Nudism is never wrong.
goo...@rock.com
> On Apr 29, 6:38 am, "Mark" <alln...@nospammindspring.com> wrote:> "Dario Western" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:xgvRj.5927$ko5.4426@news-
>
> > > Trent,
>
> > > Why did you post this message to a wrestling and Mormon newsgroup? >
>
> > Why did YOU??
>
> because once evolving from a primate to a human being..;if that is
> possible....the first discovery is that the most hate that can be
> conjured up is a group of people or peer group that will not admit
> their evil....the evil itself is not unaceptable to the masses but the
> denial of it is unacceptable...ref...pastor wright and obama...the
> militant terrorist suicide bombers fighting for destruction of
> everyone but their kind.....stalin...hitler...etc.....does anyone
> think that hitler or stalin would ever repent....it is the
> unrelentling attitude of the nudist that is prevalent and their overt
> desires to aggress and force their nakedness on the rest of
> society....Dario is cut from the same cloth that Anna Nikki and i are
> cut from ..knowing that our beliefs are not popular and know exactly
> how the non naked feel and why....but you primates until you evolve
> and admit will never know.....jz
The Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Hari-Krishna beliefs are not popular,
but in a free world, they have a right to practice them. Most non
Hari-Krishnas likely don't relish seeing the Hari Krishnas walking
down the street and chanting and doing their dance, but it is the Hari-
Krishna's Just right, and Just Freedom to do so. Nakedness is not
being "forced" on anyone by merely walking down the street. Unless
your person or property is violated (or endangered), nothing is being
forced on you, and you have a Just right to Freedom whether you
"jon_zee," and other Americans, and other people throughout the world
recognize it or not, you have a Just right to Freedom unless you are
violating (or endangering) someone's persons or property including
public property, or engaged in commerce, which given the exploitative
nature of which may Justly be regulated, though not prohibited,
through product bundling, quality controls, and advertising
regulations, and possibly though not surely other ways I have not
thought of.
Thus, you surely have the Just right to commit non-dangerous, non-
commercial acts in public. This is Freedom. The line may not be
drawn more strictly than this, or must we violate the principle of
Freedom entirely and may as well do away with it, leaving the future
to a single prevailing ideology and religion, limiting all speeches
and actions to those of the past, for certainly once something is
outlawed it would be extinct and nearly impossible to gain a majority
support for since they would not even be able to try or see or
practice it at all. Save the argument I am presenting here, and such
is our current oppressed state.
The only thing I think about "Anna" is that perhaps she is denigrating
sex and promoting nonsexual nudity in an attempt to protect nudism
from the anti-sex bigots and persecutors in this world. I don't know
if such a tactic is well founded, but she seems maybe too much a voice
of the prejudice Nazi crowd to seriously be taking such a tactic.
Leave your dress and conduct codes to private property owners who may
eject any who violate them. No country may be called free which could
require you to wear a Burka in public, but apparently that is a
possibility requiring only 50% of the voters in the United States (or
less than 50% as the minority of elected dictators can pass the law).
Thus we see, Democracy is merely a means of political change, and
Freedom from past governance, but that it is in no way an
establishment or ensurer of Freedom. Freedom is a principle much more
important than Democracy, it is a principle to be both advanced in the
minds of the people of this planet, and established in the foundations
of any Just political system which governs them. The United States is
one of the biggest human rights violators on the planet due to its
disregard for Freedom in areas of drugs, arms, and sex. It has not
been the bastion of Freedom it was supposedly conceived to be.
American's Just rights and thus their prosperity, wealth, and
livelihood are violated all over the country - as cities may
apparently legally do thing such as ban the drinking of beer on the
beach - taking the common citizen's wealth and prosperity, and taxing
them to spend more money policing and jailing offenders. Such is the
despotic state of the tyranny of our nation today. As seen with the
drug war this vicious cycle increases true crime, undermines the
justice system, and leads to more lawlessness and criminal
lifestyles. The USA puts more people in prison per capita than any
nation in the world besides China, and thinks to call itself free
compared to such fallen Communist Empires and Theocracies which may
respect neither free speech nor Freedom of religion, nor the rights of
the accused - nor the right to acquire property, and may even force
people to work like slaves - though I'm not sure how things work/
worked in communist countries. And of those rights, none at all are
protected by Democracy, they all are protected by the insufficient
Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) which requires 2/3rd of
both houses of Congress and 3/4th's of all state's legislatures to
change, and neither has it been recognized to my knowledge to protect
your right to property as taxes could be raised to 100% and the nation
made Communist. Allying yourself with a lesser evil may make sense at
times, but the truth is you wish to see both evils fall or be
corrected - we can only hope for the nation's sake the latter comes to
pass.
So the nation's not free, and to the extent it is free, it is not free
because of Democracy but because of the Bill of Rights. Democracy
does not ensure Freedom, it is merely a means of political change.
Democracy is merely a means of freeing ourselves from the dictators
who ruled us in the past and electing new dictators without having to
resort to war. The Bill of Rights ensures Freedom and is either not
recognized or not extensive enough.
There are 5 means of political change:
1. Free Speech - if it is allowed
2. Democracy - if your country has it
3. Civil Disobedience - if the penalties are not too harsh - sucks
nonetheless because you can be penalized
4. Targeted Assassinations
5. War - nearly always civil war
As you can see, Free Speech and Democracy are the most palatable.
Free Speech and Democracy allow us to change the government without
war by appealing to the rulers or replacing them. The other three
methods cost lives but are sometimes necessary.
And those who violate minority freedom are prejudice evil lying
bigots, doing satanism and sin, jacking for nothing, taking people's
unalienable freedoms away.
goo...@rock.com
Democracy is just an elected dictatorship. The elected
representatives are no better than any old dictators, and will oppress
you just as much as any old dictator. The only difference in America
is the Bill of Rights which is protected by the separation of powers
in the structure of our government between the judicial and executive/
legislative branches of government and the separation of power between
the Federal, State, County and City governments. Democracy does not
ensure freedom it is merely a means of political change of freedom
from the past dictators who may free us from past legislation.
If common dictators were constrained by a bill of rights protected by
a separation of powers, their country would be nearly as good as any
other government or Democracy with such freedoms, they would just lack
the means of political change. And a good king or dictator could self-
constrain but the next king or dictator could easily be not as good.
For instance China too has a bill of rights and more guaranteed
freedoms in its Constitution than the United States. But with no
separation of powers, its Dictators can ignore the guaranteed freedoms
completely and override them and routinely do.
It's true that in some states a majority can get an issue on the
ballot and pass a law in an election. But most laws are passed by an
elected minority. So much touting Democracy as freedom, when we do
not even have a Democracy. In any case, majority rule can be tyranny
to the other 49% of the voters, and so the theory goes, that a wise
minority of rulers might be elected. But rather as it turns out they
are just dictatorial tyrants, it seems a broader bill of rights and a
broader interpretation of a bill of rights is a better solution.
I'm the wise minority who would respect broader freedoms if elected.
In the absence of a bill of rights securing our freedom, tyranny is
given free reign. Justice is not established or at least it is not
secured - as the next elected dictator may legislate tyranny. Sin
instead becomes established as the government makes up new sins, and
commits evil upon the people in the name of righteousness.
Dictatorial tyrants spend their time establishing murder instead of
Justice. It's a question of tyranny of the majority vs. minority
rights, or majority rule vs. tyranny of the minority.
goo...@rock.com
> On Jul 12, 3:07 am, good...@rock.com wrote:
>
> > It's true that in some states a majority can get an issue on the
> > ballot and pass a law in an election. But most laws are passed by an
> > elected minority. So much touting Democracy as freedom, when we do
> > not even have a Democracy. In any case, majority rule can be tyranny
> > to the other 49% of the voters, and so the theory goes, that a wise
> > minority of rulers might be elected. But rather as it turns out they
> > are just dictatorial tyrants, it seems a broader bill of rights and a
> > broader interpretation of a bill of rights is a better solution.
>
> being a "democracy" but it's a lie. It's just a wish of those in power
> because they know that "democracy" is always tyranny. It's tyranny
> over 49% and it's tyranny based on the idea that the media can easily
> fool some of the people all of the time. So "majority rule" means the
> media can get a majority to agree to just about any measure no matter
> how extreme or oppressive.
>
> But America is a NEW idea. It's like nothing ever tried in the world
> before. It's a REPUBLIC. It is an attempt to have rule by the people
> instead of rule by the strongest. The differences are important.
> First off, there is the assumption that just by being born you come
> into the world with rights from "the creator" which is NOT defined.
> You get to decide if that means "God", "Allah" "Nature" or "Chance",
> but the concept is STILL there that being born grants everybody
> certain rights. Things like Life and Liberty. Even animals are born
> with these. Sure you CAN get killed out there, but in the wild
> generally one is born free and self-defense is provided for your
> species.
This is actually just *your* philosophy. In practice you have only
the rights the government recognizes. Even if the 9th and 10th
Amendments suggest that all other rights are inherent in you, it
doesn't matter unless the Supreme Court recognizes them - or some
lesser court judge agrees with you, and even then the prosecutor can
appeal up to the Supreme Court.
> Let us pause for a minute and compare to the older more "traditional"
> rule of a king. That idea is that people are basically ignorant and
> worthless so they need somebody smart and strong to tell them what to
> do. The ruler is considered the representative of "the creator" on
> earth. Therefore the ruler has absolute power over subjects. That
> power includes ALL aspects of life including life and death. "Rights"
> are "collective" and exist only for the ruler. Rights for the people
> are all filtered through the ruler and they get ONLY those which the
> ruler decides (as God's representative) to "grant" to them.
>
> The "liberal" ( what it used to be called before politicians got
> playing with the meaning of words) ideas started by men in what was
> known in history as "the enlightenment" included: 1. That the people
> are born with rights, they are NOT 'granted" by rulers. 2. People if
> left to decide their own fates will in general choose reasonably
> wisely based on their own self-interests. They will do at least as
> well as a "smart" king. 3. People may be easily fooled by politicians
> and the media as to issues and votes, but generally are a pretty good
> judge of local people they know.
>
> The bottom line is that the power of government is severely limited.
> The government is run by people elected at the local level so the
> people can better judge them (this was the TRUE purpose of the
> electorial college...but now politicians want it a democratic
> "popular" election to make elections more easily manipulated) and
> choose more wisely. These locals then pick the national leader.
>
> And finally 4. The government structure is designed to so that some of
> the more important aspects of it (such as distribution of power as set
> in the constitution) are NOT able to be changed by simple "majority
> rule". Two thirds or 3/4 of the people have to agree on the change.
> This eliminates the easy tyranny of majority rule. The people are
> granted the power to choose ANY form of government they wish INCLUDING
> a KING! But the catch is that it takes much more agreement among the
> people to install a king than merely 51%. This is why the run at a
> power grab known as the con-con and "NewStates Constitution" fell on
> it's face. They had MORE than a majority ready to install that fascist
> nightmare, but not the required super-majority.
>
> Obviously politicians all love power and will always be working to
> subvert the republic to install themselves with powers as close to a
> king as possible. It has to be expected. But given the above
> provisions of super-majority requirement of fundamental change, so
> long as the rules of the republic (constitution) is followed, it is
> difficult to get away with the subversion. This is why the mass media
> pounds away on the idea that America is a 'democracy". They want to
> subvert the ideas of the republic so that the media can form the motor
> behind a power-grab.
>
> The bad news is that many people have actually bought the "democracy"
> thing. You actually can fool some of the people all of the time!
So you're saying that a Republic is good, and that a Democracy is
bad. I'm saying that neither matter, and that all that matters is a
Bill of Rights secured by an Independent Judiciary. I'm saying that a
Dictator or a King would be nearly even as good as a Republic or
Democracy if there was a secured Bill of Rights that he could not
violate, and that there is nearly no difference. You say:
> Let us pause for a minute and compare to the older more "traditional"
> rule of a king. That idea is that people are basically ignorant and
> worthless so they need somebody smart and strong to tell them what to
> do. The ruler is considered the representative of "the creator" on
> earth. Therefore the ruler has absolute power over subjects. That
> power includes ALL aspects of life including life and death. "Rights"
> are "collective" and exist only for the ruler. Rights for the people
> are all filtered through the ruler and they get ONLY those which the
> ruler decides (as God's representative) to "grant" to them.
But that is basically what exists except for the weak Bill of Rights.
The 1st Amendment recognizes the right to freedom of speech, freedom
of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of peaceful assembly, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The 2nd
Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. The 3rd through
8th Amendments recognize the rights of the accused, and the 9th and
10th Amendments suggest the recognition of all other rights.
But the rights of the accused aren't broad enough, the accused can be
coerced into plea bargaining, and the 9th and 10th Amendments don't do
anything unless a right is recognized by the Supreme Court or a lesser
court judge. That leaves us with only the First and Second
amendments. Better than a Communist or Theocratic government, but not
enough to praise as "the land of the free."
The First and Second Amendments are all America has in addition to the
weak rights of the accused who are in serious peril, and a few
interpretations recognizing a few more weak rights of the accused
(Miranda warning for instance), and extending rights, for instance,
rights to abortion and privacy may have been recognized by the Supreme
Court.
How is America "the land of the free" compared to a dictatorship, our
elected dictators can apparently outlaw anything they want, not to
mention pass patently unconstitutional laws, forcing the common
citizen to suffer until someone has the money to sue or the laws are
appealed.
Communist Empires, Theocracies and Dictatorships, countries without a
Bill of Rights secured by an Independent Judiciary, may respect
neither Freedom of Speech nor Freedom of Religion, nor the rights of
the accused - And Communist empires may not respect the right to
acquire property, and may even force people to work like slaves -
though I'm not sure how things work/worked in Communist countries.
America is a lesser evil, but today far from the country we're looking
for and far from the bastion of Freedom it pretends to be.
goo...@rock.com
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:35:20 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>
>
>
>
>
> <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >All four are minorities in the United States. The Jews and Hari-
> >Krishnas are minorities world-over.
>
> ><JS>
>
> >All four taken together are the largest group of people anywhere.
>
> >But, so what?
>
> >Your argument tying them to nudists is specious.
>
> >Nudists the world over comprise a smaller number than the smallest of any of
> >the religions you listed. As annoying as it is to run into a Hare Krishna at
> >the airport, my guess is that running into a nudist at the airport would be
> >worse. Searches at the Security Station would go faster though ...
>
> Once again, the notion that there are no "absolute"
> rights crops up
You have absolute rights until your absolute rights violate someone
else's absolute rights. Nudism does not violate anyone else's
absolute rights. The alternative to the philosophy of absolute rights
is _no rights_, which means that "society" can do anything it wants at
all, and outlaw anything it wants at all; give the death penalty for
anything it wants at all, and a common murder is just as legitimate if
there are "no rights." "Society" being a king, a dictator, an elected
minority, a majority, or a supermajority, a criminal who's seized
power. A Mafioso, a tyrant, a murderer. Without a principle and
philosophy of absolute rights, your argument merely become "NO
RIGHTS." With a philosophy of no rights, common murder becomes as
legitimate as any penalties imposed by those in power. Common
murderers have power too. You either believe in righteousness, or you
believe in murder. How is society righteous if its philosophy is "no
rights?"
> The reason why nudists do not have a "right" to
> practice their "religion" (so to speak) is the fact
> that it falls within those behaviors and activities
> that CAN
Obviously any behaviors CAN be regulated by those willing to impose
destructive power.
> (and should be) regulated (or forbidden) by
> the society where it occurs.
But in the absence of a philosophy of "rights" how does one determine
what _should_ be regulated... Does your philosophy even support the
sparse civil rights recognized in the United States Bill of Rights?
Or how do you justify this Bill of Rights? The rights recognized
there are as follows:
1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of
Peaceful Assembly, Freedom of the Press, Right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
2nd Amendment: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
3rd - 8th Amendments: The (all too sparse) rights of the accused.
9th and 10th Amendment: All other rights inherent in the people
suggested. This would easily include the right to wear (or not wear)
clothing.
> Public Nudity in (I believe) some of the Scandinavian
> countries is accepted---public parks, beaches, lakes
> etc.
>
> You get shot in Arab Emirates for the same.
Yes and they force you to be Muslim, pray to Allah, prohibit kite
flying and music playing. And women have no rights at all. Can you
view them as anything other than criminal murderers for this? Or do
you suggest that a murderer who successfully seizes power, and kills
innocent citizens for his own whims, is right by virtue of his power?
What if some common murderer today in our society merely says he is
king - how is he any different. Do you suggest that someone's actions
are automatically righteous, until they are penalized for them? What
if your supposed "king" after murdering is subsequently assassinated -
does this mean that his actions are no longer right? What if his
assassins declare themselves the new authority, does that make him
wrong? The simplicity and transparency of what I am saying is
hopefully evident to all. Might does not make right. Our opinion of
what is right and wrong is based on our moral philosophy which may be
arrived at and refined through principles and reason.
This is not subjective morality, though with incomplete knowledge,
opinions may differ until reason has educated all. But you would hope
that it would be simple. For when one begins to justify destructive
actions based on indirect violations, one may begin to justify
destructive action against anyone, and one becomes no better than a
murderous Nazi who believes himself to be "right."
This is what is happening with legislation in our government. With
the smallest reason, the law may justify kidnapping, and imprisonment,
and even the death penalty. Some in our government must either be of
the opinion that their destructive laws are Just, or they must be evil
people who do not care about the unalienable rights of others or
liberty and justice for all.
For some people, morality may be a blind belief system based on
dogmatic principles and doctrine. Or it may be that we are merely
followers of others for a time, regardless of whether they explain
their morality through reason, or doctrine or hope to appeal to the
despotic authority of their destructive power. Certainly it must be
stupidity to believe that might makes right by itself. For criminals
use might to commit actions all day, and no one is of the opinion that
these actions are "right" Certainly no one views the unjustified
attack and murder of an innocent person as anything other than wrong.
And for those who appeal to doctrine and resort to their religion to
justify their harmful actions against others. For these
fundamentalist hypocrites, I may resort too, to scripture, and quote
both the old and new testaments:
Jesus:
"Hypocrites! "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, as it is written:
'These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips.
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain do they worship Me.
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
Mark 7:7, Isaiah 29:13
I guess I'd have to read the Koran to reason with fundamentalist
deluded crazy Muslims. Some people apparently believe their religion
justifies taking violent actions against others. For going nude for
instance. I believe this is obviously immoral and that I have a right
to live in the public universe wearing any clothing I please. I
believe violent action is generally justified only against violent
action. I believe this, because I believe I have unalienable RIGHTS,
without which, nothing can be justified or found to be unjustified
either. Without rights, there is no reason for the law. But I
believe in these rights and I believe there is a reason for the law,
that the law is supposed to be humane and just. Without rights I am
merely a psycho-tyrant who does not recognize other's wills, other's
liberties, other's lives, or other's freedoms and abilities. Without
rights the law degenerates into psychotic tyranny. The law is then
imposed upon people against their will, it can not be something they
could support. It is then a form of war which teaches death in
opposition to life and freedom, and begets poverty through the theft
of our righteous liberties, and at taxpayer expense, ultimately likely
leading to revolution and civil war which has brought about the
downfall of tons of governments in the last 232 years save those
scrapped in peaceful processes, no governments existing today being as
old as the original one that was supposed to be founded on this
philosophy of liberty and justice for all and is now heading towards
the same legal degeneracy.
> In America, (I suppose) there are some nudist beaches,
> but are under license, managed and regulated---mostly
> private I suspect.
There are many nude beaches in the states of California and Florida.
In the state of New York toplessness is legal everywhere.
But why should there be any restrictions on clothing choices anywhere
in a "Free World?" Apparently some in government must believe they
may prohibit you from wearing makeup in public. But I do not believe
that this is consistent with the Founding Father's conception of
America. And I do not view such laws as anything other than criminal
impositions such as those imposed by the Taliban before our invasion
of Afghanistan.
We shall overcome, for let us remember that "the arc of the universe
is long but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King
-----
You wouldn't want someone to take a shit, not wipe their ass, and sit
down on a public bench. This could potentially spread bacteria and
endanger.
Something should only be a crime if it endangers or violates someone.
Flying a kite is a right, but flying a kite over other people's heads
in such a way that it may endanger them is not a right. You have
absolute rights until you violate or endanger other's absolute rights.
Thus it should only be illegal to fly a kite in a manner that may
endanger others. Flying a kite in an open park does not endanger.
Owning an M-16 does not endanger.
Owning drugs does not endanger.
Drinking Alcohol in public does not endanger
Nakedness in public does not endanger.
Having sex in public does not endanger.
Buying child pornography does not endanger - Paying someone before the
fact to abuse their children would make one an accessory to a crime.
Buying child pornography after the fact, should be seen as no
different from buying the news. Neither does obscenity endanger, and
you have a right and NEED to see everything, and to know what exists
and is occurring in this world!
Shooting guns off in public towards the ocean generally does not
endanger.
Shooting guns off in public into the sky does endanger.
Thus it should only be illegal to shoot off guns in public in a manner
that may endanger others - usually it may but that doesn't mean that
it's okay to make it illegal to shoot off guns in public in a safe
manner!! (Noise pollution by your house at night is another
consideration as it likely violates your right to sleep).
Hitting golf balls in someone's direction endangers.
Hitting golf balls in an open field or towards the ocean generally
does not endanger.
Lighting off fireworks too close to someone's house may endanger.
Lighting off fireworks in an open parking lot does not endanger - if
they are safely regulated fireworks.
Driving must always be done safely because you are traveling and do
not know what is up ahead. Reckless driving may always endanger.
Thus driving is a right, but driving dangerously is not a right.
The government should regulate commerce because commerce is inherently
exploitative. The government should not be allowed to ban commerce at
the higher levels. It should only be allowed to regulated it with
product bundling, advertising requirement and restrictions, and
quality controls. Cities should perhaps be allowed to ban storefront
commerce. This could include casinos, gun stores, brothels, and drug
bars. You could merely drive to the next city or out into the county
to get your guns, drugs, prostitutes, or gambling. Driving to the
next state or county is too far.
But cities should not be allowed to ban non-commercial, non-dangerous,
peaceful actions.
Cities should not be allowed to ban possession of substances not
dangerous to those around you, nor even non-store front private
commerce, including internet and catalogue purchases.
All weapons should likely be legal up to bombs which should require
safe transport and storage. For guns, I would consider bundling the
sale of all guns with a locking metal box one would be able to, though
not required to, store them safely in. Pointing a gun at someone
endangers them.
You have absolute rights until you violate or endanger other's
absolute rights. This includes violating public property, such as
driving a smog producing car and littering. The punishment should fit
the crime. Thus endangering should usually be merely an infraction.
Violating for real is more serious, also depending on whether it was
intentional or not and possibly upon the nature of the crime.
The rights of the accused should be expanded. Currently it is
dangerous to get thrown in jail. Many innocent people have gotten
beat up and murdered when thrown in jail for minor offenses. This
must be changed. When a crime is committed against someone in the
government's custody, the government becomes an accessory to the
crime. The government is an accessory to murder. People should not
be coerced into plea bargaining. Perhaps there should be no
interrogation allowed after arrest. Perhaps everyone should be forced
to plead innocent and be found guilty in a court of law.
The war on drugs is probably more degenerative to our society than
legalized drugs would be. Drug prohibition is exactly the same as
alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. And just as in the 1920s, drug laws
have caused a tremendous increase in crime and violence. Gangs and
the money from drug dealing fuels further crime and criminal
lifestyles as those who would otherwise be good citizens may turn into
criminals. Drugs are pushed on people including minors, and these
individuals are not informed of the potentially harmful side effects.
There are no quality controls, so there are overdoses resulting in
death and drugs are sometimes split with dangerous substances. People
who want to do drugs and alcohol are going to do the drugs anyhow.
Also I wonder if druggies who steal to support their drug habit only
have to do so because illegal drugs are so expensive. Most alcoholics
don't have to steal to support their habit, so I wonder even if we
taxed drugs at 100% perhaps they would be so much cheaper that there
would be no theft by drug addicts.
If we spend half the money on holistic solutions that we spend on
reactive solutions we could probably solve the problem. Over $500
billion a year is spent on criminal "justice."
There are over 2 million people in jail or prison, over 7 million in
the system including those on probation or parole, and 30-50 million
convicts in the United States. How can America be called "the land of
the free?"