I think Miguelito referred to freedom to move in the streets in European cities, not in the US. In fact, in most of the major European cities the crime rate is far lower than in American big cities, and this without fascist dictators in charge any more. For example, go out in Vienna at night, I have never felt threatened there ever, even going out alone as a woman. I have never heard things like you would not want to enter this part of the town etc. about European cities to a comparable extent than about US cities.
I have my problems in praising the security aspect of a life in a police state. It comes at too high a price.
One could say the same about the Nazi regime, if you did not belong to any persecuted class and were not opposing the regime, you could make a nice and pleasant living. But if you somehow seemed suspicious you could find yourself among the victims quickly. How can you control that you just lose a bit of your political freedom, and not your basic right to life in the end?
There must be a way of ensuring security for the population without intruding on the rule of law. The police must act in accordance with the law, legal provisions must be in accordance with fundamental freedoms, and an independent judiciary must be the guardian of legality.

Why is it that people would think that the United States would have intervened in a European civil war? The US was not a power in 1936 - it was very isolationist with a tiny military. And why would they have 'intervened' in the first place? Why doesn't the US intervene now in Congo, Sierra Leone, or any other of the dozen civil wars now raging on the planet? And why should they? I think the US should worry about the many people hungry and homeless on its own streets first.

And I vote P.S.C. and don't go to church either.

[This message has been edited by Asterault (edited 02-16-2001).]

Connie says:
"How can you control that you just lose a bit of your political freedom, and not your basic right to life in the end?"

Almost one person each day here in Baltimore--(population around 625,000)-except for one day each week--loses his right to life by losing it to criminals. Police themselves are sometimes targets.

I'ts hard to imagine a municipal government, no matter how repressive, that would execute one person almost every day.

Almost ten percent of Baltimore's population is either on drugs or selling them. Those on drugs steal millions of dollars worth of goods each week to pay for their habits.

At this point I'm a bit confused about which is the greater evil--too much or too little control. I think I'd be more comfortable with a situation in which I might lose a few civil rights but could walk the streets without fear until the time when the loss of those civil rights incovenienced me. Somehow that seems to me more remote than the almost certain possibility that if I walk too often in the wrong streets I may die at any time.

At least in NY the police managed to implement zero tolerance. That's been blocked here in Baltimore by people terrified of being inconvenienced even slightly by police.

This viewpont is apalling isn't it? To consdier that someone might prefer to lose a measure of political freedom to gain some physical safety and greater freedom of movement?

But that's what we come to when we have so much freedom that criminals determine what rights you will have and not have in the end. Which are more free here in Baltimore, the criminals or the citizens?
Cantabene

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-15-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-15-2001).]

Sol- And Prime Minister Chamberlain added about as much to world peace in the 20th century as Mr. Denny did. Mr. Appeasement...er...Chamberlain was a wuss...and I'm sure Hitler loved it that way.

There is obviously no excuse for the propensity to violent crimes in the U.S. There is equally as much crime in European cities, but it isn't gun related or typically as violent. There is also the obvious tie to how many crimes are actually reported. When discussing crime with my spanish senora she said that pedophelia (sp?) and rape didn'thappen in Spain, and I said that I suspected that it was something that was not discussed or reported, like domestic abuse. Much like the states even 15-20 years ago.

To the topic at hand, in Salamanca, our sociology professor asked us to do a group project in which we asked different age groups about the Franco regime and what they thought about life before and after. Unequivically, the more an individual had lived under his regime (the older the person), the more afraid he or she was (even now) to discuss it. Some people made the same comments that Cantabene did, that they missed the safety of the streets in those days. the same has been said about Communist USSR. You pick your poison I guess.

In any country that had a dictatorship as such, certaintypes of crimes were not as prevalent. And as long as you agreed with the political powers that be, you were okay. Unfortunately it creates another kind of fear, where the government is the perpetrator of the most heinous crimes. I have studied Cuba quite a bit and worked with cuban refugees (among other refugee population). What that kind of situation created for them, and in every other in the same situation, is a culture of extreme paranoia and mistrust. people told me they didn't even trust their spouses or children with their thoughts. In different opressive regimes you have numerous occurences of one's own children, other family members and neighbors turning indivuduals in to the authorities for not supporting the gov at hand.

Although I am saddened by the violence in this society, I will still choose the freedom to educate myself and think the way I choose- though it may differ from my neighbors, co-workers and even friends -without the fear of torture or violence for having an opinion. I see the problems we have here as resulting from very complicated socio-economic situations and from a history of extraordinary violence, beginning with the first steps our ancestors took on this ground.

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be. Started as a query on the Valle de los Caidos, turned into an intense excahange on European history, and now has become a discussion on the merits of freedom vs. security in a free society. I love this Board!

Well, Cantabene, the basic problem with losing political freedom "for a time" is that one rarely, if ever, regains that freedom once it becomes 'inconvenient.' You end up with neither security or freedom. If the state would allow people 'freedom' to protect themselves without reliance on state institutions (police), you would probably be able to move about with a great deal less fear without sacrificing freedom. Of course, state institutions are not in the business of making people LESS dependant on them. As it stands now, only the criminals have the freedom and security to move about without fear and without losing their political rights. Sad. Too bad the Governemnt won't trust the law-abiding.

Kurt:
Let me guess. You are an NRA enthusiast and are in favor of "right-to-carry" gun laws.

I agree about loss of freedom. We in Baltimore have already lost much of it to criminals. And at this point I am forced to consider that I would probably have preferred to lose it to a government than to killers. Governments, at least, are accountable to someone or something, and kill less randomly.

As I said before, it's difficult to imagine a municipality executing one person every day except one. That's what the criminals do here in Baltimore, and the local government is incapable of stopping them. I don't believe that even Franco executed one person in Madrid on an average six out of seven days a week.

But we get what we insist upon. NY succeeded in reducing its crime rate with the help of zero tolerance. That initiative has been stymied in Baltimore by people who prefer being killed to being bothered.

I am more and more convinced by my experience in Spain under Franco and my experience here in crime-ridden Baltimore that a city run by police can be more liveable than one in which criminals determine where you can go and when.

But that idea actually frightens me. It was through some of the same circumstances of civil disorder that Hitler came to power. I fear we may be on the same downward course.
Cantabene


[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-17-2001).]

I wouldn't call myself an NRA "enthusiast". I believe all guns should be registered (hey our cars are, after all) and anyone applying for a right-to-carry permit should ahve to pass a skills and training test. Semi-Auto. rifles should be banned.

But, yes, I do believe in the Second Amendamnt and I beleive there is a reason its the SECOND of the gauranteed rights under the Bill of Rights, behind only the right to freely express ones self. This is not an accident. There are many governments that are not accounatable to the governed. Having a populace able to resist tyranny is the purpose of the 2nd Amd. Now, we face a tyranny of fear and criminality on our streets. The 2nd Amd. is there to help us resist this. Law abiding citizens should not be made into de facto criminals because they want to protect themselves, where the powers-that-be who say "don't worry, we'll take care of you", clearly cannot. Yes, I beleive in the right for law-abiding citizens to carry weapons. So did the Founders of our nation.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 02-17-2001).]

First, I must state that I make no personal offense with posting on this site. I am debating objectively and sincerely hope not to offend, but just to debate.

Having said that, I find the previous post preposterous. There is no reason anyone living in a country at peace and prosperity should have any reason to carry a firearm. A hunting rifle is one matter. Pistols and automatic rifles are another - they are not for hunting, they are for killing other people.

The reason the American constitution has a firearms provision is because a standing militia was needed. The 'founders of our nation' were more concerned with the British Army than personal freedom. In the year 2001 nobody in America should have a pistol or assault rifle. Being able to 'resist tyranny' as the previous post defines means the definition of such tyranny lies with mob rule and vigilante justice.

'We face a tyranny of fear and criminality on our streets.' Why is there no such 'tyranny' on the streets of Barcelona, Vienna, or Dublin? Because nobody has a gun.

Well, It seems this thread has finally ended and I for one will miss it a great deal. To me it was the best I've ever seen on any site.Thanks to all that have contributed.I have learned much especially from those who poured out their hearts as well as their minds. To hear anothers beliefs described so passionately at times was very enlightening. Thank You all.