The following article was received via email this morning...I think it is imperative to have good grasp on what freedom is and isn't when having these political discussions. Many who are too far out on the branches forget that when you "synthetically" give rights to one group or other, you inadvertantly, take away the rights of another.
It is an important aspect to keep in mind when screaming fairness. There is no fairness in nature, why do you think there should be fairness in society, without actually creating unfairness?
A simple example would be...in a socialist society a lazy man would receive part of the accomplished mans' earnings, to be fair. But, how is that fair to the accomplished man?
Libertarianism is about natural law. Creating a Democracy is not about natural law, it is something that wants to stay close to natural law, but, by design must be less than. When you create a body of laws to govern a people, which includes taking care of the sick and needy (because we are not created equal, as it turns out.)There will always be a certain amount of unfairness taking place. The trick is to make it as little as possible and the only way to do that is by governing by the people, not the elite.
We, as a people, need to regroup.
Please read Robert Ringers article on freedom and do not let it fire up your pain body...because true freedom is painful and it will ever exist. It certainly does not exist in this country.
May 26, 2008
Reflecting on Freedom
By Robert Ringer
Memorial Day is a good time for us to step back and think about the subject of freedom, the commodity for which so many Americans have given their lives. Just about everyone claims to be in favor of freedom, but few seem to agree on what it means.
One person’s idea of freedom can violate another person’s freedom. To one man, liberty means doing what he wants with his own life, while to another it means doing what he wants with other men’s lives. Therefore, both of these men say that the other one’s concept of freedom is tyranny.
To the laissez?faire businessman, freedom means an end to all government regulation. To the communist, freedom can be achieved only when individual incentive has been crushed and “the people” own everything.
Some people believe that job quotas for minority groups promote freedom. But to a person who is anti-discriminatory in the truest sense of the word, quotas and seniority considerations are a violation of freedom.
Based on the evidence, I think we can safely conclude that throughout history men have miscommunicated on this subject. Since conservatives, liberals, bigots, fascists, communists, environmentalists, and every other group imaginable all claim to be in favor of freedom, they obviously cannot be talking about the same thing.
The dictionary defines freedom as “being free.” In turn, free is defined as “not under the control or power of another.” How can there be so much confusion over a definition so clearly stated? For one thing, when people talk about freedom, they have a tendency to think in terms of freedom for themselves. They see freedom as a license to do as they please.
Also, throughout history, utopian thinkers have confused freedom with equality. But nothing could be more incorrect. No matter what one’s moral desires, nature has made freedom and equality totally incompatible. “Freedom and equality,” wrote Will and Ariel Durant, “are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.’’
As governments step up their attempts to defy nature and bring about equality, they find it necessary to employ force. And when force enters the picture, some people are going to come under the control of others.
Thus, you may be surprised, after a little probing, to find that when people espouse freedom, often they are referring to their freedom, not yours. Worse, you are likely to discover that their freedom necessitates the violation of your freedom.
When freedom is subjectively defined by each individual, it is reduced to a meaningless abstract. The only way freedom can be rationally viewed is in its pure, no?compromise form: human freedom — the freedom for each individual to do as he pleases, so long as he does not commit aggression against anyone else.
Presidential candidates love to talk about freedom, even while telling us how they intend to further enslave us. They do this by manufacturing “rights” out of thin air. This year’s crop of candidates has been especially bold in this respect, babbling endlessly about our nonexistent rights and how they intend to fulfill them.
The problem is that all artificially created rights are anti-freedom, because in order to fulfill one person’s rights (read, desires), another person’s rights must be violated. That is precisely what is meant by Madam Obama’s infamous statement “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more.”
At the heart of such thinking are three converging afflictions: guiltism, envyism, and villainism. (More on all these in future articles.) People suffering from such afflictions do not want a free society. They are usually individuals who are unable to achieve success in a free society, thus they yearn for an external force (government) to “level the playing field” and equalize results.
So, my Memorial Day message to you is this: True freedom means freedom for the “poor,” the “rich,” the “handicapped,” the “oppressed,” the “weak,” and the “strong.” Simply put, human freedom means freedom for everyone.
Think about this in the coming months as the presidential candidates step up their promises to fulfill artificially created rights. Everything in life has a price, and, make no mistake about it, the price of artificially created rights is bondage — the exchange of your rights for someone else’s.
The following article was received via email this morning...I think it is imperative to have good grasp on what freedom is and isn't when having these political discussions. Many who are too far out on the branches forget that when you "synthetically" give rights to one group or other, you inadvertantly, take away the rights of another.
It is an important aspect to keep in mind when screaming fairness. There is no fairness in nature, why do you think there should be fairness in society, without actually creating unfairness?
A simple example would be...in a socialist society a lazy man would receive part of the accomplished mans' earnings, to be fair. But, how is that fair to the accomplished man?
Libertarianism is about natural law. Creating a Democracy is not about natural law, it is something that wants to stay close to natural law, but, by design must be less than. When you create a body of laws to govern a people, which includes taking care of the sick and needy (because we are not created equal, as it turns out.)There will always be a certain amount of unfairness taking place. The trick is to make it as little as possible and the only way to do that is by governing by the people, not the elite.
We, as a people, need to regroup.
Please read Robert Ringers article on freedom and do not let it fire up your pain body...because true freedom is painful and it will ever exist. It certainly does not exist in this country.
May 26, 2008
Reflecting on Freedom
By Robert Ringer
Memorial Day is a good time for us to step back and think about the subject of freedom, the commodity for which so many Americans have given their lives. Just about everyone claims to be in favor of freedom, but few seem to agree on what it means.
One person’s idea of freedom can violate another person’s freedom. To one man, liberty means doing what he wants with his own life, while to another it means doing what he wants with other men’s lives. Therefore, both of these men say that the other one’s concept of freedom is tyranny.
To the laissez?faire businessman, freedom means an end to all government regulation. To the communist, freedom can be achieved only when individual incentive has been crushed and “the people” own everything.
Some people believe that job quotas for minority groups promote freedom. But to a person who is anti-discriminatory in the truest sense of the word, quotas and seniority considerations are a violation of freedom.
Based on the evidence, I think we can safely conclude that throughout history men have miscommunicated on this subject. Since conservatives, liberals, bigots, fascists, communists, environmentalists, and every other group imaginable all claim to be in favor of freedom, they obviously cannot be talking about the same thing.
The dictionary defines freedom as “being free.” In turn, free is defined as “not under the control or power of another.” How can there be so much confusion over a definition so clearly stated? For one thing, when people talk about freedom, they have a tendency to think in terms of freedom for themselves. They see freedom as a license to do as they please.
Also, throughout history, utopian thinkers have confused freedom with equality. But nothing could be more incorrect. No matter what one’s moral desires, nature has made freedom and equality totally incompatible. “Freedom and equality,” wrote Will and Ariel Durant, “are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.’’
As governments step up their attempts to defy nature and bring about equality, they find it necessary to employ force. And when force enters the picture, some people are going to come under the control of others.
Thus, you may be surprised, after a little probing, to find that when people espouse freedom, often they are referring to their freedom, not yours. Worse, you are likely to discover that their freedom necessitates the violation of your freedom.
When freedom is subjectively defined by each individual, it is reduced to a meaningless abstract. The only way freedom can be rationally viewed is in its pure, no?compromise form: human freedom — the freedom for each individual to do as he pleases, so long as he does not commit aggression against anyone else.
Presidential candidates love to talk about freedom, even while telling us how they intend to further enslave us. They do this by manufacturing “rights” out of thin air. This year’s crop of candidates has been especially bold in this respect, babbling endlessly about our nonexistent rights and how they intend to fulfill them.
The problem is that all artificially created rights are anti-freedom, because in order to fulfill one person’s rights (read, desires), another person’s rights must be violated. That is precisely what is meant by Madam Obama’s infamous statement “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more.”
At the heart of such thinking are three converging afflictions: guiltism, envyism, and villainism. (More on all these in future articles.) People suffering from such afflictions do not want a free society. They are usually individuals who are unable to achieve success in a free society, thus they yearn for an external force (government) to “level the playing field” and equalize results.
So, my Memorial Day message to you is this: True freedom means freedom for the “poor,” the “rich,” the “handicapped,” the “oppressed,” the “weak,” and the “strong.” Simply put, human freedom means freedom for everyone.
Think about this in the coming months as the presidential candidates step up their promises to fulfill artificially created rights. Everything in life has a price, and, make no mistake about it, the price of artificially created rights is bondage — the exchange of your rights for someone else’s.