Posted on 11/09/2004 11:16:37 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
In yesterday's 11/05/04 ASAP I said no one wants freedom. According to at least three writers, when people have a chance to vote for freedom, they do not.
But I already knew that. I introduced Russ Madden's "THE FREEDOM QUIZ" in my10/22/04 ASAP. So far only eleven people both understand what freedom is and want it. Everyone else is, we presume, for some kind of limits on individual freedom.
Russ Madden makes the point in his article, "One Freedom," that there is only freedom, and one is either free or they are not. There are not degrees of slavery. If you want to know just how badly the nature of freedom is understood, take a look at the latest version of Russ' Atlas magazine.
I am convinced, most people really do not want to be free. This weeks poll, How Much Freedom Should There Be? Please vote in this poll. (Please wait for the page to fully load. The poll is on the left side.)
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Hank
Real freedom is chaos and anarchy. Just look at what would happen to something simple like traffic if real freedom reigned. Yipes!
Freedom without a guide (commandments, laws, etc.) would truly be awful.
What a nice poll, next time put in a description of what total freedom, limited freedom, and total state control. for heavens sake, generalizations in polls lead to meaningless results.
The only true freedom is in Christ. In Christ is the only true indiviuality. In Christ you are your own mountian, surrounded by a brotherhood of such mountains.
The political freedom of this country came about because of the fundamental truth that God through us does original things all the time and the other guy needs just as much room as you do for God to demonstrate His presence in him. There's plenty of elbow room in eternal life as reflected in governance. There is no room at all for total lack of new creation anywhere as outside of Christ/Logos/Word of God nothing is created and everything becomes a fight over supposed limited resources. Your 'freedom' is a hell in which 'everyone' is supposedly deceived there is only so much to go around and you want no restraints to get yours before its all gone. You must be born again to see and understand there is plenty and new creation going on all the time.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit which quickens, the flesh profits nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Yeah, whatever, Dude
The Quiz is too easy. To keep it interesting for most questions I constructed how private sector individuals would via business solve the problems. More than a few questions didn't apply. The premise of the questions were PC or status quo fabrications. Nothing against the questions. Just the acknowledgement that they should not have to be asked.
Yada, yada, yada...
I totally understand where he's going, but "liberty" is the calling of a people who are accountable to God. While I firmly believe some Americans are equipped for this, I also think that most others would decline into a 'Lord of the Flies' kind of anarchy.
It's a nice idea. Hell, communism (with a small 'c') is practised in small communities successfully but it fails on any level over the community or village level.
Likewise, Mr. Madden's ideas would function in small communities but fail in nation states.
Society requires structure to be viable. While the author is correct in defining freedom as he does, as an absolute, the freedom most of us (here) mean when using that word is better termed "liberty". Too many people these days no longer seem capable of discerning the difference. Other than a few fools (and various criminals), I very much doubt there is anyone who truly wants absolute freedom (because it implies freedom from responsibility along with everything else). And, while it should encompass many of the personal freedoms (while acknowledging the personal responsibility that accompanies them), it (liberty) also requires a structured environment, so that no one's liberty infringes on another's.
Amen
Congratulations, Hank. Another post which flushes out the totalitarians.
Wild animals don't even have complete freedom.
There are three little totalitarian devils every individual has to check: the body, the will, and the reason.
After kicking out the political bad guys in government we quickly discover that the threat of political slavery was no different from the threat of being enslaved to our expansive selves. We soon recognize that the macropolitics that is so hateful originates from the mismanaged micropolitics of our own selves.
If I answer "yes" to this I "don't want freedom"? Already the quiz is nonsense. The only way to answer "no" to this is to say that I "don't enjoy roads". WTF? I want there to be roads. I'm glad there's roads. I use roads. AND I think taxes are too high. So I answer "yes". There's no contradiction here but already I've lost my chance to reach the so-called "gold standard" of freedom. How stupid.
2. In order to ensure the safety of our food and medicines and the products we buy, we need government regulations and agents to protect us. Yes No
Like a lot of these questions, there's something of a false choice here. We need something to ensure the safety of food/medicines. That it be, necessarily, the government that does it is not all that important to me. But I don't have a big problem with it and there aren't many other options on the table so what the heck.
When I buy a can of soda I think it's reasonable to say there's a tacit contract between me, and the vendor & manufacturer, that it won't contain cyanide. Government enforces this contract. The more "free" option I suppose is to leave people "free" to sell cyanide-tainted soda if they want, then punish them for murder afterwards. And the like.
I don't see why the result would be more "free" however. Our way, the conditions for a functioning, efficient market are set up. The "free" way would make the soda market rather difficult to navigate. Now, I understand that the "freedom" lover would have in mind that, perhaps, consortiums of soda manufacturers would get together and create an independent soda verification agency which would certify the safety of the soda etc etc etc.... the result of all of which would eventually be (drumroll) something like what we have today anyway. Big deal. What's the point?
I have to give this one at least a 1/2 Yes.
3. It doesn't matter if the president asks Congress to declare wars. Since he's the commander-in-chief, he needs to be able to send our troops whenever and to wherever he decides is necessary. Yes No
My answer is "No" but I don't see the relevance. Congress has created a War Powers act giving the President the authority to do what he wants for 3 months (or whatever). Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq. It's ok the way it is now.
4. Medical marijuana should perhaps be legalized, but some recreational drugs are simply too dangerous and cause too many problems to allow people to use them. Yes No
Maybe. What's a "recreational drug"? 1/2 Yes.
6. It's simply wrong to say that government should not legislate morality. That's one of its primary functions.
I answer "Yes" to this too but not, I suspect, for the reason the quiz-writer had in mind. I think it's wrong to say that government should not legislate morality because you simply cannot separate morality from law. Murder is immoral and it is legislated against by government. But then I guess I "don't want freedom" on this question either... stupid
7. We should legally punish people who are cruel to their pets or the animals they own.
Yes. Not that I'd endorse the death penalty mind you, but torturing animals is not a "freedom" I highly value.
12. Jury members should only decide the facts of a case, not the law itself.
Is there a "Depends" option? Why not? White jury members in the South were known to decide that the law is wrong if it makes killing black people equally illegal as killing white people. I'm not ok with that. However, I'm ok with jury nullification in other instances. Depends. Another 1/2 Yes.
15. People should not be allowed to sell body parts.
I lean to "Yes" here. The quiz-writer's "freedom" seems to extend to the "freedom" to be exploited when in desperate circumstances. Selling one's body parts because one desperately needs the money is (by my reckoning) actually a bit more extreme than selling oneself into slavery for a one-time cash payout because one desperately needs the money. At least with slavery your body remains intact.
Now, should I support the right to sell oneself into slavery, in the interest of "freedom"? If not, why would I approve selling body parts?
17. Secondhand smoke is dangerous enough to justify antismoking laws.
What a front-loaded question. I mean, I hate anti-smoking Nazis and all, and I certainly think the dangers of secondhand smoke have been exaggerated, but even I think it's ok to ban smoking in certain confined places such as airplanes. Yet the only way for me to answer "No" here is if I think ALL antismoking laws are unjustified. I'll be charitable though and only give it a 1/2 Yes.
18. People should not exploit others during emergencies. Therefore, we must have anti-gouging laws.
I'm not sure what the point of this question is. I didn't know "anti-gouging laws" were that big a deal. As far as I can tell, gouging certainly takes place in limited amounts, but is punished in extreme cases. I'm ok with that. Ok, so 1/2 Yes.
21. Government should preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and outlaw gay marriage, polygamy, and other nontraditional arrangements.
I think it's in society's interests to promote the institution of marriage. However, my preferred option isn't even here: some sort of "civil union" not called "marriage" for gay couples who want it, also eliminate some of the sillier complaints which gay people have and use to argue for gay marriage. e.g. "I want to be able to visit my partner in the hospital!" For crying out loud, let the guy visit his lover in the damn hospital, what the heck do I care? Also, I'd leave it up to the states anyway. Kansas would likely ban gay marriage, Mass. won't. The Constitutional amendment I'd support wouldn't "ban gay marriage", it would just close the "full faith and credit" loophole. (I *think* that's the one that Bush supports, though admittedly I'm not sure.)
Another 1/2 Yes.
23. Since medical care is a right, the government has to ensure it is available to everyone.
Argh. I can't believe I'm saying this but I have to give this at least a 1/4-Yes. I don't believe "medical care is a right", but for crying out loud I think we all accede to the idea that if a pauper falls down and splits his head, you call 9-1-1, an ambulance comes, and he's treated by doctors. Well guess what, any way you slice it, some way or another that's gonna HAVE TO mean "the government" is "ensuring" that "medical care" (at some minimal level) is "available" to that pauper.
24. Our society is too complex now to reduce the size of government to what it was at the beginning of this country.
Sigh. 1/2-Yes. I'm all for reducing the size of government, but, um, there's more people and there's also more technology and more stuff. I don't wanna go through the math but you add it up and it means that even in my conservative wildest dreams the government's still going to be "bigger" than it was in 1776.
25. To protect consumers from unscrupulous or incompetent people, we need occupational licensing.
Yes. He forgot to front-load this question by including the phrase "by the government", so I get to say the correct answer is "Yes" with a clean conscience of freedom-loving :-)
29. Scientific research, in general, is vital to a healthy economy and should be funded by the government. Yes No
I lean to Yes (though not necessarily at current levels or in the way we do it now). If only cuz our military needs fancy weapons. ;-)
More freedom-hating!
33. The gold standard is an antiquated and unworkable notion. Our money should be controlled by the government. Yes No
I've never understood the fascination with the gold standard. Probably just not smart enough. But I'll give it only a 1/2 Yes, because it's not really that I think the gold standard is "antiquated and unworkable", I just don't get why it's so important. And I'm open to alternatives to "controlled by the government". (Then again, our money isn't really all that "controlled by the government", there's this guy Alan Greenspan who... oh I'm just not smart enough, never mind).
34. Zoning laws, building codes, and urban planning are required to keep our cities from collapsing into chaos. Yes No
Heh. I actually don't have a huge problem with some zoning laws, building codes etc. but still this one's easy to answer No. No, I don't think the opposite of zoning is "chaos" :-)
37. Insider trading is wrong and should remain illegal.
I agree this gets a No. However, it must be admitted that insider trading is bad for the market in the long run, if potential investors are scared off because they think it's all rigged. So it's more a matter of the government fulfilling a role which helps the market prosper. I do think there has to be a better way than putting Martha Stewart in jail, not that I know what it is. But all right, I'm saying No.
41. Since we all have the right to vote for our governmental representatives, everyone must accept the results of the democratic laws they pass.
Um. Yes. Unless he's just saying there's a right to civil disobedience? Well sure, but one thing that goes along with civil disobedience is you could find yourself in jail for breaking the law that you don't like. Or maybe he just means "accept" as in, accept it emotionally/personally? Well of course No you don't need to "accept" that a law you don't like has passed. Organize, get out the vote, and try to repeal it. Actually I think I just need to disregard this question because it doesn't make much sense.
43. We need government or we'll end up with another Great Depression.
Argh. I have to say 1/2-Yes. We need government but I'm not sure WTF it has to do with the Great Depression.
44. Of course, we're free. Just look at places like North Korea.
Even though it's barely a question, a sane person has to answer this one Yes.
The rest, I was able to answer No. But way too many of these were front-loaded. Anyway, adding up my Yes (and fractional-Yes) responses above, if my math is correct I got a score of 12.75, "Bronze standard".
Here's what the genius who wrote this quiz says that means:
While you may want the freedom to do what you want, you think you have the right to force others to do what's right...according to your standards.
Now, I explained my reasoning for all Yes and partial-yes answers above. Does this summary really fit my explanations?
Or is it just that this is a ridiculous quiz?
A society, by its very definition, functions because all members thereof decide and universally agree on some limitations.
|
Paraphrased from Aria #1. Also from that link is this:
*The purpose of conscious life is to live creatively, happily, eternally. *The function of government is to provide the conditions that let individuals fulfill that purpose...
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him". -- Thomas Jefferson
Primary: when a person thinks they have been harmed by another person they have the option of taking the person to court before an impartial jury in order to gain restitution for their loss and suffering.
Secondary: if the criminal poses a reasonably expected danger to society reeducation and or incarceration must be considered.
Does this summary really fit my explanations?
IMHO, yes.
You may be your own worst threat and enemy. I assure you that does not apply to me.
Reminds me of the lib editorialist who wrote, a week or so before the election, that since our voter participation rates are so low, we should emulate those foreign nations who fine/punish those who do not provide an acceptable excuse for not voting. (Never mind those who refuse to vote as a form of protest.) Once again, to liberals, if you are not behaving they way they think you ought to, then you should be forced to change... all in the name of promoting freedom, of course! LOL
Interesting. Cite examples of me "want[ing] the freedom to do what [I] want, [thinking I] have the right to force others to do what's right...according to [my] standards."
Right. Well, how is it enforced? How will it be proven that something was "mis-labeled"? Will businesses clamor for more guidelines so they can participate in the market with a semi-reasonable amount of security that they will not be sued or prosecuted at the drop of a hat for mis-labeling? What will the result be? IMHO: Something like what we already have, a "DEA" and "FDA" and so on. Keep in mind I only gave this half a Yes.
A free market system would still work, if we had one.
Like a lot of libertarian ideas, I usually tend to agree that a more free market system (for food regulation, int this example) would "work", but when I think through what they have in mind, and what would result (i.e. make it "work"), the difference between the imagined end product and what we currently have is rather miniscule and not worth the effort of the intervening "adjustment period". This may help flesh out the thinking behind a lot of my answers. Best,
I've heard that line before. All real devils claim innocence.
Cite examples
No thanks. You asked a question and I gave my opinion.
Well, okay. Each Airline can decide it's smoking policies and let the market determine their "fate". You need not enlist government agents to initiate force, fraud or coercion against any person or business that has not initiated force against anyone. Rather than going point-by-point I offer this...
James. J. Hill built the Great Northern railroad one leg at a time via his own private funds. He began at the east coast and headed west. When he reached the west coast his customers began trading with Asian countries. So he bought a steam ship line. Needless to say his railroad and shipping company were very profitable. And he was helping to industrialize India and China.
During the mean time the US government built three railroads. They were all hemorrhaging tax dollars. However, it was the government throwing money at the railroad builders by the mile. The faster they built the more tax payers' money they received. The builders didn't pay attention to hills/grades and laid track over frozen ground. hundreds of milles had to be torn up and re laid.
Well, the tax payers got fed up ("Fed up", that's so appropriate) so the government responded by blaming the railroad builders and suppliers and created the Sherman Anti Trust Act and the IRC.
James J. Hill tried to educate congress that they should get out of the railroad building business alltogether. He even set up an office in D.C., wrote a book and tried to get them to take his example of how to build a profitable railroad as hw to do it right. But politicians had their own usurped power and unearned paychecks -- their self interest and job security -- in mind.
Within two years of the IRC and Anti Trust act James J. Hill -- whose business had been growing at 600% a year -- had lost eighty percent of his business. Not only did parasitical elites in congress smash down James J. Hill, the industrialization of China faltered and communism stormed in. Twenty million innocents killed.
If only China's population of a billion people were producing free-market values to their citizens of the world; would we have cures for cancer and Aids? The essence of business is solving problems. Henry Ford saw a problem and he solved it. James J. Hill saw a problem and began solving it. Until the parasitical elites in congress smashed him down for nothing other than to maintain their usurped power and unearned paychecks. With China's billion people perhaps brought the they would have brought world a hydrogen economy.
End of semi-rant.
I have proof. You have parables and make assertions. You don't know me.
If N smokers are on an airplane with me, and smoking, do you think N can ever be so large that the cumulative effect of their exhaled smoke on the air I'm breathing "initiates force" against me? If not, we have little further to discuss. If so, what remedy do you propose?
No idea what this has to do w/your railroad history.
There are three little totalitarian devils every individual has to check: the body, the will, and the reason.
After kicking out the political bad guys in government we quickly discover that the threat of political slavery was no different from the threat of being enslaved to our expansive selves. We soon recognize that the macropolitics that is so hateful originates from the mismanaged micropolitics of our own selves.
Each person wants himself to be free but wants restrictions on others who may threaten his security. Many individuals are also willing to sell some of their own freedom. As long as it is their to sell, that is fine.
Yes. Well put.
Is this a quote from someone? If so, who? If not, never mind. Seems like gabble to me.
Nobody is free without Jesus Christ. It is clear that you ARE NOT free pal. Take your trash somewhere else.
You can find the same sentiments in Sophocles or Shakespeare. They are more eloquent.
Hank has posted here for some time; there is a certain amount of liberty to flesh out the arguments on FR. Your suggestion restricts open dialogue.
No idea what this has to do w/your railroad history.
It pertains to politicians and bureaucrats in general. It also an example of what nobody said could be done. Back in JJ.. Hill's day when he set out to build his railroad along the northern boarder people called it "Hill's folly". Saying things like, "you'll never make it without government funding" and "it can't be done". he proved all the naysayers wrong. Unfortunately government parasites caused everybody but themselves to lose -- China included.
Do you grasp the magnitude of destruction? Do you grasp how roads could be built and maintained without government?
I heard you the first time. I get that you're your own worst enemy. I'm not. Is that a mouse in your pocket or do you generally spout "we" collectivist clap-trap?
You didn't answer my question about whether smoking, in certain situations, can ever be an initiation of force.
If it can, this is a little like saying "The airline tells you whether murder is permitted on the flight".
If it can't in your opinion, say so.
For flights were smoking was permitted there would probably be a designated smoking section. The airline on that flight is not going to guarantee you a smoke free ride.
For the record, if it were up to me, then "Smoking Flights" (for that matter, "Smoking Airlines") would certainly be permitted. The flights would have to be designated as such. The default however would be that smoking is prohibited.
Saying things like, "you'll never make it without government funding" and "it can't be done". he proved all the naysayers wrong.
I'm not advocating government funding here or anything of the sort. Nor is it clear what you think I'm saying "can't be done". The government has laws on the books restricting smoking on airplanes and I'm ok with those laws.
Do you grasp the magnitude of destruction?
From..... banning smoking on airplanes? No.
Do you grasp how roads could be built and maintained without government?
Sure. Heck murderers could be punished without government. That doesn't necessarily mean the government-free solution is the preferable one.
What a hoot!
Im 1/2 a yes on #50, does that make me Electrum?
Collectivist is incorrect, Zon. I'm talking about a check on the arrogant nature of the self or individual.
Now if you believe that "freedom" and "liberty" equal, "Do WHat Thou Wilt SHall Be the Whole of The Law", then you are possibly a Gold Standard Bearer. HAOWEVUH:
The FOunders, I believe, had the prescience of mind a nd belief, and the inherent distrust of complete and total freedom, which is after all, ANARCHY, just like a PURE democracy is merely the Rule of The Mob, to recognize that societies endure because of The Rule of Law. Enduring representative republics endure because of the moral and religious mores' that make them great.
SOcieties NEED LIMITS, and we can debate the limits of the restrictions, because thats what makes this a great country. We've been having the debate for almost 230 years, and we still haven't come to an amicable decision. That is the nature of a vibrant intellectual debate on the limits of what people should or should not be able to do. We are the most charitable, compassionate, and tolerant society that still retains the semblance of morality on the face of this planet, regardless of what slurs the Left in this country tries to hang around our necks.
A wise Man once said, in the end, "The American People Get What They Want."
And 11/2/04 proved him right again.
Right. This points out a difference between those Founders and the ideas of the French. Some imaginatively prefer that the American Revolution was really a French Revolution.
There is no, or little, loss of freedom in paying taxes (user fees) for services we all want and use - mail, roads, etc. There is a lot of loss of freedom in being charged excessive taxes to pay for medical care for a welfare queen.
careful. You are about to turn this into another RINO Specter abortion war thread.
That's all well and good if the Constitution still applied to a nation 5-10 million people. In ONE respect, I don't think the Founders envisioned a nation of 300, 000,000 people of hundreds of nationalities.
I'm not saying that The Constitution is a living document, but there are RULES for AMENDING the document, and they should be followed, except where national security is an overriding interest.
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.