By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Your thoughts on Snowden

 

How do you view Snowden?

Hero 163 73.76%
 
Coward 12 5.43%
 
A threat to national security 19 8.60%
 
Snitch 11 4.98%
 
Snowden?? Heck is that?? 16 7.24%
 
Total:221

I'm sorry, but this was clearly not the way to handle the problem. Snowden, from what I have read, did not try to address the issues from within the framework before going to the media. An example of this, and it being unsuccessful, would be William Binney, Thomas Drake, and J. Kirk Wiebe who tried to address some of these issues "in house" before going public. You talk to your superiors, continue up the chain, talk to congressional commities, etc. What you do not do is leak information during a time of war (we're still in the Afghanistan war, I'm not talking about the more philisophical "War on Terror").

Had he followed protocol to try to address the issues, I could applaud him. Instead, with how he has leaked information during a time of war after taking oaths, he needs to be returned and tried for treason. This man is not a hero. This man is someone who has made choices that will directly lead to American deaths because he did not take the time to fix the problems the right way.



Around the Network

It didn't take too long for my favourite political writer to respond on this. Enjoy: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/06/25/a-new-beginning-without-washingtons-sanctimonious-mask-paul-craig-roberts/

A New Beginning Without Washington’s Sanctimonious Mask — Paul Craig Roberts

A New Beginning Without Washington’s Sanctimonious Mask

Paul Craig Roberts

It is hard to understand the fuss that Washington and its media whores are making over Edward Snowden. We have known for a long time that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying for years without warrants on the communications of Americans and people throughout the world. Photographs of the massive NSA building in Utah built for the purpose of storing the intercepted communications of the world have been published many times.

It is not clear to an ordinary person what Snowden has revealed that William Binney and other whistleblowers have not already revealed. Perhaps the difference is that Snowden has provided documents that prove it, thereby negating Washington’s ability to deny the facts with its usual lies.

Whatever the reason for Washington’s blather, it certainly is not doing the US government any good. Far more interesting than Snowden’s revelations is the decision by governments of other countries to protect a truth-teller from the Stasi in Washington.

Hong Kong kept Snowden’s whereabouts secret so that an amerikan black-op strike or a drone could not be sent to murder him. Hong Kong told Washington that its extradition papers for Snowden were not in order and permitted Snowden to leave for Moscow.

The Chinese government did not interfere with Snowden’s departure.

The Russian government says it has no objection to Snowden having a connecting flight in Moscow.

Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino responded to Washington’s threats with a statement that the Ecuadorian government puts human rights above Washington’s interests. Foreign Minister Patino said that Snowden served humanity by revealing that the Washington Stasi was violating the rights of “every citizen in the world.” Snowden merely betrayed “some elites that are in power in a certain country,” whereas Washington betrayed the entire world.

With Hong Kong, China, Russia, Ecuador, and Cuba refusing to obey the Stasi’s orders, Washington is flailing around making a total fool of itself and its media prostitutes.

Secretary of State John Kerry has been issuing warnings hand over fist. He has threatened Russia, China, Ecuador, and every country that aids and abets Snowden’s escape from the Washington Stasi. Those who don’t do Washington’s bidding, Kerry declared, will suffer adverse impacts on their relationship with the US.

What a stupid thing for Kerry to say. Here is a guy who once was for peace but who has been turned by NSA spying on his personal affairs into an asset for the NSA. Try to realize the extraordinary arrogance and hubris in Kerry’s threat that China, Russia, and other countries will suffer bad relations with the US. Kerry is saying that amerika doesn’t have to care whether “the indispensable people” have bad relations with other countries, but those countries have to be concerned if they have bad relations with the “indispensable country.” What an arrogant posture for the US government to present to the world.

Here we have a US Secretary of State lost in delusion along with the rest of Washington. A country that is bankrupt, a country that has allowed its corporations to destroy its economy by moving the best jobs offshore, a country whose future is in the hands of the printing press, a country that after eleven years of combat has been unable to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban is now threatening Russia and China. God save us from the utter fools who comprise our government.

The world is enjoying Washington’s humiliation at the hands of Hong Kong. A mere city state gave Washington the bird. In its official statement, Hong Kong shifted the focus from Snowden to his message and asked the US government to explain its illegal hacking of Hong Kong’s information systems.

China’s state newspaper, The People’s Daily, wrote: “The United States has gone from a model of human rights to an eavesdropper on personal privacy, the manipulator of the centralized power over the international internet, and the mad invader of other countries’ networks. . . The world will remember Edward Snowden. It was his fearlessness that tore off Washington’s sanctimonious mask.”

China’s Global Times, a subsidiary of The People’s Daily, accused Washington of attacking “a young idealist who has exposed the sinister scandals of the US government.” Instead of apologizing “Washington is showing off its muscle by attempting to control the whole situation.”

China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Snowden’s revelations had placed “Washington in a really awkward situation. They demonstrate that the United States, which has long been trying to play innocent as a victim of cyber attacks, has turned out to be the biggest villain in our age.”

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that Russia’s sympathy is with Snowden, not with the amerikan Stasi state. Human rights ombudsman Vladimir Lukin said that it was unrealistic to expect the Russian government to violate law to seize a transit passenger who had not entered Russia and was not on Russian soil. RT’s Gayane Chichakyan reported that Washington is doing everything it can to shift attention away from Snowden’s revelations that “show that the US has lied and has been doing the same as they accuse China of doing.”

Ecuador says the traitor is Washington, not Snowden.

The stuck pig squeals from the NSA director–”Edward Snowden has caused irreversible damage to US”–are matched by the obliging squeals from members of the House and Senate, themselves victims of the NSA spying, as was the Director of the CIA who was forced to resign because of a love affair. The NSA is in position to blackmail everyone in the House and Senate, in the White House itself, in all the corporations, the universities, the media, every organization at home and abroad, who has anything to hide. You can tell who is being blackmailed by the intensity of the squeals, such as those of Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Mike Rogers (R, MI). With any luck, a patriot will leak what the NSA has on Feinstein and Rogers, neither of whom could possibly scrape any lower before the NSA.

The gangster government in Washington that has everything to hide is now in NSA’s hands and will follow orders. The pretense that amerika is a democracy responsible to the people has been exposed. The US is run by and for the NSA. Congress and the White House are NSA puppets.

Let’s quit calling the NSA the National Security Agency. Clearly, NSA is a threat to the security of every person in the entire world. Let’s call the NSA what it really is–the National Stasi Agency, the largest collection of Gestapo in human history. You can take for granted that every media whore, every government prostitute, every ignorant flag-waver who declares Snowden to be a traitor is either brainwashed or blackmailed. They are the protectors of NSA tyranny. They are our enemies.

The world has been growing increasingly sick of Washington for a long time. The bullying, the constant stream of lies, the gratuitous wars and destruction have destroyed the image hyped by Washington of the US as a “light unto the world.” The world sees the US as a plague upon the world.

Following Snowden’s revelations, Germany’s most important magazine, Der Spiegal, had the headline: “Obama’s Soft Totalitarianism: Europe Must Protect Itself From America.” The first sentence of the article asks: “Is Barack Obama a friend? Revelations about his government’s vast spying program call that into doubt. The European Union must protect the Continent from America’s reach for omnipotence.”

Der Spiegal continues: “We are being watched. All the time and everywhere. And it is the Americans who are doing the watching. On Tuesday, the head of the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented is coming for a visit. If Barack Obama is our friend then we really don’t need to be terribly worried about our enemies.”

There is little doubt that German Interior Minister Hans Peter Friedrich has lost his secrets to NSA spies. Friedrich rushed to NSA’s defense, declaring: ”that’s not how you treat friends.” As Der Spiegal made clear, the minister was not referring “to the fact that our trans-Atlantic friends were spying on us. Rather, he meant the criticism of that spying. Friedrich’s reaction is only paradoxical on the surface and can be explained by looking at geopolitical realities. The US is, for the time being, the only global power–and as such it is the only truly sovereign state in existence. All others are dependent–either as enemies or allies. And because most prefer to be allies, politicians–Germany’s included–prefer to grin and bear it.”

It is extraordinary that the most important publication in Germany has acknowledged that the German government is Washington’s puppet state.

Der Spiegel says: “German citizens should be able to expect that their government will protect them from spying by foreign governments. But the German interior minister says instead: ‘We are grateful for the excellent cooperation with US secret services.’ Friedrich didn’t even try to cover up his own incompetence on the surveillance issue. ‘Everything we know about it, we have learned from the media,’ he said. The head of the country’s domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, was not any more enlightened. ‘I didn’t know anything about it,’ he said. And Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was also apparently in the dark. ‘These reports are extremely unsettling,’ she said. With all due respect: These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our rights? If it wasn’t so frightening, it would be absurd.”

For those moronic amerikans who say, “I’m not doing anything wrong, I don’t care if they spy,” Der Spiegal writes that a “monitored human being is not a free one.” We have reached the point where we “free americans” have to learn from our German puppets that we are not free.

Here, read it for yourself: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/europe-must-stand-up-to-american-cyber-snooping-a-906250.html

Present day Germany is a new country, flushed of its past by war and defeat. Russia is also a new country that has emerged from the ashes of an unrealistic ideology. Hope always resides with those countries that have most experienced evil in government. If Germany were to throw off its amerikan overlord and depart NATO, amerikan power in Europe would collapse. If Germany and Russia were to unite in defense of truth and human rights, Europe and the world would have a new beginning.

A new beginning is desperately needed. Chris Floyd explains precisely what is going on, which is something you will never hear from the presstitutes. Read it while you still can:http://www.globalresearch.ca/follow-the-money-the-secret-heart-of-the-secret-state-the-deeper-implications-of-the-snowden-revelations/5340132

There would be hope if Americans could throw off their brainwashing, follow the lead of Debra Sweet and others, and stand up for Edward Snowden and against the Stasi State.http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=167695



Hmmm... my automatic deposit from work check didn't come in yet and it usually comes in at Wed. 2:00 AM. Must have been all that shit I talked about the NSA... They are garnishing my wages now!



Slimebeast said:
MTZehvor said:
Slimebeast said:
CityOfNoobs said:

Invasion of privacy to combat crime. I support that.

To me violent crime is far worse than my loss of privacy in front of a bunch of anonymous CIA or NSA agents.

And by its very nature surveillance has to be as secret as possible. If it was totally open and public then it wouldn't be able to combat crime as effectively. This isn't anything new. All nations have always had secret agencies to fight the bad guys.

 

You are, in my view, one of the scariest type of people , and it is people that make such arguments that actually make me very glad that we do not live in any semblance of a democracy.

I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and a strong opponent of preemptive strikes. These issues are at the core of not only the PRISM scandal but also at the heart of our foreign policy for the last few decades. By sanctioning the idea of preemptively striking a military target, even when no direct threat exists, one creates a dangerous precedent. If the military (president) can strike targets for  reasons other than self defense why cant the rest of the government? The FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other three letter agencies looked at the examples set by our military leadership through the century and finally decided to catch up with some preemptive strikes of their own, by targeting every single human being they possibly could, regardless of nationality. The recent revelations about our military’s drone strikes, and their reckless nature (killing dozens of innocents because there “might” have bee a target in the area.) show that our country fully embraces the idea that safety and power are its number one goal. To combat many of the ills of our government we as a society need to realize that the ethical thing is not always the safest thing, and that being right is better than being in control.

The argument that no harm is done by the invasions of our privacy is simply terrifying to me, the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of our country has made it quite clear that the many cannot simply give away the rights of the few, and that we have certain rights as humans not granted to us by government, but rights that come with existence. To simply throw all of that away because it may help stop the bad guys is not something I would hope many are willing to do.

Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. 

But what's the principal difference between surveillance and other infringements on our freedoms and rights the government impose on its citizens?

Let's take taxes. I don't know the figure for Americans but the average Swede is forced to give 50% of his income to the state.

You talk about rights that come with existence as a human being. As an individual, when did I give the right over my own labour away to the government? Was I personally ever allowed to make that decision and sign such a contract?

No. The government just decides that I must be part of a system that distributes wealth. It was decided by other people through elections. Not by me individually. No one asked me.

It's the same thing with surveillance and security. They're things decided by other people who are elected because they supposedly know what's best way to run a society.

What's the principal difference between surveillance and taxes? Why does one upset you immensly but not the other? Explain it to me.

Some would argue that taxes fall into the exact same category.

Here's the real difference, though, and since we're talking about inalienable rights, it's fittingly enough found in the Bill of Rights. One of these two issues (taxation) is expressly allowed in the Constitution. "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense." Taxes are explicity mentioned in the Constitution as part of Congress' power.

Now let's look at the issue at hand. The fourth amendment follows: 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Obviously, this is more than a little vague, but the key phrase that I think expressly goes against the idea of nation wide wiretapping is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." I'm don't know about you, but I would have a hard time feeling secure about anything if I knew that someone was listening in on everything I said. I've yet to hear any sort of decent argument that would show how anyone could feel secure like that.

One could also argue that "searches" would also expand to telephones as well, but that's a drawn out debate that really doesn't accomplish much more at this point.

In summary: on one hand, we have a power that the government is explicity given. On the other, we have a power which the Bill of Rights strongly suggests is forbidden to the government. I think there's a clear distinction to be made here. If we had been born in a country that states "the government has the ability to watch you at all times," then perhaps an argument could be made. However, we have not, and in that regard, I believe the entire basis behind your argument falls to pieces.

I agree that there is a clear difference constitionally, your interpretation is certainly correct there.

But I don't think the objections mainly stem from whether surveillance is constitutional or not, it's got to do with something else. Yes, there are certainly also exists many people who honestly value the constitution highly but I doubt they're the majority, and either way, let's forget them for a moment.

IMO the constitution, at least if the founding fathers would have had the ability to see 200 years into the future, could just as well have included a paragraph about the rights of the government to survey its citiziens in the name of the greater good, to prevent future threats and crime.

So let's assume that for a moment. The constitutional basis for taxation (and all the other infringements on personal freedoms) as well as government surveillance are constitionally equally strong. What would then be the principal difference? That's what I am interested in.

To me it seems liberals and socialists think taxation is an obvious and fundamental principle of the state, whereas surveillance and other measures to combat crime in general are questionable at best. I'd like to know why.

Principally, that's a bit tougher to debate. I suppose you could argue that one is a necessity and one is not. Whereas taxes would be necessary for any govenrment to sustain itself, a government does not necessarily need to keep tabs on every one of their citizens in order to maintain order.

It's much tougher to debate priniciples, though, because in the end it always comes down to a matter of "what qualifies as necessary?" You could very much argue that the "principle," so to speak, behind surveillance and China's one child law are very much the same, as it's the government merely doing what it believes is necessary to maintain order within their borders. Arguing on priniciple alone is rather difficult.



Slimebeast said:
CityOfNoobs said:

Invasion of privacy to combat crime. I support that.

To me violent crime is far worse than my loss of privacy in front of a bunch of anonymous CIA or NSA agents.

And by its very nature surveillance has to be as secret as possible. If it was totally open and public then it wouldn't be able to combat crime as effectively. This isn't anything new. All nations have always had secret agencies to fight the bad guys.

 

You are, in my view, one of the scariest type of people , and it is people that make such arguments that actually make me very glad that we do not live in any semblance of a democracy.

I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and a strong opponent of preemptive strikes. These issues are at the core of not only the PRISM scandal but also at the heart of our foreign policy for the last few decades. By sanctioning the idea of preemptively striking a military target, even when no direct threat exists, one creates a dangerous precedent. If the military (president) can strike targets for  reasons other than self defense why cant the rest of the government? The FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other three letter agencies looked at the examples set by our military leadership through the century and finally decided to catch up with some preemptive strikes of their own, by targeting every single human being they possibly could, regardless of nationality. The recent revelations about our military’s drone strikes, and their reckless nature (killing dozens of innocents because there “might” have bee a target in the area.) show that our country fully embraces the idea that safety and power are its number one goal. To combat many of the ills of our government we as a society need to realize that the ethical thing is not always the safest thing, and that being right is better than being in control.

The argument that no harm is done by the invasions of our privacy is simply terrifying to me, the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of our country has made it quite clear that the many cannot simply give away the rights of the few, and that we have certain rights as humans not granted to us by government, but rights that come with existence. To simply throw all of that away because it may help stop the bad guys is not something I would hope many are willing to do.

Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. 

But what's the principal difference between surveillance and other infringements on our freedoms and rights the government impose on its citizens?

Let's take taxes. I don't know the figure for Americans but the average Swede is forced to give 50% of his income to the state.

You talk about rights that come with existence as a human being. As an individual, when did I give the right over my own labour away to the government? Was I personally ever allowed to make that decision and sign such a contract?

No. The government just decides that I must be part of a system that distributes wealth. It was decided by other people through elections. Not by me individually. No one asked me.

It's the same thing with surveillance and security. They're things decided by other people who are elected because they supposedly know what's best way to run a society.

What's the principal difference between surveillance and taxes? Why does one upset you immensly but not the other? Explain it to me.

Income taxes are also, in my view, immoral and they do upset me very very much. But income taxes have been a problem in this country long before the prevelance of  this newest affront. 



Who is John Galt?

 

3DS Friend Code : 2535-4338-9000 

AMD FX 8150 , 8 GB DDR3 Kingston Memory,  EVGA GTX 560 TI 2 GB superclocked, Samsung 256 GB SSD

Around the Network
CityOfNoobs said:
Slimebeast said:
CityOfNoobs said:

Invasion of privacy to combat crime. I support that.

To me violent crime is far worse than my loss of privacy in front of a bunch of anonymous CIA or NSA agents.

And by its very nature surveillance has to be as secret as possible. If it was totally open and public then it wouldn't be able to combat crime as effectively. This isn't anything new. All nations have always had secret agencies to fight the bad guys.

 

You are, in my view, one of the scariest type of people , and it is people that make such arguments that actually make me very glad that we do not live in any semblance of a democracy.

I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and a strong opponent of preemptive strikes. These issues are at the core of not only the PRISM scandal but also at the heart of our foreign policy for the last few decades. By sanctioning the idea of preemptively striking a military target, even when no direct threat exists, one creates a dangerous precedent. If the military (president) can strike targets for  reasons other than self defense why cant the rest of the government? The FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other three letter agencies looked at the examples set by our military leadership through the century and finally decided to catch up with some preemptive strikes of their own, by targeting every single human being they possibly could, regardless of nationality. The recent revelations about our military’s drone strikes, and their reckless nature (killing dozens of innocents because there “might” have bee a target in the area.) show that our country fully embraces the idea that safety and power are its number one goal. To combat many of the ills of our government we as a society need to realize that the ethical thing is not always the safest thing, and that being right is better than being in control.

The argument that no harm is done by the invasions of our privacy is simply terrifying to me, the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of our country has made it quite clear that the many cannot simply give away the rights of the few, and that we have certain rights as humans not granted to us by government, but rights that come with existence. To simply throw all of that away because it may help stop the bad guys is not something I would hope many are willing to do.

Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. 

But what's the principal difference between surveillance and other infringements on our freedoms and rights the government impose on its citizens?

Let's take taxes. I don't know the figure for Americans but the average Swede is forced to give 50% of his income to the state.

You talk about rights that come with existence as a human being. As an individual, when did I give the right over my own labour away to the government? Was I personally ever allowed to make that decision and sign such a contract?

No. The government just decides that I must be part of a system that distributes wealth. It was decided by other people through elections. Not by me individually. No one asked me.

It's the same thing with surveillance and security. They're things decided by other people who are elected because they supposedly know what's best way to run a society.

What's the principal difference between surveillance and taxes? Why does one upset you immensly but not the other? Explain it to me.

Income taxes are also, in my view, immoral and they do upset me very very much. But income taxes have been a problem in this country long before the prevelance of  this newest affront. 

Fair enough. You have consistent reasoning behind your objection to surveillance then.



I don't get it.....

Americans constantly proclaim how important the constitution and their civil rights are.

An American bravely reveals that the government has been trampling all over these rights and he's the bad guy ???



Cypher1980 said:
I don't get it.....

Americans constantly proclaim how important the constitution and their civil rights are.

An American bravely reveals that the government has been trampling all over these rights and he's the bad guy ???

The only important part of the consititution is the part where it talks about guns.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

I keep hearing people use the terrible quote of "Those who are willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither." Whoever said that was stupid and yes I know its one of our founding fathers. The truth of the matter is that in any community we do give up liberty for security. When you walk down a sidewalk instead of freelying running around on the roads... you sir or maam are giving up liberty for security. When you obey the traffic light system where you go when you see a green light or stop when you see a red light. You are giving up your liberty for security. When Americans use dog leashes on their children... you sir or maam are giving up liberty for security. lol

Quotes and sayings can sound nice but they can also be retarded in a logical sense.

I'll tell you what the most fundamental and true problem we have... its not privacy or security. The problem is morality and accountability. Can YOU trust your fellow Americans to handle your private information? We have banks, tellers, government officials, friends and family members who know who you are... can we trust each other? The bottom line and core problem is morality. Our individual character is what should be our #1 concern and then you won't be so worried about the man or woman next to you. You won't be so concerned with how little or how powerful government is... (I'm for small/weak government btw) We'll be more like a family. The lower,middle and higher class will be happier, richer, and live in lower crime rates because of this harmony.

I think the cause to all this is good character and morality. And that all starts with GOD. It all starts with accepting JESUS CHRIST as your Lord and Savoir.



All gaming systems, consoles/PC, have thier perks... why fight over preferences? I like Coke and you like Pepsi, that's it, let's not fight over which toy we like best cause that's what they are. Is someone's preference in a toy important or is the relationship between you and your neighbor more important? Answer is obvious, but THE most important thing is your relationship with God almighty. God Bless you in Jesus's name.

I can communicate without talking... I can send a loved one money without actually sending money... and I can commit theft without the product disappearing, the point of theft is the point of theft not one of it's possible symptoms which is the product dissappearing. The thief wants to gain something without paying for it, that's the point of theft, the thief doesn't have to care or anybody else has to care if the product dissappears. The product dissappearing is just a possible symptom of theft. Gifts are sacrfices, in order to give a gift, it has to be a genuine sacrfice/gift, meaning a copy of the game isn't still in your PC. Piracy is theft and/or being a culprit of theft.

Calmador said:

I keep hearing people use the terrible quote of "Those who are willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither." Whoever said that was stupid and yes I know its one of our founding fathers. The truth of the matter is that in any community we do give up liberty for security. When you walk down a sidewalk instead of freelying running around on the roads... you sir or maam are giving up liberty for security. When you obey the traffic light system where you go when you see a green light or stop when you see a red light. You are giving up your liberty for security. When Americans use dog leashes on their children... you sir or maam are giving up liberty for security. lol

Quotes and sayings can sound nice but they can also be retarded in a logical sense.

I'll tell you what the most fundamental and true problem we have... its not privacy or security. The problem is morality and accountability. Can YOU trust your fellow Americans to handle your private information? We have banks, tellers, government officials, friends and family members who know who you are... can we trust each other? The bottom line and core problem is morality. Our individual character is what should be our #1 concern and then you won't be so worried about the man or woman next to you. You won't be so concerned with how little or how powerful government is... (I'm for small/weak government btw) We'll be more like a family. The lower,middle and higher class will be happier, richer, and live in lower crime rates because of this harmony.

I think the cause to all this is good character and morality. And that all starts with GOD. It all starts with accepting JESUS CHRIST as your Lord and Savoir.

The person you are referring to is Benjamin Franklin. I might add that the quote in question contains the phrase "essential liberty" instead of just "liberty." I highly doubt Benjamin Franklin would have objected to people waiting at stop lights, as the right to immediately travel wherever you want whenever is not what most people would classify as an essential liberty. The right to avoid having anything you say be monitored by the government? I believe Mr. Franklin would qualify that as an essential right, and the Bill of Rights seems to suggest so as well.

Certainly, accountability and morality are huge issues in America today. Both of these have been major issues in every country ever since the beginning of civilization, and as I'm sure you've noticed, no one's been able to find a solution to the problem yet. There will always be people who are willing to do what some would qualify as "evil" in order to get ahead of others in life. People will lie, cheat, steal, and break both laws and unspoken rules in order to get ahead. No one has been able to solve this problem. The worst side of human nature means that, if given an opening, some people will hurt others if they can benefit from it (and a subset of these people will do it even if there's no benefit to them at all).

If you want, you are welcome to stand there and point your finger at others for being immoral and the cause of trouble in our society. However, the reality is that it doesn't matter how much you point your finger; people will continue to be immoral regardless of what you do. The role of government, and part of our task as citizens, is to try and form a system of laws that best deals with human brokenness without giving so much control to the ones making the rules that they themselves become corrupt. 

Try as we might, we will never be able to fix human immorality. All we can do is build a system of government around said immorality and make the best out of a situation that will admittedly never be perfect.