Freedom Is Not Painless

[g5000]

With freedoms and liberties, there are always risks. The important thing is to realize those risks are far less injurious than tyranny or collectivist totalitarianism. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights. We had lived under tyranny and did not ever want to revert back to it.

With freedom of speech, there are always going to be people who hurt your feelings. There are going to be internet bullies. There is going to be midget porn.

With freedom of religion, there are always going to be people who worship Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or trees, or no entities at all.

With freedom of the press, there are always going to be gutter journalists "with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind". There will always be a Beck and an Olbermann and a Huffpost and a Breitbart.

With a right to bear arms, there are always going to be homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings.

With a right to be free from unreasonable searches and self-incrimination, there will always be criminals who get away with their crimes. Without this freedom, a tyrannical government always seems to find the crime it is looking for, whether or not the crime actually occurred.


We must protect these freedoms even if we don't like Allah or midget porn. We must protect these freedoms even if we don't like guns.

When asking someone to prove a "need" before they exercise their rights, try applying that illogic to a freedom you cherish (say, porn), and ask yourself what kind of country we would be without our freedoms and liberties.

When we become obsessed with "security" at the cost of sacrificing freedom, we are allowing the collectivist totalitarian in each of us to erase our national memory of an earlier time under oppression.

Do you really want the government to be allowed to spy on your Muslim neighbor without judicial oversight in the name of "security"? Do you really want the government to prevent your neighbor from owning a certain type of gun in the name of "security"?

Do you really want the government to force a partisan web site overrun with hacks to give equal time to the other end of the political spectrum?

Do you really want the government to stop people with means from buying time to speak their views?


Are your attempts to eliminate risks really good for our country, or are you just some kind of control freak feeding your inner totalitarian? What kind of precedent are you setting for the next person who wants to place limits on our freedoms who may be someone whose ideas you don't like?

We have become a country of pain-avoidance collectivists.

It's time to stop that.

 

[The Infidel]

Do NOT mess with my midget porn damn it!!!

 

[g5000]

Do NOT mess with my midget porn damn it!!!

You don't NEEEEEEED midget porn. As for all categories of porn, you do not need more than a ten minute capacity DVD. Too much porn kills.

 

[g5000]

By the way, if you are reading this, your name and IP address have been noted by the Department of Homeland Security. You're on T3H List now, citizen.

 

[Freemason9]

Good points, g5000.

 

[TNHarley]

Great OP!

 

[there4eyeM]

The 'fly in the ointment' is the hidden word in freedom - responsibility. Any responsible person can have all the freedom possible. Any irresponsible person will abuse any freedom.

That is not an excuse for infringement on freedom.

I oppose all censorship.

I don't care if guns are sold.

I would prefer that government be as small as possible.

I would prefer that the poor, incapable and infirm be cared for directly by their communities and not by huge bureaucracies.

I see very clearly that I am in a small minority. Most people do not want responsibility for their acts. That is why they associate themselves with patriotism, religion and ideology so that they can point to something 'external', 'objective' that has 'the truth' they can and must follow.

That is why we don't have freedom.

 

[g5000]

The 'fly in the ointment' is the hidden word in freedom - responsibility. Any responsible person can have all the freedom possible. Any irresponsible person will abuse any freedom.

That is not an excuse for infringement on freedom.

I oppose all censorship.

I don't care if guns are sold.

I would prefer that government be as small as possible.

I would prefer that the poor, incapable and infirm be cared for directly by their communities and not by huge bureaucracies.

I see very clearly that I am in a small minority. Most people do not want responsibility for their acts. That is why they associate themselves with patriotism, religion and ideology so that they can point to something 'external', 'objective' that has 'the truth' they can and must follow.

That is why we don't have freedom.

There will always be irresponsible people. Some rules are a pre-emptive attempt to prevent irresponsible people from harming others. And that is where we most easily tread on our freedoms.

The debate becomes about how many guiltless people's freedoms do we want to restrain in order to prevent the pain caused by a few.

I think somewhere back in the mists of time, we overstepped. We have become accustomed to enforced restraint being the answer to every pain.

 

[Freemason9]

Well.

One's "freedom" is reduced whenever one is in the presence of other people. I think we all understand that.

And individual freedom is increasingly limited whenever the population increases for several reasons; basically, though, we strive to avoid rioting, looting, vigilantism, and anarchy.

For the most part, people understand and work within these constraints.

 

[g5000]

Well.

One's "freedom" is reduced whenever one is in the presence of other people. I think we all understand that.

And individual freedom is increasingly limited whenever the population increases for several reasons; basically, though, we strive to avoid rioting, looting, vigilantism, and anarchy.

For the most part, people understand and work within these constraints.

Yeah, social contract. I can't piss in your yard.

But you might not like your neighbor wearing a nazi armband and decide that should be forbidden. Or your neighbor might wear a turban and you might decide he bears extra watching.

Then we have a problem with overstepping with our restraints of the guiltless.

 

[Papawx3]

"In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" - Samuel Adams

 

[Freemason9]

Well.

One's "freedom" is reduced whenever one is in the presence of other people. I think we all understand that.

And individual freedom is increasingly limited whenever the population increases for several reasons; basically, though, we strive to avoid rioting, looting, vigilantism, and anarchy.

For the most part, people understand and work within these constraints.

Yeah, social contract. I can't piss in your yard.

But you might not like your neighbor wearing a nazi armband and decide that should be forbidden. Or your neighbor might wear a turban and you might decide he bears extra watching.

Then we have a problem with overstepping with our restraints of the guiltless.

Yup, and that's where government steps in--government can serve to protect individuals from the tyranny of the masses.