Thread: Freedom,, apparently worth fighting and dying for

Too bad Obama is strong on socialism,, and weak on leadership.

Too bad that the rabid right is against freedom when the free will of the people is not what they agree with.

"For those who fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."

There are varying degrees of freedom. One could say libertarians support the greatest degree of freedom, but freedom isn't everything.

Also, humanity in general only tends to revolt when things get really bad. America has plenty of problems, but we're nowhere close to being as oppressive as many of the governments of the Middle East are.

Originally Posted by GeorgeLaw

As seen in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain people lacking freedom for many years,

when they become aware of their lack by TV,internet,etc,,

are willing to fight and die for their freedom.

Yet in USA , freedom is taken for granted, and Libs pushing the socialistic

society and government similar to Europe (but wait , Europe is abrogating

socialism) with it's attendant eroding of Freedom .

Borrowing from Granadimal ""...Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."~ RONALDUS MAGNUS ~

Sounds like Tom Jefferson. Praise be to The Founders: Honor,Honesty, Leadership!!!

When and where did you ever fight or die for freedom?

Originally Posted by RDK

Too bad that the rabid right is against freedom when the free will of the people is not what they agree with.

"The free will (of the majority) of the people" should be vehemently opposed when it infringes upon the rights and freedom of the minority of the people.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

When and where did you ever fight or die for freedom?

I am dead as You speak,,ok zombie, with ConLib--I eat brains,,you obviously not to worry!!!!:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by RDK

Too bad that the rabid right is against freedom when the free will of the people is not what they agree with.

The difference is in the way that view freedom. The progressive mindset is that freedom exists in the absence of need or want while the conservative views freedom as, simply, the absence of interference.

For a progressive such things as hunger, pain and fear are oppressive forces which restrict liberty because they must be overcome before they can go about doing what they want to do. To a conservative those factors are merely natural indicators that what you are doing isn't working.

Well, as you might expect, luther, I'd put it a bit differently.

To a conservative, freedom is the condition in which the government doesn't tell you what to do, except when it's telling you to do what you ought to be doing in the conservative's opinion.

To a liberal, freedom is the condition in which nobody is telling you what to do. And there are no "except" clauses that apply.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Well, as you might expect, luther, I'd put it a bit differently.

To a conservative, freedom is the condition in which the government doesn't tell you what to do, except when it's telling you to do what you ought to be doing in the conservative's opinion.

To a liberal, freedom is the condition in which nobody is telling you what to do. And there are no "except" clauses that apply.

"Except" that if you make more money than most, you ought to have a chunk taken away from you by the government, and given to others.

Remember that one from the leftist's handbook?

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Well, as you might expect, luther, I'd put it a bit differently.

To a conservative, freedom is the condition in which the government doesn't tell you what to do, except when it's telling you to do what you ought to be doing in the conservative's opinion.

To a liberal, freedom is the condition in which nobody is telling you what to do. And there are no "except" clauses that apply.

I see....not.

So these folks in Wisconsin that are filling up the State house are doing something other that trying to force the state to provide special benefits just for them at the expense of everyone else? The gun grabbers aren't lobbying for restrictions on citizens that own things which they are scared of? The enviro crowd isn't pushing restrictions because they're afraid of something that Al Gore says is going to kill us all? The whole health care debate isn't focused on fear of pain and suffering?

Originally Posted by smurf

"Except" that if you make more money than most, you ought to have a chunk taken away from you by the government, and given to others.

Remember that one from the leftist's handbook?

Nope, that's not in there. Rather, if you are the owner of a business, so that your own income is what's left over after you pay your employees, then taking excessive profit by underpaying your employees constitutes an infringement on their freedom. Also, as an employer, you are a potential threat to liberty and need to be viewed with some suspicion for that reason, and the rights of the people you employ protected from potential abuse by you.

This sort of thing is not understood by conservatives because, as lutherf said, they have a different concept of freedom, apparently believing that only the government can ever be a threat to freedom. Oddly enough, conservatives also often seem not to have the same concept of when the government itself can be a threat to liberty, tolerating or even encouraging actions by the state that no liberal would countenance, in the name of national security or public order, or else of furthering a social-conservative agenda.

As I said, the conservative concept of freedom consists of a condition when the government doesn't tell you what to do, except when it's telling you to do what the conservative thinks you ought to be doing anyway.

Originally Posted by lutherf

So these folks in Wisconsin that are filling up the State house are doing something other that trying to force the state to provide special benefits just for them at the expense of everyone else?

Yep. They are. the "special benefits just for them at the expense of everyone else" part of negotiations is already over; the unions have agreed to the salary and benefit cuts that the government asked for. What they're demanding is the right to collectively bargain, which is a basic freedom of working people.

The gun grabbers aren't lobbying for restrictions on citizens that own things which they are scared of?

I think you'll need to talk to someone who advocates gun bans to defend that properly, but I will say that if I believed banning gun ownership would mean that people could walk the streets in greater confidence and less fear, doing so would mean a net increase of freedom. The reason I don't advocate a gun ban is not because I don't think that trade off would be a positive one but simply because I don't believe banning guns would achieve that result.

The enviro crowd isn't pushing restrictions because they're afraid of something that Al Gore says is going to kill us all?

Nope. They're pushing changes in what we use for energy because of something that virtually the entire scientific community and the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence says will otherwise cause radical and very bad consequences with a severe impact on everyone's freedom (and everyone's livelihood). This is a defense of freedom; the belief to the contrary is sheer ignorant shortsightedness.

The whole health care debate isn't focused on fear of pain and suffering?

Nope. It's focused on the belief that those whose personal economies is in ruins because of catastrophic health-care expenses are not free.