Rudy Giuliani: Hegelian?
In partial defense of Rudy Giuliani's seemingly creepy and authoritarian notion that "freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do" I believe this is essentially the view the great philosopher G.W.F. Hegel's view of the matter as well. He's still, I think, a pretty creepy authoritarian but the idea he's expressing has a reasonably distinguished lineage and isn't just some madness he dreamed up on his couch one afternoon.
What's more, if you back a way a little from Giuliani's extreme formulation of the claim I think you'll see that there's some wisdom in it. The cause of political liberty is not, in fact, served by living in an underpoliced city. Generally speaking, while freedom does require that authority not overstep its proper bounds, it also very much requires that properly constituted authorities be reasonably strong and effective. The absence of effective state institutions does not make contemporary Baghdad freer" than Boston in any way that makes "freedom" denote a worthwhile political ideal.
Comments
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
freedoms...just another word for nothin' left to lose
I'll fade you one "license" for two "freedoms."
Well, freedom requires authority, but in the context of our current conversation about things like the Patriot Act, terrorism and what-have-you, I think this is a strange thing to be bringing up. There is no credible movement to abolish the state in this country, for example.
Down to the particulars: how does Giuliani think we need to increase the role of authority in the world today?
The abstract, philosophical point may be worth making but the particulars are the most relevant thing.
Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do: Giuliani 2008!
Necessary, perhaps, but certainly not a sufficient definition of freedom.
Though, I think that'd look nice next to my yellow ribbon bumper sticker.
Wow man, so we should have, like, laws and stuff? You're blowing my mind.
Speaking authoritarian figures, John Bolton was on the Daily Show last night. It was really interesting listening to him talk: he was seriously arguing, I think, that to get in the President's way, to prevent him from carrying out any action he wished in the Executive branch that wasn't explicitly illegal, was undemocratic. I had the feeling that almost everything he said about his version of democracy could be applied to a non-democratic, authoritarian government, without much modification. It wasn't subtle. For example, one line I remember is this: "The President has the responsibility to be true to the people who voted for him." Actually, the President is responsible to all of us, not just those who voted for him. The mind boggles.
Isn't this essentially Hobbes's thesis in Leviathan? I read it 25 years ago, and frankly it was tough sledding, but I recall this being the solution to the natural human state of the war of all against all.
Coming from Rudy though it makes you envision a gaggle of brownshirts and "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" playing in the background. Or maybe that's just a Cabaret flashback.
Of course, that is the argument that has been made by every authoritarian in history who has bothered to justify their dictatorship with democratic rhetoric.
But, no, you're right, more cops means more freedom. Got it.
Re: "freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do".
Or, as one NYC policeman put it so succinctly: "its Giulianni time!".
Of course this is the liberal attitude. Big government is ALL ABOUT "ceding to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do". Liberals want to be able to say that, e.g., government takeover of the entire health care system of the country is somehow not authoritarian. Um, sorry, no.
Government takeover of the entire healthcare system is far more authoritarian than anything Rudy ever did or proposes to do.
I think the liberal version would be:
"freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to agree to cede to a lawful authority a degree of discretion about what you do, though such agreement can be recinded if said authority begins to act in an unlawful manner."
Must I cede to lawful authority my discretion about what I pay my employees? Minimum wage is authoritarian.
Must I cede to lawful authority my discretion about how much CO2 I emit? Global warming caps are authoritarian.
I can go on forever. You get the point.
Grrrargh!
Now give me your guns!
Grrr! I'm Rudy Guiliani! Do it because I said so!
Rudy Giuiani banned dancing! I'm not seeing the upside to that one.
Wait, Rudy banned dancing? When? I danced in NYC during the Giuliani era. Not well, mind you, but I did.
Hegel/Schmegel. It sound like one component of generic contractarianism to me. The social contract both limits and expands freedoms. There are natural liberties which we all possess in the "state of nature" and don't really want to lose, but ceding some of them is the cost for membership in a civilized society. In exchange, we derive certain benefits, including certain new freedoms, like the freedom to walk about without getting clubbed on the head by someone trying to take our apples, or the freedom to listen to recorded music, a product of human industry which doesn't exist in the state of nature on either the Hobbesian or Lockean conception.
It is truly odd how the Republican party manages to be BOTH the "law & order" party and the "Libertarian" party. It sure looks like what it's actually being is the party that furthers the interests of the wealthy and upper-middle class white male population. I mean, that seems to explain most of their policy positions fairly well. But, I'm sure it has some sort of larger ideological justification . . . .
Matt, coupling Hegel with that quote of Giuliani's is more of an indictment of Hegel than something that lends Giuliani an intellectual air. Just because Aristotle was a misogynist doesn't put saying that a woman's place is in the home on solid intellectual ground.
Al, you missed the cabaret laws? Here's an account of one protest against them, back when protests were funny.
And here's a more straight-up news story, complete with picture of one of those "No Dancing" signs.
Matthew, freedom for Hegel is best understood as self-determination, a state in which one's determinations or properties are not determined by an other but by oneself. For self-determination we need to think of ourselves as a person subject to juridical right (subject to a rights based system of guarantees), an as an autonomous moral subject. The way in which Hegel differs from Kant, who also thinks of freedom as self-determination, is that for Hegel self-determination is not just germane to the structure of an individual's reason, but also to our selves as embodied social beings. In other words, Hegel wants to think how self-determination can be achieved when we recognize that agents are intrinsically social. His full answer is that freedom is 'being-with-oneself-in-another'. What he means by this phrase is that the 'objective social order' (what he calls 'ethical life') must be structured in such a way that agents can live out their life projects in accordance with their various self-understandings and conceptions of the good. Here, we find that we can be 'with-ourselves' (determine ourselves in accordance with our conception of the good) in 'the other' (that conception can be objectively realized). This is what true freedom requires. But to make the social life world amenable for our projects is not something that agents can achieve by themselves. Rather it takes collective action, i.e., politics. Contrary to the common view of Hegel as a collectivist, i.e., one who sacrifices the claims of the individual for the sake of the collective, the true picture should be of a philosopher who in the most penetrating manner thought through the conditions for individual freedom. Where Hegel differs from typical forms of liberalism is that he thinks that there are social conditions for individual freedom, including our taking part in political action. Freedom is not given, as it is for many liberals, but achieved.
If a Guiliani administration tries any crap like that, Jackmormon and I will overthrow the government in a Dance Dance Revolution.
Required the establishment to have a license. Not banned. I was not a fan of the rule, but let's not overstate it.
I would like very much to overstate it. Those licenses are expensive; only the gigantic clubs can afford them.
Perhaps a better way to critique Guiliani's statement, which might address the knee-twitch reactions from the pro-dysfunctional-health-care peanut gallery, is to bring our good friends Mill and Rawls into the discussion of Hegelian notions of freedom.
Certainly the modern liberal view is that one must cede a good portion of one's freedom of action within the public sphere to a lawful authority that regulates economic activity. The alternative is the consolidation of wealth and power to the detriment of everyone else, and the de facto destruction of freedoms that occurs to those born into a lower class. When one person is born to inherit large amounts of land, and another is born with no choice but to rent from the former or live on the streets, then the latter is not born free in any meaningful sense.
However, within the PRIVATE sphere of choices that occur outside of public spaces and outside the economy, there is no legitimate purpose to be served by ceding freedom of action to state authority. This leads to the petty tyranny of a government that doesn't merely try to protect you from others, but tries to protect you from yourself. THAT is where liberals should, and generally do, get off the "big government" bus.
Interestingly, the conservative movement can be described as a rough alliance between those who believe in minimal government in the public sphere, and those who believe in maximal government in the private sphere, united against the modern liberal conception of freedom.
e.g., government takeover of the entire health care system of the country is somehow not authoritarian. Um, sorry, no.
Yes, every time I went to my (private) doctor in Canada, it was just like living under Saddam's Iraq because I had health insurance supplied by the government rather than a heavily regulated market that doesn't work (and requires much more government spending!) And it's much, much worse than trying to abolish the rule of law and appoint yourself mayor-for-as-long-as-you-feel-like-it! Your argument couldn't be more logical! (Anyway, Jonah Goldberg will be happy to know there's one rube who would by his new book if it were ever going to be released.)
What's even scarier, though, is that the government in its authoritarianism has taken over...our precious water supply! Talk about yer liberal fascism!
The cause of political liberty is not served
Of course, if your job is political commentator like MY or New York politician like Giuliani you might be under the impression that freedom consists mainly of "political liberty". There are plenty of other types of liberty. Someone who makes their living through trade might think that economic liberty is important. Some people might think liberty to marry whoever you want is important.
There is a lot more to it than merely freedom of political speech.
This must be why Andrew Sullivan has the Yglesias' award. I just hope I understand what you're getting at Matthew. Not that Giuliani philosophical position has much salience in today's political environment, but that somehow that philosophy does not start from a reasonable premise.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"
Conservatism has gone a long way in the 40 years.
Interestingly, the conservative movement can be described as a rough alliance between those who believe in minimal government in the public sphere, and those who believe in maximal government in the private sphere, united against the modern liberal conception of freedom. - LaFollette Progressive
I've actually blogged about this (blogwhore: but a lazy one -- too lazy to actually link!). The alliance is not as tenuous as one might think: it is possible to accept both aspects of the modern conservative movement and be intellectually coherent.
I dunno, I'd say that in practice LA is a freer city than New York, and that this does have quite a bit to do with the weakness of local political institutions, including the relatively understaffed police force.
because I had health insurance supplied by the government rather than a heavily regulated market
Heavily regulated markets are authoritarian, just slightly less than the ultra-authoritarian government-only health system in Canada. It most certainly is authoritarian to provide that it is illegal to purchase health care privately.
that doesn't work (and requires much more government spending!)
More government spending = more authoritarianism, of course. Taxation is authoritarian.
To be fair, no one actually understands Hegel.
What's interesting in Giuliani's formulation is the trendy and gramatically non-standard use of the phrase "is about." What does it mean to say "freedom is about"? Does he mean "a necessary condition of freedom is..." That would be a true and uncontroversial statement. Or does he mean "the concept of 'freedom' is equivalent to the concept of 'ceding discretion to lawful authority'"? If that's what he means, we're in Orwell country.
Al is right, though it all depends, of course, on how you want to spin the situation.
Generally speaking, while freedom does require that authority not overstep its proper bounds, it also very much requires that properly constituted authorities be reasonably strong and effective. The absence of effective state institutions does not make contemporary Baghdad freer" than Boston in any way that makes "freedom" denote a worthwhile political ideal.
Baghdad has the handicap of being the focal point of bloody sectarian strife.
I would argue that the vast majority of individuals are guided by a basic moral view, which they may sometimes fall short of, but which they all share, if laws are calibrated properly, rather then being distorted by powerful or vocal groups then individuals may live their entire lives guided by their own moral view without ever feeling the bootheel of government. These people would be very free.
No one but no one should ever follow Dracula's authority. 99.9% of all authority in this country is illegitimate, venal, small, vile, racist, discriminatory, cheap, ugly, and diseased. Especially the justice system. Jeffrey Dahmer had a deeper sense of fairness and more integrity than 97.2% of all the prosecuters, judges, and cops do.
You see: some might say this Giuliani character is a kewl mayor type but in reality he's a big jerk type.
I'm John Fucking McCain and I approve this message.
As Bloix suggests, the only creepy thing about the comment is the word "about." It is obviously true that true freedom cannot exist without contraints on the war of all against all that prevails in the state of nature. That's banal contractarianism. But it's demented to think that "freedom" is "about" the constraints that must be imposed to facilitate its existence. Freedom is "about" the discretion to do the things you want to do, whenever and wherever you want, consistent with a social contract that allows you to do them *at all.* The terms of the contract -- our "laws" -- must be debated and revised constantly, and, the liberal contractarian hopes, always with an eye toward maximizing overall "freedom," but freedom is not "about" thos elaws, any more than, say, basketball is "about" the referee and the shot clock.
Wow that is a stupid quote. I don't care if Hegel said it first - Hegel is no sacred cow.
Giuliani is basically defining social order, but pretending that it is the definition of freedom. It's idiotic. It's like defining infinity to be a finite number.
Health Insurance is Fascism! Guantanamo is Freedom!
Got it, Al.
You know, Al actually believes his shit. That's really something.
Seat belt laws: fascism!
I'm with Johnny Fucking McCain.
This guy is a real jerk type.
Hip hip hooray for Hegel...but do Americans need to exercise more "discretion" in our deference to authority than we currently are? Have we been behaving badly under Bush?
And are any of Giuliani's opponents suggesting turning America into Baghdad?
It seems a little odd for a presidential candidate to be coming down so hard on the "order" side of the old "order vs. liberty" debate at a time when the presidency is so busy overstepping its authority in every way...
Hegel's not the governing reference here. It's been a long time since I read any Hegel but the key Hegel reference from Wikipedia is "rational government" which I take to be a government that adheres to laws and procedures enacted by previous administrations formed under a constitution as a supreme law. If anything, this is exactly what contemporary authoritarians like Giuliani reject. The authoritarians claim that being elected gives them a mandate to govern in opposition to constitutional mandates and established laws and procedures. Needless to say, this is exactly the opposite of Hegel, the authors of key American documents, and John Locke.
In a way, Thoreau and Emerson are better references than Hegel. Like these authors, Giuliani dismisses democratic traditions and defines his own freedom, manhood, and self-worth in terms of acting on his own "truth." Of course, Giuliani's truth of authoritative discretion is different from the truths foreseen by Thoreau and Emerson, but it's just as individual. Where Giuliani goes further is that he demands that everybody in society give up their freedom (as protected by laws, rules, procedures, and constitutional provisions) so that Giuliani can govern by his "truth." In other words, we sacrifice our freedom so Giuliani as an elected official can have the freedom ("a great deal of discretion") to do what he believes to be the right thing. The same is the case with Bush and Cheney. They're all "scary and creepy," but their authoritarian ideas are an application of a romantic American individualism to the "individuality" of those in authority.
Rudy will never win because:
a:) he's from New York
b:) he's pro-abortion
c:) he's been married 3 times
d:) he's a Jew,... I mean, uh, Catholic
I don't think comparisons to Hegel should legitimize anything at all. Hegel was a through and through racist (see, for instance, his assertion that by definition there can be no African history), and its easy to see his Historical March to Perfection underpinning (not to say causing) Nazi political philosophy.
Hegel's grand, baroque system of thesis/antithesis/synthesis had no time for individual freedom. That was why we needed Kierkegaard and the existentialists in the first place
More government spending = more authoritarianism, of course. Taxation is authoritarian.
Ah, good, so Al has conceded that Bush's health care policies are vastly more "authoritarian" than France's. So we can implement the French system, make America more democratic (as vastly improving health care), and we both go home happy.
Strong authority is not necessary to freedom. To say that it is, is to suggest that freedom never existed until there was government, which is demonstrably false.
Authority is only necessary to counter the effects of an unequal distribution of power among individuals and groups. In a state of perfect equality any attempt by one individual to interfere with another can be equally countered by the aggrieved individual. The attacker may come out ahead on occassion, but he cannot hope to all the time and once he becomes known as a threat to the liberty of individuals of a community they are likely to become wary of him and perhaps might even band together to stop him. But when you have powerful groups and bodies emerge like corporatons and the mob and aristocratic families and technologies like gun or other such concentrations of power that create a situation where an individual cannot protect their own liberty, only then do you need authority to protect freedom.
Too many people today talk about freedom in terms of rights that are granted by government. That gets it completely backwards. The question is not by what right is an individual free. Human freedom is inherent to human existence. This is the point that our forefathers considered a self-evident truth.
The real question is, by what right does government interfere with anything an individual does? There is no inherent right for any person or persons or group of persons, however selected, to exercise control over another person's life. Therefore, if a body of people -- which is what government is -- wants to exercise such control, the burden is on them to justify it. And that is what you, Matt, and Giuliani and so much of America have completely misunderstood.
How odd it is, that whenever you hear a sentence beginning with "Freedom is" or "Liberty is" it almost always ends up being something less than, or in some cases antithetical to what Freedom & Liberty actually are.
Engraved above the columns of Worcester County Courthouse: "Obedience to Law is Liberty"
gross, huh?
MDtoMN:
"It is truly odd how the Republican party manages to be BOTH the "law & order" party and the "Libertarian" party."
Is that odder than how the Democratic party manages to be the party of choice for poor, uneducated, religious, homophobic blacks as well as educated, affluent, secular gay whites?
It's simply the result of having two major parties: unless an interest group wants to start a viable third party (not a bad idea), it has to find a home in one of the two majors.
Yes, Fred, it is much, much odder. The mish-mash you cite as the Democratic contradiction consists of dichotomies that are either not contradictory or not both Democratic positions:
poor/affluent: not contradictory. The Democratic party is about a fair shake for poor and affluent alike
educated/uneducated: "uneducation" is not a Democratic value
religious/secular: not contradictory. The Democratic party is not against the practice of religion, only against the establishment of *one* religion (1st Am.)
gay rights/homophobia: homophobia is *so* not a Democratic value. Homophobes are well aware they have no chance of their homophobia being respected by Democrats. It is, however, a Republican value, and therefore a common Republican wedge tactic to win the votes of otherwise Democratic voters.
black/white: not contradictory. see poor/affluent, religious/secular
Now look again at that Republican dichotomy again.
libertarianism/authoritarianism: deeply contradictory, yet supposedly both Republican values. Giuliani, by preaching submission to duly constituted authority, is either no Republican, or libertarianism has no place in the Republican party. Which is it?
Order is all that's necessary for freedom, and the requires only a very minimal level of authority in a free society. Only those that hate freedom, as Matt has made it clear he does, fear that freedom will create anarchy. That is the argument of totalitarians and monsters everywhere. Good men don't make that argument, and by making that argument you show the measure of your soul. Anyone can examine this position and find it's flaws if they care to. That this argument is not an argument for some control, but rather for total control of a nation's citizen's actions. That it instills in a human entity; either government, church, or community, the essence and providence of freedom. When freedom is provided by men, men may take it away. That it demands complete obedience to a government of flawed men, rather than an acceptance that leaders are human and that they make mistakes that must be corrected.
Matt is a flawed person who allows his class bias to weigh too heavily in his arguments. He doesn't believe in egalitarianism. He apparently doesn't understand the essence of what freedom is. He instead fears the masses. That we have, or may receive, too much power and too much freedom. He fears that we will create a society that no longer goes out of it's way to benefit people of his status. For that reason, he is open to these kinds of arguments made by other men of status and wealth to justify their status and their wealth.
Government: Safety First.
Is this Hegel or Hobbes?
Concerning the very first comment, by Rousseau:
Rousseau deserted his wife and kids. I'm sure he preferred his life without chains better, but I doubt his family had much respect for his version of "freedom."
And so the aptly named "anon" mounts the classic ad hominem leveled at Rousseau.
If we're going to talk about Hegel, let's at least come close to getting him right. Any good reader of Hegel of the last half century knows he is by no means "a pretty creepy authoritarian"--his whole political philosophy is founded upon the individual free will. S. Levine's comments are right on track. Silly name dropping might make you look smart, but not when you don't understand the author whose name you exploit.
Mr. Jefferson Davis,
I'm not mounting an ad hominmen attack, I'm just pointing out that for Rousseau, his concept of freedom was very convenient for him, as it is for a lot of people. I'm curious, do you know the name of his wife?
Matt is illustrating the dangers of taking a philosophy degree. Sure, it seems innocent enough when you're young and can stay up all night, but before you know it.....
The fact is, most Americans spend most of their lives in a state of anarchy and we do just fine. In an hour I will join hundreds of other scofflaws who speed up the freeway, but we never run into one another. I will eat food that has not been inspected but I will not get sick. I will surf a relatively lawless internet and not become a terrorist.
What threatens Matt is the rule of law, that, through the mechanism of the War on (some) Drugs, has created a blackmarket in his city. What threatens Baghdad is the belief of contending groups that they must impose their rule of law.
To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, the great evil of Prohibition is that it leads people to believe they don't need to have any inner standards of right and wrong, they can just let the government make those decisions for them.
Or, to paraphrase Lord Acton, power corrupts- and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Ooops, I misspelled "ad hominem." My apologies.
Having said that, I don't think my pointing out Rousseau's neglect of his family (especially his children) is ad hominem. His concept of freedom directly relates to his avoidance of personal responsibility in his own life. If I were merely attacking his person in a way detached from his argument about freedom, then that would be ad hominem. (I'm not an expert on logical fallacies, so correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Davis.)
His children were born free: free of a father.
Ah, good, so Al has conceded that Bush's health care policies are vastly more "authoritarian" than France's.
???
Government spending on health care is relatively less in the US than in France.
Rudy is simply showing his Catholic upbring.
The problem with "freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do" is simple: so is slavery. It makes more sense to say "freedom still concedes to lawful authority..." or "freedom unfortunately cannot be achieved without a willingness to cede to lawful authority..." or something, rather than "freedom is about...", which makes it sound like Rudy thinks that the DEFINING characteristic of freedom is unfreedom.
If I read S Levine right above, and if I remember that college course on "Autonomy" right, Hegel also lays the emphasis not on "ceding to lawful authority", but more on embracing the law, as a member oneself of the polity that creates the law and is governed by it. Not so much just "yes sir, officer" ("Why? Because I say so."). Though then again, maybe Hegel did in some ways think the law just fell out of the sky; he was a monarchist after all.
Government spending on health care is relatively less in the US than in France.
Uh, no: the French government spends less per capita. Why do Republicans hate democracy?
I think freedom is best defined by those who are willing to kill and die for it -- vice superficial intellects who would not sacrifice one pay raise to stand up to power. Witness the numerous craven surrenders of America's intelligentsia over the past 5 years.
But if we are going to debate political philosophy, we should at least do so in a way that would interest --say, a high school senior.
The problem is with Giulani is that there is ample evidence that the man is an outright fascist. Does no one remember a NYC police force whose officers shoved a toilet plunger up
a detainee's rectum?? Which has --on several occasions -- pumped roughly 50 bullets into innocent men simply because they did not freeze into immobility. Which claims the right to stop and frisk random individuals on the sidewalk for WWB?
("Walking While Black").
Freedom, like life, is based upon a BALANCE between extremes.
Extreme heat -- and extreme cold -- kill. Extreme dryness --dying of thirst in a desert -- kills as quickly as extreme wetness -- drowning in deep water.
Over 2000 years ago, Aristotle and then Polybius noted the need for balance between the rule of the One, the Few, and the Many.
But who is likely to challenge George Bush's and Giulani's seizure of power? How can you discuss the need for checks and balances when probably 90% of US voters today think Aristotle is a Hollywood hairdresser?
Britney Spears can get $20 for her DVDs. Meanwhile, my local library has books sales to raise money due to funding cuts from our Republican state legislature. And at those books sales, I have been able to buy hardbound copies of Aristotle and Plato's dialogues for 50 cents each.
It's amazing how we can spend over $1 Trillion/year on education and produce some of the most stupid people on the planet.
Uh, no: the French government spends less per capita.
But, Scott, that's only because they have less money to spend, because their tax revenues are lower, because they're not as rich as we are because they're lazy socialists! If you multiply French government per capita health expenditures by the ratio of US to French per capita GNP then it becomes larger than US per capita government health expenditures! Ironically, it is their very socialism and resulting poverty which impedes them in their mad thirst to spend government money on their health care. Probably. I'm see no need to actually do the research, or the math, but it stands to reason, because, in the immortal words of Agent Orange:
French people suck
that's what I say
made the jet fighter pilots
go out of their way
Also, are you aware that France was defeated by Germany in World War II?
Scott, you know how I hate to disagree with Matthew, but you've got to look at it in terms of %age of GDP, not raw dollars. As a percentage of GDP, the French public spending on healthcare is greater than US public spending on healthcare, at least if I did the math right based on the latest OECD numbers. (Of course, public spending isn't all federal (i.e., Bush administration) anyway, but leave that aside, since I don't know that we could get comparable numbers for the US federal government and French federal government.)
Heh. Matt Steinglass says it more humorously than me.
Oh, for christ's sake. I didn't actually think you were going to MAKE the argument. How dismally predictable.
Why would you compare to GDP? Is there any evidence that France gets a lower standard of care for its money? At any rate, in the kindest construction Republicans support a system that's about 90% as "authoritarian" as the French one. Fascist!
"Freedom is slavery!" Giuliani '08
yeah, what rudy, the professor and you are all discussing is nuance to getting away with having society. but society and culture have never had anything to do with freedom, and never will, hell being other people and all. STILL I GET YER POINT
Cheap shot. The quote is lifted out of context and presented as proof that Guiliani must be some kind of fascist. Trace back to the actual speech in 1994 and the context in which the line was given. He was advocating more individual responsibility rather than greater government repression.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260
thanks
Perhaps, Gary, but that's hardly why Medicaid is important. It may benefit middle class dudes like you, but we didn't implement Medicaid in order to benefit the middle class, and we wouldn't repeal it if turned out not to benefit the middle class as much as it seems to.
thanks
very nice
sohbet, chat, arkadaş
thanks...
muhabbet
thank you
thank you
thank you
than kyou
thank you
thank you very good.
thankk
tsklerr
canimsinnn
nbr kush basi
we liked here
tsklerr
hii how is going
tsklerr
tsklerr sagol
off off sizwar ya siz adamlarburayı siz gelip link ekleyin diye açmadılar konuyu teşekkürler falan deyip te adamalrı bunlar neye teşekkür ediyor demesin en azından bellei etmeyin:D:D:D
Interesting and very informative article
thanks
Thanks
Sohbet, World
Birdiyar
Canli Sohbet
Canlı Sohbet
Sohbet Siteleri
Sohbetyap
SohbetChat
Sohbetyap
Haberler
sohbet siteleri, chat, muhabbet, canlı sohbet chat, güzel sözler, aşk sevgi sözleri, şiir, arkadaş, çocuk şarkıları, oyun
Canlı Sohbet
Canlı Sobet
thanks
tnx..
thanks for links..
mirc
mirc
hikaye
thanks
thanks
best regards.ıts cool
thank you very much
Chat
sohbet
chat sitesi
chat siteleri
sohbet odaları
Sohbet odası
canlı sohbet
sohbet sitesi
sohbet kanalları
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat