No, freedom is not free, and yes, it does require maintenance. But, how does giving the central government the power to force a (supposedly) free people to do what it commands, including those things which most would hold are in their 'best interests', square with our founding principles?
If you reach the point where you have to give the government that sort of power, then you're no longer a free people, and now have something resembling a feudal totalitarianism.
The Founders said that our form of government wasn't fit for any but a moral people. That's because it is founded on the supremacy of the individual, who has absolute, unalienable rights - while the government has none. It only has responsibilities, and a duty to serve the people who created it. It has no power, but that granted to it by the people for their protection and enjoyments.
If the people will not engage themselves in the service of their own self interests, and the protection of all they hold dear, then they have ceased to be worthy of our founding form of government, and deserve whatever heinous tyranny befalls them.
>If you reach the point where you have to give the government that sort of power, then you’re no longer a free people, and now have something resembling a feudal totalitarianism.
>
>If the people will not engage themselves in the service of their own self interests, and the protection of all they hold dear, then they have ceased to be worthy of our founding form of government, and deserve whatever heinous tyranny befalls them.
Then please explain to me the Militia Act of 1792 — It mandated that certain people be enrolled in the militia; further, it required that they themselves furnish their equipment. Note that this was less than twenty years from 1776 (Declaration of Independence) AND only 5 years from the Constitution’s ratification (1787); and it was held to be Constitutional under Art 1, Sec 8. — and why it was *not* tyranny.
See: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm