Skip to comments.Let’s Get Rid of Freedom and Replace It with ‘FreeSmart’
Posted on 12/17/2010 9:14:32 AM PST by decimon
Who here loves freedom?
Everyone raised their hands, I see. Well, youre all liars!
Here in America, were trained from birth to say we love freedom, but is freedom really what were all about? What do you like about freedom, anyway? That you can do whatever you want? Well, what do you want to do? You want to go out to eat? Well, whatever you eat is regulated by the FDA, health inspectors make sure you wont get sick, and everyone working at the restaurant falls under various laws protecting their jobs and wages.
Do you want to drive? Well, then you certainly need to follow all the regulations specified for government-owned roads while using a government-approved vehicle. Do you want to use some consumer electronics? Those are regulated to make sure their signals dont interfere with each other, and laws protect you to make sure they arent dangerous. And in everything you might do there are lawyers everywhere making sure all are following the rules and working together.
Do you see much freedom there? Maybe not, but then what is freedom? When you boil it down, freedom is people being served rotten food and getting sick and dying. Its people driving polluting cars the wrong way down a street. Its consumer goods that kill you while corporations laugh at your misfortune. Its racist armed militia members not paying social security. Its polluted lakes and dead baby polar bears. Its poorly built buildings collapsing on you. Its homophobic bullies. Its obese children waddling down the street as they stuff their faces with trans-fats. Its filthy. Its chaos. Its not civilized.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Radical Islamo-Fascists and Radicalized Marxists in the White Crib are Freedophobes, Libertiphobes, and Capitalistophobes.
Oh, Goody! Utopia is just around the corner!
The writer seems to think that freedom is synonymous with anarchy. Freedom is good and is best expressed through Conservatism. Russell Kirk's ten principles of Conservatism contains this:
NINTH Conservatives perceive the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. When every person claims to be a power unto himself society falls into anarchy. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism. The conservative tries to limit and balance political power. Power the revolutionaries thought oppressive in the hands of an old regime, can become worse in the hands of tyrannical new masters.
They are creating a false dichotomy that freedom means rotten food or bullies because they aren’t regulated away. The reality is freedom, in a free market, means that the market wouldn’t stand for someone serving rotten food. Instead of imaginary minimums of quality, those competing in the market would compete to provide the highest quality at the best prices as demanded by the consumer. It could actually set the bar higher.
What the article calls “freedom” is actually anarchy. Fact is, there are some “common good” laws needed, but at the state level. One reason for that is that it keeps the bureaucracy relatively small and close, and causes states to compete: If one state has a really “sweet” welfare deal, pretty soon anyone paying for it has moved out.
BTW, life is risk. Freedom really DOES mean more danger. But heck, if we really wanted total security, why would we ever leave home?
I just noticed who the author was. Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us. Most of his writing is a parody of leftist belief.
We don’t live in a free country. Americans don’t want it.
We are regulated from dawn to dusk. Just the way we like it.
Streets are crawling with armed government thugs with a code book so large you can’t fit it into the back of a squad car.
No product goes to market without navigating a maze of tax and regulatory hurdles.
Land of the Free, home of the regulated and fearful.
We live in tough times for satire. The reality is so bizarre, that satire is often hard to recognize. For that reason, I find satire to be an ineffective means of humor or political commentary.
The author is using sarcasm to pillory the myth of “freedom loving Americans”.
>>We dont live in a free country. Americans dont want it.<<
I firmly agree with your whole post. Fred explains what happened pretty well in an article called “The Suicide of Marlboro Man”:
You’re right. Bad companies skate from responsibility by minimally complying with regulations.
That this was on Pajamas Media clued me in before reading. Otherwise, it does get harder to tell who is serious. Take Joe Biden...please.
Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and has been hostile to reality ever since it took away Santa Claus.
That’s depressing. But true.
I guess still parts of northern Alaska so cold nobody will every develop. But then, I would be in northern Alaska...
But in truth freedom is cultural. The city, and “civilization” don’t like it, don’t teach it, don’t want it. It is intentional.
Fact is, Lefties don't really want to regulate everybody - they only want to regulate you. They really do believe in freedom for themselves, and that extends to a complete freedom from the stricture of law and morality, especially insofar as the latter stems from religion. Not for you, however.
Freedom is the reason that my constitution prohibits counties or municipalities from “regulating, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms”* and yet every city- or county-courthouse I’ve seen has a big NO WEAPONS sign on the building.
If this had been on an unfamiliar site, I'd have read it more carefully to decide if he is serious.
Wife and I have often laughed at a mental image of an American bureaucrat in an Asian day market going catatonic from shock at the free and unregulated sales taking place around him.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.
Anything for a wealthy Bronxvillian. ;-)
I remember you now decimon. :) Your parents live here, right? I wish I was rich but alas no more, in fact, as we speak I’m making arrangements to prepare for the imminent assault on both money and person not unlike the French Revolution aka their revisionist take on it. There’s no doubt in my mind that Beck’s predictions will transpire - it’s just a matter of when...just not sure where to go...
Bronxville, New York, right?
I just know Bronxville from passing through. There are some beautiful houses there.
Okay, someone's going to have to do it, so it may as well be me. I'll play Devil's Advocate.
In the deregulated 19th century, you could find anything from grit to chalk powder to dandruff in your bread because bakers would put any old junk into the mix to save on the cost of ingredients. This wasn't because they were scumbags, it's because there was no margin at all on a loaf of bread. In fact, if they'd made a proper loaf WITHOUT cheating, and priced it accordingly, only the upper middle classes would've been able to afford to buy the product. Fast forward to the mid 1990s, and one take-away I used to frequent got closed down for putting greyhound and rottweiler meat in their spicier curries. I suppose the same applies and it's a bit like the rat burger in Demolition Man... if there's a market, and a bit of enterprise, that sort of thing will go on. I've never quite worked out if I should've been outraged when I found out what was actually in the curries, or not, but at the time I just called it like John Spartan: "Tastes pretty good!".
The real question is, how many people would be prepared to put up with that, and how many would whine, "I ordered a chicken korma but this is a kitten korma!". Without food regulation, you have no guaranteed right to expect you get what you ordered.
And you can say a similar thing about medicines. There's a raft of reasons why it takes a billion dollars to put a new cancer drug into hospitals, and one of them is down to some snake oil salesman in the 1930s who fleeced people across America, selling them poison and pretending it was medicine. He got away with it for a few decades. Take the FDA protocols away and many, many new treatments will arrive a lot faster and come in a lot cheaper... but, the trade-off would be, a lot more incidents like this.
According to BBC4 this week, the "liberal do gooders" in the 19th Century, like Charles Kingsley, campaigned against child labor on the basis that kids should work for a living, but be suitably renumberated and not worked to death. It was more the wealthy middle class right wing evangelicals who concocted the notion of the sanctity and innocence of a work-free childhood, and it was those kinds of people who were responsible for campaigning for universal education in the UK. Who'd have thought it - CONSERVATIVES being responsible for the "nanny state" and LIBERALS being responsible for laissez-fair right to work?!
If you're against government intervention, would you roll back the child protection, child labor, child education laws? If any of these are open to debate how far would you want to go? If you're against lowering the Age of Consent for drinking or smoking or marrying, do you return to the Victorian principle of "parents know best"? what about when the parents send their kids up chimneys or into bakers' ovens? Do you want intervention then?
I guess I'm just trying to say, rolling back Big Brother is a very good idea to start from, but there's quite a wide range of views as to what should be rolled back and what shouldn't.
The author shows a true mastery of faulty logic. The opposite of the government over-regulating is not lousy food, people dying of food poisoning, or death on the streets. Undoubtedly liberals will eat it up.
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.