited powers because like all humans they are flawed and cannot be trusted to do what is right. They too must be restrained in their powers by the same institutions and customs operating to maintain stability in society. Just as great societal changes (industrialization, organization, technological innovations, and modernization generally) forced liberalism to alter its stance regarding the proper role of government in economic matters, so too has conservatism changed its position in the face of such great forces. Regarding the important question of the proper relationship between government and the economy conservative doctrine has taken the somewhat ambivalent position of supporting government actions that simultaneously encourage and yet does not control or even closely regulate business activities. This often amounts to a "hands off" policy insofar as government regulation is concerned, but a "helping hand" policy regarding such matters as favorable taxation rates, beneficial tariffs (legislation protecting home business from foreign competition), price supports and countless other schemes.

As liberalism began to espouse the need for increased governmental regulation of business enterprises conservatives, particularly during the depression years in the United States, adopted increasingly anti-regulatory positions. Cries of "creeping socialism" were raised against liberal efforts to increase governmental control over the economy. Aside from questions of economics conservatism has retained, and in recent years emphasized, its original emphasis on maintaining traditional values and institutions. Social maladies that seem to accompany Twentieth Century intensive urbanization (family disintegration, drug and alcohol abuse, soaring street crime rates, and a general loss of a sense of safety) are seen by conservatives as clear evidence of a need to return to basics: faith in God, hope for a better future, love of country and family, instillation of self-discipline in the young, willingness to sacrifice immediate gratification for future goals, industriousness, and a sense of belonging.

Exactly how these values are to be implanted remains controversial even among conservatives but the goal of returning them to their proper place in society drives conservatives to offer a wide range of governmental policies: swift and harsh punishment for criminals, "no frills" education with strict discipline in schools, governmental protection of institutions devoted to maintaining traditional values (including churches), elimination of welfare programs believed to encourage immorality and indolence, expansive (and expensive) military policies ostensibly protecting the home country from foreign threats and a host of other proposals.

In summary, conservatism does con
tain basic beliefs and values beyond a mere mistrust of change. Certain core concepts remain throughout the long spectrum of the conservative ideology. They may be seen as: 1. high value on existing institutions as produced by custom and tradition 2. a belief in mankind's essential base and irrational nature 3. faith in some supernatural force guiding human affairs 4. acceptance of human inequality and the attending consequence of social hierarchy 5. recognition of the need for a sense of community among individuals that will bind them emotionally to their society.

It has been said that no one who has a heart can resist being a liberal and that no one who has a brain can avoid being a conservative. Like most aphorisms this one contains a trace of truth wrapped in a maze of misperceptions. These two political ideologies offer to government leaders, policy makers, and thoughtful citizens a set of guides permitting some semblance of coherent conclusions regarding compelling social, economic and political issues.

Their common features include rejection of radicalism and its attending violent uprooting of established institutions and practices, acceptance of the need for restraints on the powers of government, advocacy of balance in society regarding individual rights and societal powers, and ultimately some root concerns for individual dignity. Most certainly disagreement abounds between the two ideologies when the outlines of such values are given clarity, but support of such basic principles enables supporters of each doctrine to work within the same governmental framework. This agreement to disagree in a civil manner surely constitutes one of mankind's most noble political achievements.

Read more:

Liberalism and Conservatism - Regis University

iStock Vectors / Getty Images

Updated February 29, 2016.

Definition: Oppression is a type of injustice. Oppression is the inequitable use of authority, law, or physical force to prevent others from being free or equal. The verb oppress can mean to keep someone down in a social sense, such as an authoritarian government might do in an oppressive society. It can also mean to mentally burden someone, such as with the psychological weight of an oppressive idea.

Feminists fight against the oppression of women. Women have been unjustly held back from achieving full equality for much of human history in many societies around the world. Feminist theorists of the 1960s and 1970s looked for new ways to analyze this oppression, often concluding that there were both overt and insidious forces in society that oppressed women.

These feminists also drew on the work of earlier authors who had analyzed the oppression of women, including Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex and Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

Many common types of oppression are described as isms such as sexism, racism and so on.

The opposite of oppression would be liberation (to remove oppression) or equality (absence of oppression).

In much of the written literature of the ancient and medieval world, we have evidence of women's oppression by men in European, Middle Eastern and African cultures. Women did not have the same legal and political rights as men, and were under control of fathers and husbands in almost all societies.

In some societies in which women had few options for supporting their life if not supported by a husband, there was even a practice of ritual widow suicide or murder. (Asia continued this practice into the 20th century with some cases occurring in the present as well.)

In Greece, often held up as a model of democracy, women did not have basic rights, and could own no property nor could they participate directly in the political system.

In both Rome and Greece, women's very movement in public was limited. There are cultures today where women rarely leave their own homes.

Many cultures and religions justify the oppression of women by attributing sexual power to them, that men must then rigidly control in order to maintain their own purity and power. Reproductive functions -- including childbirth and menstruation, sometimes breast-feeding and pregnancy -- are seen as disgusting. Thus, in these cultures, women are often required to cover their bodies and faces to keep men, assumed not to be in control of their own sexual actions, from being overpowered.

Women are also treated either like children or like property in many cultures and religions. For example, the punishment for rape in some cultures is that the rapist's wife is given over to the rape victim's husband or father to rape as he wishes, as revenge. Or a woman who is involved in adultery or other sex acts outside monogamous marriage is punished more severely than the man who is involved, and a woman's word about rape is not taken as seriously as a man's word about being robbed would be.

Women's status as somehow lesser than men is used to justify men's power over women.

In Marxism, women's oppression is a key issue. Engels called the working woman "a slave of a slave," and his analysis in particular was that oppression of women rose with the rise of a class society, about 6,000 years ago. Engels' discussion of the development of women's oppression is primarily in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State," and drew on anthropologist Lewis Morgan and German writer Bachofen. Engels writes of "the world historical defeat of the female sex" when Mother-right was overthrown by males in order to control inheritance of property. Thus, he argued, it was the concept of property that led to women's oppression.

Critics of this analysis point out that while there is much anthropological evidence for matrilineal descent in primal societies, that does not equate to matriarchy or women's equality.

In the Marxist view, the oppression of women is a creation of culture.

Cultural oppression of women can take many forms, including shaming and ridiculing women to reinforce their supposed inferior "nature," or physical abuse, as well as the more commonly acknowledged means of oppression including fewer political, social and economic rights.

In some psychological views, the oppression of women is an outcome of the more aggressive and competitive nature of males due to testosterone levels. Others attribute it to a self-reinforcing cycle where men compete for power and control.

Psychological views are used to justify views that women think differently or less well than men, though such studies don't hold up to scrutiny.

Continue reading here:

Oppression How Is it Defined in Women s History?