Why is freedom such a hard sell?

There are two ideologies. You can support individual liberty, or you can support governmental tyrrany. Why is it so hard to convince people that governmental control doesn't allow people to make their own decisions?

 

What is the purpose of individual liberty?

 

Maybe it depends on who the salesperson(s) is.............

 

What's the purpose of free will?

 

False dichotomy.

 

No its not. You can support the idea the idea that choices are unlimited or you can limit choice. Government is our means to limit choice. Limit choice and you limit liberty.
Why do we have such low faith in humanity to make good choices that we have to impose good choices with the power of government?

 

I do not know, can you answer my question first?

 

Why is liberterianism such a failure? Answer: it is not practical.

 

The purpose of free will is to allow the existence of love. Love must be freely offered. It can not be compelled. A system of justice must be established to ensure consequences for negative behavior that encroaches upon or prevents the free action of others, but we cannot love someone and punish them for actions that only serve their own self interest.

 

When you see States that find the need to regulate the size of soda you can buy , you see a government out of control !

 

Or course it is. Reality is simply not limited to either individual liberty or governmental 'tyranny'. Limiting choices (i.e. arson and assault with a deadly weapon being illegal) is not tyranny by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Because people aren't going to buy your two ideology shtick. People make decisions for lots of reasons. If you are hungry, freedom won't be at the top of your list of priorities. People will support their tribe or nation, regardless of freedom. The Manichean duality you propose doesn't explain every decision people are going to make,

On top of that, your duality is not correctly formulated. Tyranny can come from any direction, not just government.

 

It's not practical because people crave power over others. I'm not sure that's something to crow about.

 

I don't deny that people rationalize reasons to reject liberty. I reject them as valid.

 

It is completely possible to be enslaved by tyrants who claim they are not part of the government.

I've yet to have any person be able to show me a country with a weak central government that was not third world. There seems to be a sweet spot
between government intrusion and the anarchy which spells famine and desolation.

- - - Updated - - -

But it is reality.

 

I think that freedom scares some people. I remember fondly the time when bills had my dad's name on them, instead of mine.

At the end of the day, some are simply scared of the responsibilities of freedom.

 

Freedom is entirely ambiguous, and subjective. It's based on perspective and desire. To many, being single is freedom; to others, being single is a prison of temptation, desire, unfulfilled fantasies, hopes, intentions, trying, dating, scrutiny, and heartbreak. To some, marriage is a prison; to others, marriage is the ultimate freedom because it complements their spirit, moves them, and enhances their lives in ways they cannot do on their own.

This notion that love must be free is such a sales pitch; America has long used the ambiguity of freedom as a faux trump card sales pitch for all propaganda by shining it in any light it wishes; but all things are light & dark, and you can point out the freedom or the limitations in everything. Thus, any passionate ploy for "freedom" in America, especially backed by the screenplay of "THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM! IT'S TIME TO STOP THIS LONG PROBLEM THAT HAS LONG BEEN PROBLEMING EVERYONE FOR A LOOONG TIME!" is frequently marketed to sensationalize reality to provoke others into recruitment. But it is often an agenda.

You can literally mix, mold, accuse, tempt, and bend people's perspectives if they're chasing the dangling carrot of "freedom". Often times a person is in a perfectly content state of servitude because it enhances their lives with opportunities, resources, hopes, dreams, expectations, etc. They enjoy the submission, and in return they have a purpose.

Love is actually a dance; it is a dance of servitude & resistance. It is a push & pull. There is no creation without push & pull; everything must have a magnetic pulse to be real enough to constitute an energetic movement in the universe. You can't mold a statue without pushing & pulling, carving hands; you can't have love without pushing & pulling (personal sacrifice & reciprocal grace).

In many ways the government provides us freedom, because there are caustic predators that often limit others' ability to function in life happily. They need protection, structure, laws, and guidance; we all do. Without it there is nothing but a giant open empty field. The question is, what rules serve the highest good?

Freedom is ambiguous. You can approach anyone and argue they are in chains for any agenda you wish; you can look at any object and argue it possesses a dark side (a shadow), because all objects cast shadows—even water. Pointing out the shadows of the chains of love doesn't mean a person is unhappy.

 

Enslavement by individuals is much easier to overcome than enslavery by government

 

For many people, there is no choice. Once they are government dependent, they cannot handle the risks involved in regaining their liberty.

If sheep could vote, they would always vote for the guy that feeds them. Even if that same guy is regularly fleecing them. Even if that same guy leads them ultimately to the slaughter.

This is why, at the core of everything proposed by the Washington left, lies a common theme: expanding government dependency, and moving independence farther away from The People's reach. It's not that freedom is a hard sell, it's that government provided security is easier and less risky than essential liberty. Franklin had something to say about that.

 

What the hell? Freedom is pretty clearly defined.

 

Great comment. I have seen that the desire to control others is great with many. These folks are generally too stupid to understand that control is a double edged sword. When you support more power to the Gov't to control others through law for things you don't agree with, you end up with the Gov't making laws banning things you do agree with.

Rushdie put it well saying "Belief in freedom is not belief in freedom only for things you agree with ... everyone does that. If you do not believe in freedom for things that you "disagree with - (don't like personally) then you really do not believe in freedom at all"

 

It's not practical for the same reason that communism isn't practical.

It doesn't account for human nature.

 

The problem is that a lot of people desire to make decisions for other people. If we can eliminate that mindset, we'll have a freer society, but paternalism runs strong in both the left and right wings.

 

That is because you are rejecting human nature. Human nature is neither valid nor invalid, it just is. The range of possible human social behaviors is circumscribed by our evolutionary heritage. Humans are a social species with an inherited hierachical social structure. This will always pop up under any system.

Liberty is not just freedom from government tyranny. Tyranny can come at you from any and every direction. Your definition of liberty is defective, as is your definition of tyranny.

 

Power hates a vacuum.

We have seen in the past and present that when governments become weak, that most often criminal elements are more than happy to fill the void. In a perfect
world, this wouldn't happen, but that world only exists in the minds of Libertarians and Communists.