Americans love freedom. We thrive on it and expect it. Or, well, we sort of do. I mean, obviously I want freedom for the things I do, and you want freedom for the things you do, but do we Americans really want freedom? Do we even really understand the concept? Or, do we instead pick tyrannies based on our own moral compass and damn the rest?
Every day, on either side of the big two parties political debates, there are arguments regarding liberty and tyranny. Democrats screamed for years about the tyranny of the Patriot Act and it’s assault on the Fourth Amendment, while Republicans railed against assaults on the Second Amendment. And yet, neither thought for a moment and realized that both attacks were attacks on freedom as a whole.
The typical response is for people to demand freedom for themselves; things like freedom of worship, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom to say what they wish. But many of those same people will want to blast away at those who exercise their rights in a manner not as agreeable.
For example, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, I heard many on the left lament the right’s expectation of support for President Bush and his policies. I was with them on that, since I think a President has to earn our support for policies, and refuse to just give it just because he’s the President. Now, however, the left is doing the same thing.
Those on the left argue repeatedly that a the right to free speech is absolute, with no wiggle room and should not be touched. Those same folks will argue that our right to keep and bear arms, just one Amendment down, isn’t absolute and should only refer to the National Guard (as it’s the “militia” these days) and regulation of firearms is 100% justified. Not all, but most anyways.
On the same token, many on the right argue that the right to keep and bear arm is absolute. This is a stance I can agree with. But anything they term as “pornographic” should be kept well away from their communities, despite no apparent wiggle room in the Constitution.
Now, I’m not touching abortion, and you may wonder why. It’s simple. A pro-liberty argument can be given on either side of the debate, and both have some valid points. As such, while I have my opinion on the topic, I don’t think that a counter opinion is necessarily tyrannical. But there aren’t many topics that enjoy that level of understanding.
All to often, people pick and choose their tyrannies based on what they want. They fight against requiring permits for backpacking but, at best, turn a blind eye when new permits are being sought for hunters despite both enjoying the wilderness in their own ways. They fight against taxing their 401Ks, but are OK with raising cigarette taxes. After all, they don’t smoke.
This nation was founded on an idea of liberty for all, not just for some and not just liberty for the things you agree with. Now, I’ll be the first to admit our Founding Fathers lost their way almost immediately, but that should hardly be an excuse for us to do the same.
Instead, we should look at a guiding principle. Does this impact someone else? If not, the let it go and let our moral principles guide us. Hold the government back except as a last resort, rather than the first. Hold people accountable first and foremost, and do it as a community, rather than expecting government to be mommy, daddy, and nurse maid to everyone…child and adult.
It’s time to quit picking our tyrannies and start picking freedoms.
As a society, we need to set boundaries because some people don’t have the good sense to set their own. You live in a fairy tale land where everyone has a CERTAIN LEVEL of morals and standards. Take off your Rosey Red Glasses because without us setting boundaries the world would be overrun by people like Larry Flint, Saddam Hussein, Nancy Pelosi, and the crazy guy in charge of Iran.
Debra.
Please.
Seriously.
I live in a fairy tale land because I want people to live and let live? You argue that communities needs to set standards, and mention Larry Flint, but how would you feel if that same community decided to take away some of your freedoms? What if they decided to formally ban saying “Merry Christmas”? What if they decided that owning firearms was morally repugnant?
Larry Flint publishes crap, I’ll agree with that. But if you hate what he sells, then don’t buy it. I don’t for just that same reason. If enough people did that, he would go away as the natural course. As for the rest of the people you mention, keep in mind that all three are, or were, for forcing people to adhere to their personal ideologies for whatever reason. Sounds a lot like what some other folks are in favor of if you ask me. The only quibble is in the details.
Perhaps you should take off your “Rosey Red Glasses” and realize that the only way for any of us to be free is for all of us to be free, otherwise the freedoms that could be targeted are the ones you personally hold dear and sacred.
Too many folks seem to view “doing the right thing” from their own self-centered perspective. Legislators on both the state and federal level, do what is in the best interests of their district. Who is looking out for the state or nation as a whole? What happened to the notion of self-sacrifice for the good of the team? Knee jerk legislation like the Patriot Act was well-intentioned but not very far-sighted. This selfish public attitude makes the nation as a whole, too easy to manipulate. For example, the healthcare “crisis” is only being weighed by the standard of: “how it affects me.”
Bottom Line: We have too many laws. They create too many unintended consequences.
Sorry for the rambling post. Remember: Self-interest and apathy are formidable foes.
Tom.
Please.
Seriously.
Yes, you live in a fairy tale land because you want people to live and let live without fully understanding the meaning of what other people can and will do without limits. There is real evil in this world and you are not taking into account what it will do in the name of live and let live. I can’t remember the name of the book about the boys stranded on the island, but that is a very mild example of what your live and let live would do to our society!
What we have are too many politicians worried about the deal that benefits them or their friends. Not about right or wrong.
Oh come on Debra. No one is talking about anarchy, which is a whole different thing. Lord of the Flies is just that, anarchy. There were no punishments for using force against another, and that’s not what anyone is talking about here. What is being talked about here is allowing behavior that has no impact on you to continue. If I go buy a porn magazine, what impact does that have on you?
Nothing.
And yet, there are those who want to block my ability to buy that magazine because it offends their own sensibilities. Now, if I go an rape someone, that’s an act of violence and it should be punished swiftly and harshly. Someone saying “Merry Christmas” may offend someone’s sensibilities too, but as we are a free nation, there shouldn’t be any laws telling me I can’t say “Merry Christmas”. Me owning a firearm offends some people, but that doesn’t mean there should be laws preventing me from owning that firearm, now is there?
Anarchy, a complete lack of government, is a far cry from letting people do things which don’t hurt anyone other than possibly themselves. In fact, they’re not even close to one another. The “real evil” in this world that you mention are those that seek to initiate force against the innocent, and that should always be met with quick and persuasive punishments.
Debra posted: “I can’t remember the name of the book about the boys stranded on the island, but that is a very mild example of what your live and let live would do to our society!
Lord of the Flies by William Golding. It’s been a long time. I read it in the late 60′s. A classic. Excellent read!
After posting, I read Tom’s post beat me to it. Sorry for the dupe info.
Don’t sweat it Cartman. You specifically pointed it out, I just mentioned it in my response, so my mention is easy to miss. Yours isn’t
What you are suggesting is a return to common law. The idea that in order for a trespass or tort to exist there must be an injury in fact.
To either person or property. The majority of laws today prohibit acts that create a presumed injury of social morals.
I don’t remember who said it but,”the problem with defending liberty is you end up defending scoundrels”
I agree the majority cannot see past there own idea of liberty.