Encroaching Government Ensures We’re Not Free
by Jeremy D. BoreingAmericans beware. You are not free. Worse, you are being made more and more a slave each day by the very people who tell you incessantly that you are. In fact, the very word itself, FREEDOM, has become your enemy, as it is bandied about proudly and loudly, and distracting you from the encroaching tyranny all around. The word freedom has replaced the substance of freedom that was your birthright, and that is no more.
Of course, Americans were never completely free, which is expressly why freedom was so long sustained on these shores. Our founders knew what freedom is: The natural, God-created state of man, completely unrestrained by the conventions of other men. They also knew that such pure freedom was never practically experienced, and that if it was, it could never be sustained, because it would naturally and instantly consume itself as the powerful and strong exercise of their will without restraint upon the weak. Pure freedom replaces itself with tyranny, rapidly and violently in a shockingly Darwinian fashion. From the chaos of pure freedom rise despots and kings.
So what our Founders concluded, through study, meditation, and debate, was that for freedom to last and to perpetuate itself, the natural freedom each man is born to must actually be restrained in one, and only one, regard – sort of a Golden Rule of Freedom: The free man must give up his freedom to encroach upon the freedom of other free men.
With that one, minimalistic restraint universally applied, the sum total of the rest of man’s innate freedom would be preserved and man would thrive as never before on the stage of human history. There would be no kings, no despots, no powerful devouring the freedom of others. There would be no restraints on the human potential for invention or self-improvement, and no requirements of either. There would be leaders, sure. People who’s natural talents and aptitudes, which they would be free to nurture and grow in anyway they desired so long as they did not rob other men of the same right, would place them in positions of authority, but that authority would be incredibly limited because the government of free men would, unlike all other governments in history, be controlled by the free men themselves. It would, therefore, be restrained in its power to encroach upon the freedoms of its citizens, just as they were restrained from encroaching upon one another.
The very small exceptions, and in fact the only reason for free men to have government at all, were concluded to be defense (some power had to exist, after all, to enforce the simple mandate of not intruding on the freedom of others) and the “common good,” which did not mean collectivism, but was rather narrowly defined as being the tools necessary for free people to go about the process of being free. Beyond that mandate, government would be forbidden to practice, because to exceed those restraints would by default restrain the freedoms that birthed such a government in the first place. If the government has the right to force people to conform to its will in any areas other than the preservation of freedom, then it is automatically the enemy of freedom. More simply, a government who is not specifically and entirely committed to the preservation of freedom is the very destroyer of freedom.
Of course, if you ask the average American if they are free, they will give a resounding, “Yes!” But look around you. Does the government of the United States concern itself chiefly and exclusively with the preservation of your freedom? Or does it, like all governments everywhere, exist to regulate your freedoms, therefore rendering you un-free, after all? Can a free government tax your income? Moreover, can it tax you more and more the more progress you make in pursuing your freedom? Doesn’t that make freedom a commodity to be purchased, not a right from God? For over one hundred years there was no income tax in this country. Now, some are taxed in excess of 40% just on their income.
What about property? One of the simplest expressions of freedom is the right to own land, but do you own anything in this country? Ownership means you don’t owe anyone anything for what is yours. You possess it outright; you are master of it. But what if you have to pay a “property tax” on it each year to the government? If you have to pay someone each year, a debt that can never, ever, be retired, with the penalty for not paying being that they can take your possession away from you, then who actually owns it, you or them? Aren’t you merely renting it from the true owner, the government? You don’t own your house or your land in this country anymore. Don’t believe it? Miss a payment. The true owner has men with guns and briefcases standing by to rob you of everything you think is yours. In the twenties, men paid the mob for protection from… the mob. Today, you pay Uncle Sam for the same kind of protection.
Oh, but we think we’re free. Why? Because we say that we are. In fact, at the end of he day, most people believe that freedom is primarily our ability to speak out against our government, and to be sure, freedom of speech is a uniquely American right. But at the end of the day, all of our words of protest are merely that, words, if the government already has the power over every other aspect of our lives. In fact, they love for us to talk, because it keeps us distracted from the real losses we endure daily to a ruling elite that our founders would have taken up arms against years ago.
Read the Declaration of Independence sometime. The Revolution was fought over far less. The rulers, which is what they now are, passing laws that rob and regulate men without even bothering to read them first, take and take while we talk and talk and congratulate ourselves on how clever and free we are for it. They take your money to pay off their donors, to enforce their will on others, and to prevent consequences of those who freely tried and freely failed at something because, after all, if someone loses, they may not vote to keep the despots in power. They can force you to behave in the ways they deem appropriate, use the light bulbs they want you to use, watch digital televisions instead of analog ones. They oblige you to buy them favor with foreign powers, many of whom it is their job to defend you from. Now they are even in the process of creating a National Healthcare Law which will make the government responsible for your well-being. Of course, in doing so, it will also make them responsible for everything you do that effects your well being.
Is it cheaper to treat cancer, or use your power to pass law to criminalize smoking or car exhaust? Is it easier to treat obesity, or to use your legal power to regulate what people eat and drink, and when? Is it easier to conceive a cure for consequences, or to prevent behaviors that lead to consequences? And if there are too many doctors in one place, and not enough in another, do you want the market inspiring one to move, or the government with it’s guns and fines telling a man where and when he may work?
Ask yourself, are you free if the government can tell you what to eat, what to drive, how much to exercise, what job to do and where and when, and that owns your land and takes half of your income to fund whatever present and future encroachment into your life and liberty it deems worthy?
Of course, there are those who will call this hyperbole, or worse yet, the rantings of a reactionary. They will tell you this is still the freest country in the world, and they may be right. But our Founders never measured their freedom by the freedoms of others. If they did, there would never have been a revolution because the British were already more free than most anyone on earth. It wasn’t the Middle Ages. The King was bound by writs of law, there was a parliament and courts. Men could gripe about the government in any pub in London with virtual immunity, much less thousands of miles away in Boston or New York. In many ways, the English in the seventeen hundreds were more free than Americans in the twenty-first century. At least they could get on a boat and come here to own a nice plot of land and do as they pleased.
The point is, being more free than some others wasn’t enough for Washington or Jefferson, Adams or Franklin. They would be content with nothing less than a revolutionary expression of the total, natural rights of man. They signed their names, struggled and fought to see freedom on this soil be more than a comparative measurement or a cathartic twig of a word to bite down on while our true freedom is amputated from us.
American freedom is more than a word, and it is more than what we are being left with as this runaway government monster devours what men bled and died to give us. So reactionary it may be, but hyperbole it is not. We are not free, and looking in the mirror telling ourselves we are does nothing to change the fact. To hell with the perpetual chant of freedom that deafens us while they steal what is ours in the night. We must stop being content with the expression, and demand again the right. We must stand up to this despotic, bureaucratic, tyrannous monster and take back the substance of the thing while there is still time or else this great experiment is lost already, and freedom really is nothing more than a word. A word that means YOU ARE NOT FREE.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
66 Comments
[...] Encroaching Government Insures We’re Not Free by Jeremy D. Boreing [...]
Amen, brother! Your comments about property taxes and income taxes are spot on.
Regarding health care, the state in which I practice has allowed insurance companies to exclude doctors from their insurance panels for no good reason. I am moving to another state in the US in order to practice more freely.
I have American friends who now practice more freely in communist China!
The most-needed health care reform is that which will reduce costs. High health care costs, from insurance, to medical care, to prescription drugs are a burden on families, businesses, and government alike. We can reduce costs by focusing on what America does best – provide high-quality products at low prices by maximizing customer choice and allowing the free market to do its work.
The first step toward lowering costs through free market reform is restoring the doctor-patient relationship. When health care decisions are made between doctors and patients the cost goes down, and costs go up when insurance companies and government bureaucrats get involved in the process.
Excellent post. It cannot be refuted, because of the simple logic. And simple logic in not a negative connotation. But demonstrative praise. I remember the fallacies of my early childhood education, when I was taught that the system of government was a heirarchy-local below state and state below federal. And my rights were granted by the Bill of Rights. It took independent thought and research to realize that some of things we were taught are absolutely wrong. The US system of government is dual federalism where states have their responsibilities and the federal government has it responsibilities and the two should not be confused and mingled. More importantly, no government ever was granted me a right, but those rights exist without government permission. We have negative liberty, regardless of the actions of the government. Negative liberty is without obstacles. The only one who can forsake these liberties is me, either by action that encroaches on others' liberty, or voluntarily.
Mr. Boreing, your post could be an addendum to Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" Bless you.
You may say
That I'm not free
But it don't worry me
BTW, why is the right wing now taking on all the old hippy slogans? Could it be that the new right wing is made up of a bunch of old hippies? Just wondering.
Americans are resting on the laurels of previous generations. It's time to stand up and fight for what's ours.
scary as hell, but it's the truth. may the truth set us free.
Ha ha, sarcasm, right??
$=true equality and freedom. They are taking it away. Simple.
Thomas Sowell has been teaching the economic truth for years.
It's not just, that are freedoms are being taken away, we are giving up, our free will and our spirit of rugged individualism
This is just B-E-A-Utiful! By far the best writing I have read since I read the works of the Founding Fathers! I was wondering if there was anybody else out there that realized that what our Founding Fathers left in England was far freer than what we have here. Goodness, this is just refreshing! I am not alone. *tears of joy*
Freedom was never a word that hippies cared about
to them Freedom was the right to tell other people what to do
The Weathermen expected if they ever took over with their bombings to have reeducation camps where 25 million would die!
"Freedom" is an anomaly, historically speaking, and most of the people in the world don't believe in it, or at least most people in government, and ever since the monarchies were overthrown, the people who replaced THEIR bureaucrats and supporters have been working to re-enslave the people the old tyrants used to exploit and oppress. That's it! When one group of people lives off another group of people, or they get the power to tax impose their beliefs, or just their wills, on the other people, they will, and they will continue to do it without regard for the happiness or prosperity of those host societies until those economies collapse, or until those host societies throw them off. Oh, and that's why governments like gun control. It's really hard to oppress an armed mob. Hmmmm, I guess that's why the founding fathers bothered with that pesky Second Amendment, wasn't it?
"Freedom" is an anomaly, historically speaking, and most of the people in the world don't believe in it, or at least most people in government, and ever since the monarchies were overthrown, the people who replaced THEIR bureaucrats and supporters have been working to re-enslave the people the old tyrants used to exploit and oppress. That's it! When one group of people lives off another group of people, or they get the power to tax them, or impose their beliefs, or just their wills, on the other people, they will, and they will continue to do it without regard for the happiness or prosperity of those host societies until those economies collapse, or until those host societies throw them off. Oh, and that's why governments like gun control. It's really hard to oppress an armed mob. Hmmmm, I guess that's why the founding fathers bothered with that pesky Second Amendment, wasn't it?
While I agree with your post, I do have to argue with one point. "We can reduce costs by focusing on what America does best – provide high-quality products at low prices by maximizing customer choice and allowing the free market to do its work."
That is an optimistic and idealistic view of what really happens in the free market. If the only players in the "free market" was business and consumer, this would be true. But, enter the "Stockholder". A creature who exists to exert downward pressure on manufacturing cost and upward pressure on price. Therefore what you end up with are cheaply made products that are as poor and as costly as the market will bear. "High Quality" is not a concern for the stockholder, "High Profit" is. The best products are made by artisans who value pride in their work as much or more than profit. A corporation has no pride.
Would 2 right wings cause a bird to fly in circles?
Revolutionary writing. Not in the sense that it is new, but in the sense that this sounds like something our founding father's would have said. I'm sending this to all my friends.
The only Free people now are the Hondurans
This is the United State of Obama
It is just what we deserve for taking Freedom for granted.
I sent this to my liberal friends – yes I tolerate them – in hopes of waking them up. It is a startling piece of writing IMO.
Pure *economic* freedom replaces itself with *economic* tyranny, rapidly and violently in a shockingly Darwinian fashion. From the chaos of pure *economic* freedom rise *economic* despots and kings.
Your first quote establishes that while we should have freedom, it should be limited and imply that for sustainable limited freedom…we must concede to being a police state (e.g. we have police).
That may take care of blue collar crime but what about white collar crime? We have governmental forces in place to make sure the bank down the street isn't raided by some petty thugs.
But do we have governmental force in place to insure that thugs high aloft in skyscrapers do not effectively raid our savings in 401ks and etc?
On the same token that police is required to insure restrained freedom for all, regulation is required to insure restrained economic freedom for all (e.g. to protect against exploitation).
The USA is the #1 PRISION NATION. We are definitely NOT free.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/09/prison-nati...
I was greatly impressed by the actions of the Hondurans, and ashamed and appalled at the reactions of Obama and Hillary. Their talent for newspeak knows no boundaries.
And nobody deserves this.
Pure *economic* freedom replaces itself with *economic* tyranny, rapidly and violently in a shockingly Darwinian fashion. From the chaos of pure *economic* freedom rise *economic* despots and kings.
Your original quote establishes that while we should have freedom, it should be limited and imply that for sustainable limited freedom…we must concede to being a police state (e.g. we have police).
That may take care of blue collar crime but what about white collar crime? We have governmental forces in place to make sure the bank down the street isn't raided by some petty thugs.
But do we have governmental force in place to insure that thugs high aloft in skyscrapers do not effectively raid our savings in 401ks and etc?
On the same token that police is required to insure restrained freedom for all, regulation is required to insure restrained economic freedom for all (e.g. to protect against exploitation).
Dumbo-eared Oblabla is trying to enslave the citizens of the United States and destroy Capitalism.
This is very true. Absolute Freedom and Peace is truly a paradox unless everybody chooses it freely. It only takes one bad seed to ruin Paradise. Sounds like the story of Lucifer to me.
One of the things I love about this site is the abundance of clear-thinking, thoughtful, and elegant contributors. There is a dearth of ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, or "just shut up, I'm right" challenges. I don't know how anyone who claims to believe in America and all it represents could read this article and not agree whole-heartedly because the message is expressed cogently, backed up by fact and logic, and even includes just the slightest bit of hope if we would just let the scales fall from our eyes. Bravo!
Thank you for writing this and expressing what all of us here feel. Sometimes I have trouble breathing when I think of the trap they have us in.
Ha ha ha… good 1! 2 left wings would cause the bird to go into an immediate downward spiral!
Starting with California. Note: The most powerful UNION and the most powerful LOBBY here in California is none other than the "California Correctional Peace Officers Association".
'Ever stop to think, just how amazing the founding fathers were? They could have simply taken the place of the Crown, and become a new monarchy, but instead they created the United States of America? Can you see Obama and Pelosi GIVING people freedom, instead of TAKING it? NOT!
Amen to this: "Quality really is the hands of the consumer." I wish people took their purchasing decisions more seriously than they do. We could improve a lot of things by doing so, and just not the quality of goods and services. People are too afraid of "THEM" I fear and accept less than they should be getting.
The thing about a lot of stockholders is that he/she does not care about the long term growth or viability of the company they own stock in. They just want the price of the stock to go up as fast as possible and pressure management to make it so or lose their jobs. So irrational decisions are made that are not sustainable over the long term. Reduced cost and quality equals higher stock price. Stockholder sells, stock price plummets, company goes under. This happens more frequently as we add more and more "casual" stockholders to the system using home PCs. I fear the stock market has become a net negative in our free market.
really? I thought that had more to do with Eve's "free choice" to engage in pre-marital sex?
True.
or would the bird just be a helicopter?
Aww, c'mon. We were agreeing for once there!
You are not in a category of your own. Our numbers are increasing. Write your Senator and Congressman and tell them freedom is what you want.
Agreeing? My point was "pro regulation". I will be happy to agree with you if you can kindly enlighten me how the parable of paradise lost makes the case for government regulation of Wall Street.
Jefferson couldn't have said it better. I'm forwarding this to everyone I know.
It is the obligation of every American to preserve this great country, to make freedom more than a …feel good buzz word. The Founders left the future a binding contract “The Constitution,” and it is under attack from within.
What a powerful piece! "Stop being content with the expression and demand the right." Whew! Chills.
Interesting topic. Last year I read American Creation by Joseph J. Ellis
http://www.amazon.com/American-Creation-Triumphs-...
It has an absolutely fascinating chapter on the Constitutional Convention. About the only thing the delegates agreed on was they couldn't agree on anything. After endless debates, they realized the debates would never end. And even if they agreed on one issue, there were hundreds more waiting in the wings. So they set up their government as a place where the never ending debate would continue.
They were also smart enough to know that the easier it was for congress to pass laws, the more laws they would pass, and the more restraints on freedom they would inflict on We The People. So they set up congress like a giant maze, littered with a bazillion speed bumps.
Ironically, when it looks like government isn't working, then it is working, exactly as designed, preventing politicians from giving the public ever more grief. When government looks like it is working, as the current congress so wonderfully demonstrates, it's broken and We The People are screwed.
So in a free society, we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us? Great idea!
Freedom is just another word
For nothing left to lose
Starting a revolution because we lost an election seems a bit extreme. We could always try to win the next election, unless we are mighty certain that we are bound to lose again. Then maybe revolution is the way to go, unless we are likely to get your butts kicked even worse, and much more demonstratively in a physical encounter.
The way I see it, most people posting here would have a lot to lose if they devoted their lives to a revolution. They would lose their jobs, their cars, their credit cards, their houses. I wouldn't expect the movement to grow beyond the demonstrations with tea bags. We know we are too materialistic.
Just like the old hippies and their summer of love. I know some people would say we would have a summer of hate, but that sounds like a bad Hollywood movie. This movement would be more like the winter of our discontentment. Maybe that's what we need — a hunch back cripple to usurp the Presidency away from the Muslim in Chief.
I also feel owning property may be a mistake. Property taxes are so high I sometimes wonder if its worth the effort.
Rather than moving dysfunctional America off the welfare state, we are now moving the free, functioning, and once prosperous part of our nation onto the welfare state.
We do not want to transfer a major part of our freedom to be manage by bureaucrats.
I do not feel free!
While I agree with your post, I do have to argue with one point. "We can reduce costs by focusing on what America does best – provide high-quality products at low prices by maximizing customer choice and allowing the free market to do its work."
That is an optimistic and idealistic view of what really happens in the free market. If the only players in the "free market" were business and consumer, this would be true. But, enter the "Stockholder". A creature who exists to exert downward pressure on manufacturing cost and upward pressure on price. Therefore what you end up with are cheaply made products that are as poor and as costly as the market will bear. "High Quality" is not a concern for the stockholder, "High Profit" is. The best products are made by artisans who value pride in their work as much or more than profit. A corporation has no pride.
EDIT: That being said, a medical system imposed by the government will ignore what the market will bear, and will be far worse.
Damn F'in right!
I met an Australian recently who said "I can't believe how fast the USA is moving towards Socialism". Then he said "Don't let them take away your right to own a gun! The US is the only true world power left where you can still own and carry a gun. If you give up that right, then it's over for everybody – throughout the Free world."
It is optimistic and your statement is true. Greed on Wall Street for bigger profits is a problem. Small business can also provide high quality products at an economical cost, but there are economies of scale and sometimes the economies of smaller scale can be an advantage. Also a consumer that seeks out a higher quality product will be willing to pay an additional cost for the quality. A consumer seeking a low cost will be satisfied with lesser quality. Quality really is the hands of the consumer. In end the provider or manufacture that provides quality at a lower price will succeed.
EDIT: When the product is a service, I especially believe the smaller companies do have an advantage over the large corporations.
It really comes back to the notion that companies are to big to fail. I also believe if you can't make a profit then you should fail regardless of how big you are. Greed and the economies of scale have turned on the large corporations and to big and to greedy is a hindrance to providing a quality product. When the big boys fail other companies step in or crop up and pick up the balance.
NOTE: Thats real free market.
The article didn't say that we should go without taxes altogether, just as it did not say that government should be entirely done away with. It said that government's purposes should be limited to a few basic things like defense, which if followed would eliminate the need for many of the taxes we now have. Obviously, some taxes are necessary even then to provide for the defense and such, but that does not justify the maze of income and property taxes we are burdened with. Personally, I believe simpler measures such as a sales tax would suffice, which is why I'm a supporter of the Fair Tax.
Quote from Ronald Reagan regarding Congress: "Don't just do something, stand there!" Brilliant.
An immediate downward spiral? Crap, when did we all turn into a bird?
Interesting that you write that just after "dumbo-eared oblabla" It is interesting on this site that when I agree with the popular opinion, I tend to get a few thumbs up but when I disagree, I get a bunch of thumbs down.
[...] Daily Gut: America Ranks 114th on the ‘Happy Planet Index’ Jeremy D. Boreing, Big Hollywood: Encroaching Government Ensures We’re Not Free Hot Air Green Room: Chuck Schumer is better than you… Braincast: Figures. Obama Gives Bumbling [...]
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I will not go quietly into tyranny.
Gotta disagree here slightly… And I'm just limiting myself to one part of the arguement:
Property Taxes (Note that all property taxes (to my knowledge… ) are based on a state/local level, not on a national govt. level).
That is the ONE tax, I believe that is actually needed. You're not paying for the property, you're paying for the services that could be used to provide for your property (Fire depts, police, schools, etc.). Admittedly, the loss of property for not paying those taxes… okay, that you make a decent argument for.
But I've never known a conservative to say "Screw it, I shouldn't be paying any taxes at all!" (our independence was started over "Taxation without representation".. not "No taxation whatsoever!")
But those of you who want to do away with the tax system in its entirety, what local service are you willing to go without? (I could see the arguement for doing away with collecting taxes for schools for instance… PROVIDING that there was a 'voucher' program for everyone.).
All taxes cannot be compared equally in this case… the income tax argument, for instance.. perfect thing to rail against in this case…
Last November…lol!!
If you value freedom, you know in your hearts this is true.
Dear people, wherever you may be,
I've just finished rereading Atlas Shrugged for the third time. The first two times (a long time ago) I applied its lessons to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. Now Ayn Rand's work seems more pertinent than ever due the events unfolding in my homeland.
The reason I say my homeland is because I'm an expatriate American English teacher living in South Korea. I've been living and working in the ROK for twelve years, but I still send in my absentee ballot for presidential elections every four years.
What I've been seeing taking place in the USA since January 20 is making me more upset by the day. The mounting deficits, the growing and dangerous dependence on China (many South Koreans are very jittery about China) to finance those deficits, the talk of instituting new (VAT and a big one at that) taxes to help cover those very same deficits, the bailouts of GM, and particularly Chrysler, the attempt to remove choice and private enterprise from the U.S. health care system, the stimulus that went mostly to government drones rather things that would really stimulate, and above all, the despicable behavior of the mainstream media in covering up Obama's real Chicago background. I had to go and find the red star at the top of William Ayers website all by myself!
All these things have made me very alarmed concerning the future of my country. So I've reached one overriding conclusion: it's time for Americans to revolt against royal authority for the second time in 234 years.
I say this because I don't believe the traditional legislative process can stop my country's slide towards the comfortable euthanasia of West European-style socialism. With the idiocy of Bush to guide them, the Republicans have done a very creditable job of taking Dirty Harry's 357. and pointing it at least at their feet, if not their heads.
So it's time to revolt. This will be a difficult idea for many Americans to grasp. After all, we are the product of a culture that has been based on the rule of law from its very beginnings back in medieval England.
What I'm talking about is starving the Government Beast. Come next April 15, 2010 don't send in your tax forms. Refuse to pay! If you're a small businessman don't pay your state (If you live in California, New York, or New Jersey, this applies especially to you) or federal business taxes. Don't pay your licensing fees! When the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, don't file! Simply don't feed the Beast!
If you're worried about prosecution, there's safety in numbers. If ten million Americans refuse to pay, the looters can't possibly oppress more than a very small number of people. If ten million small business people refuse to knuckle under to the New Jealously Class, then the Beast will be truly crippled and will be forced to beg for mercy. View your refusal to pay blackmail to the looters as a civil rights issue along the lines of what inspired Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and the early 1960s. IT IS NOT YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY TO PAY HIGHER TAXES! In fact, it can be considered a form of treason to file on April 15, 2010.
Anyway, this has happened before. What most Americans don't remember or never learned is that in the run-up to the American Revolution the British backed down twice over the issue of taxes. Parliament repealed both the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts in the face of fierce colonial protests. Remember, the looters don't have the mighty Royal Navy behind them, or ranks of hard fighting British Grenadiers, all they have in their favor is the willingness to submit of a people who have been comfortable for far too long.
If you don't think this too off the wall, PASS IT ON!
Michael G. Gallagher, Ph.D.
Seoul, Korea
sauruman56@yahoo.com
Of course it can be refuted…
It can be refuted by those that deny that freedom is the single most profound thing we have. Those who would rather be slave to a "benevolent" despot even if that despot is others.
Unfortunately, simple (and sound logic) is just not enough for some people.
My comment was in regard to the contributors of the articles (in this case, Jeremy D.Boreing) not the commenters. Having clarified that, I would still offer that the majority of the commenters at Big Hollywood engage in well thought out and relatively gracious discourse. They cite facts, use logic, and only rarely devolve to "you're a poo-poo head" exchanges.
And for the record, I was in the midst of composing my comment when the one above me was posted…
strong.
Jeremy, great article.. but honestly tell me something I do not know….LOL
When you talk of tyranny arising from anarchy, you speak a truth — then come to only one of many conclusions. Although some people may feel that taxes and government are hindering them, many others feel that those same forces are helping them. The majority of our country will never have to worry about high taxes and government interference; they are the ones, in fact, being helped by it. For those in poverty, we still live in an anarchic world, and tyranny arises from the rich who exploit them and keep them in poverty.
Just another conclusion. It is not meant to contradict yours, but to show that there is a healthy diversity in America; where you shout tyranny, others shout freedom (and vice versa). And this diversity is, after all, an expression of this country's freedom… ?
Hmmm. Interesting and I agree with the part that says… "The free man must give up his freedom to encroach upon the freedom of other free men." But I wonder if most of the posters here who seem to be strongly 'conservative' would really follow this to it's logical conclusion. No restrictions on gay marriage, no restrictions on abortion. etc., etc. Do you really want government to stay out of peoples lives, or do you want it to enforce your personal set of moral and religious beliefs? Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. If you want true freedom, you must allow that same freedom to others, even if you disagree with their choices.
What a fantastic piece!
[...] Encroaching Government Ensures We Are Not Free Filed under: Politics — jeremydboreing @ 1:55 am Encroaching Government Ensures Weâre Not Free [...]
Superb website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.