Free Is A Relative Term In America - Freedom At Issue (Steven Greenhut's Libertarian Musings Alert)

Orange County Register ^ | 06/24/2007 | Steven Greenhut

[goldstategop]

f I refuse to pay the full amount, I will become a ward of one of the biggest growth industries in the country: the government-run prison system. I am free to pay about half of all my earnings to the government, which will use those taxes to erect a multitude of offices and pay its workers salaries and benefits that are far more than most of us will ever earn. The government's "child protective services" workers are free to take anyone's children away from them based on their discretion. Parents are then forced into a totally secret court system, in which they must prove their innocence rather than having the government being forced to prove guilt.

We are all free to travel where we choose after government agencies search, poke and prod us. We can drive on government roads, pay government tolls, fly out of government-owned airports and pay for government-issued bond debt. We are free to pay for the government schools, which teach our children what the government wants them to learn.

The government can seize our personal property and not give it back even if we are cleared of any crime, and even place us in permanent detention, without any hope of legal representation, if the government determines that we are an enemy combatant. The government can bomb any government it chooses, based on any shoddy pretext (i.e., weapons of mass destruction). We are free to speak and write as we choose as long as the government doesn't decide that we broke campaign-finance laws or engaged in "hate speech."

The 18th century German poet Johann Goethe said: "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Am I off-base to wonder whether we are careening down that road?

[goldstategop]

Social conservatives would say legal coercion is necessary to buttress moral order. Libertarians would say people already observe a moral code - they have done that for thousands of years and the government has never been very good as a moral teacher. When you think of what politicians do, their own conduct discredits the idea of government as agent for moral good.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[gcruse]

Nicely put.

[freeandfreezing]

We are "Free" as one can get without complete anarchy taking hold!

Huh?? If that were true then it must have been "complete anarchy" from the time of Washington up until today. Do you really think our nation was in a state of "complete anarchy" in the time of Jefferson, or Roosevelt or even Eisenhower?

Instead of moving towards a big government nanny state with ever less freedom we should be trying to cultivate the culture of personal responsibility and freedom that leads to less government. You might consider this some kind of crazy libertarian idea but it was the key to Ronald Reagan's electoral victory. We could use a resurgence of his ideas among our candidates today.

[radioman]

I have yet to witness one person making a case for more freedom.

Ron Paul has been doing just that for decades.
.

[radioman]

If you are in the middle of nowhere and don’t effect your neighbor, then good day.

I'm in the middle of nowhere and nothing I do effects you but if I choose to do what you don't approve of you will send men with guns to my home in the middle of nowhere to arrest me.
.

[sirchtruth]

Libertarians would say people already observe a moral code - they have done that for thousands of years and the government has never been very good as a moral teacher.

Libertarians do not accept the reality in order to have a free society (or better the Idea Of America) you must have a Standard Bearer. A higher "authority" recognized outside of gov't. What is absolutely essential in FREEDOM is the idea of "all men being created equal under God." However, what Libertarian's want to do is make "Behavior" equal. That will not work, because again, there has to be responsiblity with free will.

Whatever "moral code" Liberts. might adhere to is not a code given by a higher authority and accepted, this is a code "developed" in a box. It will not work.

[radioman]

Libetarians don't seem to know history very well and those societies that allowed the "freedom" with no consequences to do these things and how it torn them apart and how they failed miserably

Name one.
.

[sirchtruth]

Huh?? If that were true then it must have been "complete anarchy" from the time of Washington up until today. Do you really think our nation was in a state of "complete anarchy" in the time of Jefferson, or Roosevelt or even Eisenhower?

Go back and read again to put my statement in the right context. You're missing my point.

[metesky]

"Freedom" and "liberty" are all mixed up in many minds.

You may not think we live in a free country, but you're certainly at liberty to say so.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[sirchtruth]

Well lets see, do you think the Netherlands are a successful, strong society today or are they crumbling?

I'm trying to think of THE NOW instead historical references, but the ROMAN EMPIRE would definately be one. Japan would be another. Germany. Basically any socialist country you can think of that allowed certain "freedoms."

Remember, we're talking within a moral/law context of society. Pretty soon it will be America if we don't go back to acknowledge who ultimately gives us our freedom instead of relying on some secularists idea of what a "moral code" should be...

The idea of America can not and will not survive without acknowledging God and his morale code.

[A CA Guy]

Yep, when you are among people you have restricted use because they have an equal right to fair use.
If you are living in a bee hive type of condo (as an example), you can not blast your radio, own a constantly barking dog or have no curtains and feature yourself nude in the front window with a red light.

When you are by yourself in an area away from people, you are less likely to lose rights and can expand the desires of your heart since there would not be anyone around that cares.

[A CA Guy]

In other words, your perceived loss of rights is due to growing population and the need in common sense to adapt so all can live closely among each other.

It is that issue IMO that restricts the total freedom of the individual, not that you could ever own your own nuke or anything like that. :-)

[383rr]

Good post. Thanks.

[383rr]

“When you think of what politicians do, their own conduct discredits the idea of government as agent for moral good.”

Truer words have never been spoken.

Look at all the corrupt stooges in government..yeah, they have the answer.

And, just look at history. Anytime a government can make you a criminal, they will. It seems many have not yet learned a lesson from history. In fact, many here on this forum would have have us careening down the same roads in the name of “morality”.

[Dead Corpse]

"Anarchy", as it applies to political theory, isn't "do as you please" as most assume. It literally means "without governors" or "without authority". No one to tell you to behave. If you misbehave, those annoyed by your behavior may take direct measures to correct your behavior.

Political anarchy isn't a "free for all". It isn't the "land of do as you please". It's a harsh world where your actions have direct and even dire consequences.

That it also allows for the greatest level of industry, the greatest level of individual happiness, and the greatest level of individual freedom should not be over looked as well.

Governments ALWAYS trend toward totalitarianism. Our is currently doing so. Hide your head in the sand. Shoot the messenger. Look away or run and hide. This fact is incontrovertible: The government we have now is NOT the one the Founders drew up and codified in the Constitution.

No one can make that argument and maintain any credibility what so ever. A simple look at the number of laws on our books should suffice it to prove that maxim out as a proof.

[Dead Corpse]

So you are saying we NEED more socialism because there are more of us?

Piffle...

[tpaine]

You can not truly have a "FREE" society without standards and accountability.

We have them, - in both our State and US Constitutions.

those societies that allowed the "freedom" with no consequences to do these things and how it torn them apart and how they failed miserably. --
-- do you think the Netherlands are a successful, strong society today or are they crumbling?

As a socialistic, non constitutional society, they are crumbling.

I'm trying to think of THE NOW instead historical references, but the ROMAN EMPIRE would definately be one. Japan would be another. Germany. Basically any socialist country you can think of that allowed certain "freedoms."

Yep, socialists "allow certain freedoms". - We constitutionalists ~insist~ upon certain freedoms. - One is to be free from fanatics who demand that we acknowledge a specific 'moral majorities code'. - Such as the socialists code, or a specific religions code.

Remember, we're talking within a moral/law context of society.

No, in our Republic, we're talking within a constitutional/law context for society.

Pretty soon it will be America if we don't go back to acknowledge who ultimately gives us our freedom instead of relying on some secularists idea of what a "moral code" should be...

"Who ultimately gives us our freedom" is a telling line. - We ~fought~ for our freedom from men who thought their God gave them the power to rule. Our constitution ended the concept of religious qualifications for office.

The idea of America can not and will not survive without acknowledging God and his morale code.

We can acknowledge God and moral codes; - while we honor our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land; - the two concepts are not incompatible.

[A CA Guy]

Socialism to me is finding things with our tax dollars to others for their pet needs, poor choices and lazy behaviors. No, I am simply stating that the more you get among others, the more it is like being in an elevator.

In a public elevator, would it be right to scream, smoke, cuss, get naked and so forth?
When you live close to others, you have your rights restricted due to proximity, that is the point I made.

I DON’T LIKE SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM or PERMANENT SAFTEY NETS IN GOVERNMENT.
Welfare, food stamps and such should be for a few months, after that, at least have them clean up roads or something to earn their way.

[Dead Corpse]

In a public elevator, would it be right to scream, smoke, cuss, get naked and so forth? When you live close to others, you have your rights restricted due to proximity, that is the point I made.

The difference begin, in my philosophy... no one will put a government gun to your head if you do those things while the elevator is otherwise EMPTY.

Further, social strictures used to have more force than law. Ostracism was one of the worst things that could happen to a person. Now, under the protection of the laws of the government you are trying to excuse... these freaks and morons are a protected species. People are ACTIVELY prevented from protecting themselves or their property by those laws.

This is not a system that can last long without it truly decaying into violence and chaos.