“Whatever the immediate gains and losses, the dangers to our safety arising from political suppression are always greater than the dangers to the safety resulting from political freedom. Suppression is always foolish.”

Yes, but we never learn. As long as we are safe and the effects of supression do not personally interupt our lives we allow it to go on - but, one day, the bell will ring for you...

Suppression of WHAT is foolish? Suppression of public nudity? Suppression of speeding drivers? Suppression of corruption of the morals of minors? Suppression of libel?

AHD - "suppress, stifle, repress. These verbs mean to hold in check something requiring or struggling to find an outlet. Suppress suggests the exercise of force that drastically inhibits or crushes."
An example of 'political suppression' then would be stifling expression to further some political agenda. It's one of the devices employed by dictators like Kim Jong Il, Mao Ze-Dong, and Fidel Castro. It's also used by 'wannabe dictator-ettes' (rock on) like those who aren't really happy with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because these institutions get in the way of their base urges. One of the standard 'covers' or 'justifications' for these sorts of 'suppression-happy' power hogs is 'morality'. Another 'cover' is 'safety' like invading 'inconvenient' regimes under the banner of making the world 'safer' and then resorting to a 'moral' rationale ('freeing' a population) after it's discovered there really was no threat to OUR 'safety'. In pursuing power, Hitler's rationale was, in part, based on the 'safety' platform: On February 27, 1933, Nazis burned the Reichstag building. After the fire on February 28, 1933, president Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. We now have more than a few proponents of ignoring the Constitution in pursuit of furthering their 'moral' agendas. Sounds eerily familiar to me.

Well done Terry you saved me the job...

Leave it to a "suppressor" to pretend he doesn't understand the definition. BTW, what's wrong with public nudity? hehehe

Ok, there are SOME folks I REALLY wouldn't want to see nude in public - or, well, ... anywhere for that matter - euwwwww - LOL. But really, it's a non-issue, isn't it? I mean, does anybody actually CARE if there's public nudity? Ooooh, better watch out! Suppression of libel is lurking for a peek.

It just occurred to me: "speeding drivers"? Just exactly what percentage of drivers ACTUALLY stay under the speed limit at all times? If all persons who 'speed' were arrested, there'd be no one left to tend the store. Can you imagine if all commuters stayed under the posted speed limit? If they did, the freeways would become permanent parking lots - AND - they'd be cited for obstructing the traffic flow. This is one area of institutionalized hypocrisy that seems, in part at least, designed to provide a supplemental income stream for a service which is undeniably useful and necessary despite its flaws. It's just disingenuous in certain areas of its structure. I really have to wonder about this inane, sanctimonious, and hypocritical 'moralizing' stuff. Ahh well, 'God' made us in his image and I'm sure he can't be ashamed. Remember; 'HE has a plan'.

". . . Suppression is always foolish."

Never say 'never' and never say 'always'.

With anonymous - kinda - never say never and never say always when the presented information is so vague. On its face with what is here presented, it is a 4 stars at best. In a greater context, it could be 1 or 5. Generally speaking, political voice is non violent (not always) and should receive no suppression (free speech zones for example).

I understand the gist of it -- but I agree, the use of "always" dilutes the argument.

Free speech, yes. One who chooses to live with out moral constraint ends at my fence line. And, if you so choose to put at jeopardy my children because of a Nadiyb preference through a democratic process. You can be shoot. Christian fundamentals and principles are the foundation in our nation of a decent life stile. Safety through behavior of a responsible action. Caring is the key component. Otherwise you are a soulless troll. It does take an education in moral responsibility to teach it. Experience is our guide concerning these things. Does not even nature teach us so ? Look around, where is safety found for your family ?

Ronw13, Yes! Natural law, with its eternally harmonizing justice defines personal responsibility, liberty, wealth creation, peace, political non-suppression and the love and morality of a decent life stile. Teachings of the Christ were the foundational principles of a once de jure land of the free and home of the brave.