Posted on 08/06/2008 3:15:24 PM PDT by conkle73
What bothers me most about the state of our country today is the fact that the philosophy of Liberty seems to have been lost. All of this political rhetoric from both the left and the right and they are both of them seem to support the power of the collective over the individual. Of course the left is much more extreme about it, but none the less neither of them stand for individual rights.
It sickens me when I hear politicians and newscasters on television and radios refer to the United States as a Democracy. It is a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy; in fact the founders of this Republic despised Democracy and referred to it as one of the worst forms of government created by man.
In a democracy the mob is given power over the individual. The mob or collective is free to vote away the rights and property of the individual. That is not Liberty and that is not the fundamental principal under which this great nation was founded. Our nation was founded with the basic understanding that the preservation of the rights and property of the individual were paramount and that the only proper role of government is to safeguard those rights.
My, how far we have wondered… Today people feel it is perfectly acceptable to sell their vote to a politician who promises the entitlements from the public treasury… and how is that treasury funded? By usurping the liberty of every man and woman in this country and confiscating their property for “the good of the people” or “the greater good”. These are not the ideas of Jefferson this is the philosophy of Marx and it is the road to tyranny, a road that we have been taking small steps down for over a century.
It is high time that we the people stop being derelict in our duty and return to the basic principals of individual liberty that this nation was founded upon.
OUTSTANDING! Bravo!
WELCOME ABOARD, conkle73!
Liberty: Not yet gone, not forgotten: just unpopular in an age of easy virtue and instant gratification.
1)basic principle of the philosophy of liberty:each man owns his own life and therefore has the right to do anything he wants with that life, so long as he does not interfere forcibly with the rights of any other man.
2)principle of non-compromise: no execptions or compromises with the basic principle of liberty.
3)there is no right to force others to be altruistic.
OUTSTANDING! Bravo!
Thanks again, expatguy.
I’m sure the flames will start here, but sometimes so-called “liberty” is an impossibility as a nation grows up. For example, should I have the liberty to put anything I wish down a drain? Why not? How about something toxic? Why not? You limit your own “liberty” all the time when you agree that stopping at stop light is a “greater good” for the community than liberty to go whenever you want. Or, perhaps you believe all law is simply tyrannical oppression. If so, you will never be happy in a country. You need your own island.
I think that you are confusing or intertwining a society that establishes government for the preservation of liberty and the concept of anarchy sir.
To use your example of pouring toxic chemicals down the drain, it is not an infringement of individual liberty for a community to prohibit such activity by law and prescribe consequences for breaking that law. In doing such a thing one would be causing harm to others via his or her actions and thereby infringing on the rights and liberty of others.
The exercise of liberty does not include the right to cause harm to others.
Bump and ditto.
I believe that many forget the key point you make, Liberty is not Anarchy. The tenth amendment is there for a reason.
You are spot-on expatguy except for one thing…
In referring to the words of Barack Obama you stated that:
“You are reading the words of a man, a man vying for the presidency of the United States of America and who does not have the faintest clue of what America stands for.”
I think that he understands very well what America stands for and I think that he hates every thing about it.
Its not that he doesn’t understand the fundamental principals upon which this nation was founded, he has chosen to place himself and his philosophy in complete opposition to those principals for the purpose of gaining power over others.
I am not confusing these, at all. Much of the unbridled liberty that you lament as leaving is simply going away due to our growth as a nation.. You can eat any amount you want if you live out in the wild west not surrounded by neighbors. Once the city grows up around you and you join an insurance pool (health ins.), your diet does adversely affect my premiums. Years ago you could shoot a gun in your backyard, but now it endangers my kids. But, you cry, no one should be able to limit your right to smoke, shoot, eat, drive, etc. Of course not... if only you are affected by that etc. But, the larger we get, the closer we get and more personal liberty will get constrained. So, the infringement that you see declining is partially by necessity, so that you don’t “...cause harm to others.”
The more people there are, especially in close proximity to one another, the more restrictive the environment becomes.
People generally don't like each other very much, and if you're doing something I don't like (whether or not it hurts me) I will try to put a stop to it, sometimes just out of spite. I can make a case for almost anything you do being harmful to me. Multiple this sentiment by a few hundred million and you're well on your way to oppression.
If people were truly rational we wouldn't be having this discussion but unfortunately emotions get in the way.
Ok, you both either completely miss the point, or you have just been indoctrinated so completely that you feel it is impossible for free people to live in an ordered society with laws conducive to the living conditions and population density without surrendering their rights and property to the collective, or you are a collectivist in which case I’d have more luck talking to the wall, but we will just have to agree to disagree and I’ll wish you both good luck either way.
Nobody has been “indoctrinated” simply because they can come to grips with reality. The difference here is that some of us can understand that we are going to have to give up some liberty to accommodate others. But, I'm guessing on this, you are angry there is a fishing license (cause there wasn't in 1920) and you are angry that you have to check with the HOA to build a fence (cause you didn't in 1950).
Sure we can agree to disagree, but the Libertine sound of your original complaint foments unrest and rebellion, versus compromise and understanding. No wonder we conservatives are being marginalized.
I find it funny that you feel the need to fabricate “my side of the argument”.
To quote you: “But, you cry, no one should be able to limit your right to smoke, shoot, eat, drive, etc.”
No where in this or any other post did I “cry” about any of these things…
I never said anything about any of these things…
You somehow decided to make up “my side of the argument” as some irrational stance that includes discharging firearms in densely populated areas for fun while I blow smoke in your face and drive my car through stop signs at a high rate of speed while I’m on my way to the nearest fast-food joint to scarf down 6 cheese burgers, 4 orders of French fries and a huge chocolate shake, after which I plan to go my house to pour some toxic liquid into the public water supply.
Are you Schizophrenic or just a liberal?
Ouch. I don’t feel Schizoid & I know I’m not liberal. I thought I was just a concerned conservative trying to avoid ad hominem. However, I did get a good chuckle out of you stringing all those examples together. It did create a rather crazy picture.
And, you made a good point (round aboutly) about the inappropriateness of me supplying possible specifics of your argument. So, while I did not say that you wanted all of these things, I should not have provided any examples of what you may have been saying.
Most of the the folks that speak like you complain loudly about an infringement upon their liberty and how that is not fair. Ordinarily, they are not grateful about anything this country provides. Often they are bitter about not being able to do something that clearly impacts a lot of others. To me they sound not like leaders, but renegades.
But, now you have the floor. Here is your chance to give us your specific observations of the loss of liberty you were referring to. You didn’t do so in your post, but now you can. And I won’t supply any possibilities. You can show us how you can be supportive to the country and yet specific in your examples. So, don’t just speak theoretically, or conceptually (”...there is a huge loss of liberty everywhere” or “...the forefathers would roll over in their graves” or “...it never used to be this way”). Dig down and give us something direct, actual, particular. Otherwise...
First off I don’t think that the founders of this Republic would be rolling over in their graves. They understood human nature and the nature of government which is why they established this Republic to the best of their ability for the purpose of preserving liberty.
The politics of their day and the politics of today are not that far removed…
Actually (being a student of history) I would say that politics are pretty tame today as compared many of the political climates of the past. The problem is that as time goes on there are more and more people who are willing surrender their liberty in exchange for temporary comfort and security as provided by government; the bigger problem is that in doing so they also surrender my liberty and your liberty and everyone else’s liberty in the process.
As to a few examples…
Let’s take your example of guns.
Let’s say that when my grandfather was a young man he owned a farm in a farming community. Nothing around for miles except for fields of crops, trees and live stock.
Lets say that he enjoyed plinking tin cans off of his fence with his Winchester model 1894 lever action rifle or his Colt model 1911 .45ACP semi automatic pistol on Saturday afternoons… perfectly acceptable due to the fact that there was no danger of causing anyone any harm… it was his farm, there were hundreds of acres in all directions, due to the ballistic arc of the projectiles leaving the barrels of those firearms it would have been physically impossible for them to travel far enough to harm anyone in an adjoining farm.
However, the right that exists that allowed him to be in possession of those arms in the first place was not a right given to him by his government and it was not a right to own firearms for the purpose of Saturday afternoon tin can target practice, It wasn’t even a right to posses arms for the purpose of hinting for food. The right to keep and bear arms is the natural right born into every man that allows him a means of self defense.
First in defense of himself, his family and property, then his community, state, country… ECT.
Now let’s fast forward to present. My family still owns the little farm house, but the acres and acres of farmland have given way to medium density subdivisions. People all packed tightly together in tract homes or spec homes on pieces of land no more than a quarter acre.
Would it be acceptable for me to take my grandfathers guns out on Saturday afternoon and shoot tin cans off of the same fence that has lined the farmhouse since he was a young man?
The answer is most certainly no.
Is it reasonable for that community to pass legislation that makes it illegal and punishable by law to do such a thing?
The answer is yes.
And would passing such a law be a usurpation of my liberty?
The answer is no.
Now lets say that certain factions in that community wanted to pass legislation barring anyone from possessing arms… would that be a usurpation of the liberty of the members of that community? Absolutely!
They would be removing the right of a person to defend his own life, it is not a right that was granted by government or a collective group of people and it is not a right that can rightfully be taken away by any government or collective group of people.
(Unless of course we are talking about suspending or removing the ability to exercise that right for a criminal… a person that has willfully used force to harm others and has been adjudicated guilty as prescribed by law)
Now, in self defense I am talking about the immediate action that one would need to take in order to protect his life, or the life of his family from the violent aggressions of another. You are asleep in your home at 2:00am and someone has broken in with the intent of doing you harm… at this point you are the only one that can provide for your safety and the safety of your family… calling 911 is only going to bring the cops there to try and solve the crime that is about to be committed.
Statistically in most cases there isn’t sufficient time for an officer to respond in time to do anything other than clean up the mess and gather evidence. If you had your grandfathers .45 pistol in the drawer you would have a fighting chance of keeping the invader from doing you harm, but if the community had banned possession of firearms and you had surrendered it to the local police station in the interest of being a good law abiding citizen and the invader was armed, you are now much less likely to be able to defend your life thanks to the power of the collective disarming you for your (a law abiding citizen) for the “good of the community”.
Secondly, let’s use your example of health insurance.
You stated: “Once the city grows up around you and you join an insurance pool (health ins.), your diet does adversely affect my premiums.”
Who ever said that an insurance company was obligated to provide coverage to people that choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle?
And equally, who ever said that you had to join an insurance pool that provided coverage to people that choose to lead unhealthy lifestyles?
You are perfectly free to shop around for preferred health coverage that is provided by a more discriminating company that chooses to screen their customers for high risk lifestyles and refuses to cover all but the most health conscious applicants, thereby keeping costs down and allowing them to offer lower premiums to those health conscious customers that they do choose to cover.
And if no such company exists and there are enough people that feel the same way that you do, then the market will respond by creating such coverage, because there will be a market for it.
The problem arises when government steps in and compels people and industry.
Let’s say that legislation has passed in your community that creates “public healthcare”.
Everyone is covered regardless of their economic status…
Everyone that works for a living is compelled by law to contribute to the program and thereby everyone receives coverage… from the homeless to the most wealthy of the community, everyone is offered equal care… sounds great right?
The collective has gotten together and voted that you as a producer (someone that earns an income) is obligated, by law, to give a certain portion of your income to the public health plan and if you refuse to pay your “fair share”, or try to hide some of your income so that you wont have to pay so much, there are consequences… fines, jail time… ECT.
But how about the heroin addict that lives in the alley down town that shares needles with the hooker that lives in the abandon building two streets over, or the guy that panhandles by the interstate that uses all of the money that he gets from panhandling to buy booze and cigarettes, or the 21yr old party boy that makes a modest living as a bartender in the local pub thereby pays less into the public healthcare plan based on his income, but who also has unprotected sex with a different woman almost every night?
They are all covered equally… and as costs go up due to the amount of care that has to be given to these people who have chosen to live an irresponsible lifestyle, but contribute little to nothing into the pot, the amount that you are required by law to contribute also goes up.
Now, let’s say that you have worked very hard your entire life and you have attained, by your own efforts, a pretty decent standard of living. You’re not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but you’re living comfortably. Now the collective has stepped in and voted away a portion of your earnings to go into this “public health fund”, a portion that gets higher and higher every year due to the amount of non-contributors and those that are covered who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles.
You are obligated by law to contribute because you are a producer, but the non-producers are not under any obligation clean up their lifestyles.
The collective has created a “public right” to healthcare and has put the burden of providing that “right” on your back, but there is no responsibility for the consumers to live up to…
They have usurped your liberty… they have confiscated your property by threat of force.
Your life and time and efforts no longer belong to you… you are now a slave to the collective.
And the natural progression in this process of confiscation for the “greater good” is that politicians in that community will pander to more and more non-producers. Promising more and more entitlements in exchange for votes, thereby obligating you, the producer, to give more and more of your property to the “greater good”.
This is what I’m talking about… this is what is going on right now all around us.
This is what will lead to our demise unless we reverse this trend.
My life is my own… no man or group of men has a claim to it, or to the fruits of my labor.
The laws of an ordered society are proper and necessary unless those laws lay waste to the basic fundamental rights of man or lay claim to that mans property or his life via coercion and threat of force.
That is the state of tyranny; whether that tyranny is brought about by a single dictator or the vote of the collective… it is tyranny just the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.