Transparency vs. Secrecy

Freedom To Do What Is Wrong?I disagree with my opponent's assertion that I am "slander[ing] freedom" with my contentions for the simple reason that freedom to do what is wrong should not be permissible. It was clear from my first contention that I was opposing freedom specifically which is used to harm the rights of others, as very often occurs, both legally and illegally. Westboro Baptist Church, for example, abuses the freedom of speech by protesting funerals to rile up communities and individuals so that they seek to bar them from their communities. Westboro, which in actuality consists of a family of lawyers called the Phelps Chartered Law Firm, then sues said communities under the First Amendment for vast legal damages. I have written an extensive research page about Westboro discussing their activities in-depth.[1] As another example, "free trade" is used by numerous major companies to outsource jobs to countries like China, Mexico, and India where workers are paid very little in wages. China has no minimum wage and the average manufacturing wage is roughly 1/30th of the U.S. equivalent. As such, free trade is used to destroy working conditions worldwide so that workers as a whole get paid less and CEOs more. It also results in the downfall of democratic countries who use minimum wages, since jobs flow instead to communist countries like China and Russia who use low or no minimum wages. My point is simply that modern definitions of freedom frequently involve harming the rights of others, and to deny this occurs is to attempt to redefine freedom very differently than it is practiced. Regardless of how one defines freedom, the fact remains that many people today inappropriately use the word "freedom" to excuse their inappropriate actions in harming the inalienable rights of other people.I personally agree with my opponent that freedom SHOULD be self-limiting and one's right to throw a punch should stop where another's nose begins. While our country was intended to protect the rights of others, in actuality many cases could be given where the laws of our country have allowed individuals and groups to be abused in the name of freedom. For example, the Native Americans were deprived of their rights early on, and treated as sub-humans. While America's original founding father William Penn treated them graciously, as did Rhode Island's founder, Roger Williams, later settlers were far less humane, raping and killing the native people. In the 1830s-40s, America started a war with Mexico after Mexico had opened its borders to American settlers, and shortly thereafter declared slavery illegal. America started a war with Mexico to protect the institution of slavery when the ex-Americans petitioned their former government asking to cede to protect their slaveholding rights, as related by Frederick Douglass.[2] One could similarly point to the treatment of the Hawaiians, the Filipinos, the Kurds, Japanese-Americans interned during World War II, and the Vietnamese. The reality is that America has repeatedly abused many different groups in the name of freedom, and today allows children born after the 21st week of pregnancy to be aborted by the tens of thousands each year, even though they are at the exact same stage of pregnancy as those born outside the womb (the earliest recorded successful pregnancy is 21 weeks). Just because something is called "freedom" in other words, does not mean it should be considered freedom. Too many today define freedom in a way that equates to anarchy and harming the rights of other people. Seal Team SixThough I disagree with Obama on many things, such as his opposition to medical care for newborn children while an Illinois state senator, his corruption in the 1996 and 2004 elections, and his broken campaign promises such as broadcasting the healthcare bill on C-Span, I think attacks on him over Seal Team Six are misguided. If anything, I think the Obama administration was not transparent enough about the raid by Seal Team Six to kill Bin Laden.[3] The administration could have provided evidence of Bin Laden's body. They did not. They could have provided detail about this to the public instead of media elites, as the Seal Team Six case involved. They did not. Where the administration acted inappropriately regarding transparency I think was stating which military group was involved, or giving details about the operation itself. All that was needed for purposes of transparency was to show the body, not so much the operation details themselves. Again, I think a line should be drawn in providing transparent detail about the general nature of what government is doing (which is appropriate and necessary) and diclosing inappropriately vital military operation details as arguably may have occurred with Seal Team Six.In conclusion, I agree with my opponent that transparency when it comes to military operations and intel can be negative, but I do not think this relates to broad transparency in general about what government is doing, which is necessary to ensure democracy and freedom. If inappropriate disclosure of what occurred with Seal Team Six happened, it was not because of broad transparency about what occurred, but in disclosing specific details of military operations that endangered personnel. Actually, the Obama administration was not transparent enough by refusing to show evidence of Bin Laden's body.Sources:[1] http://www.bereawiki.com...[2] http://www.yale.edu...[3] http://patdollard.com...