Why is freedom such a hard sell?

I won't bother to rescue those who keep slitting their own wrist, because I am not the cops. It's your life, not mine that you degrade with your ignorance. Freeing a murderer to kill people is the loss of freedom for its victims; the fact that you cannot see that freedom is subjective shows that you are not here to seek justice.

 

It's not a failure. It just isn't the sort of ideology that lends itself to power mongering. It's like the stories of George Washington and Calvin Coolidge. Those with the least desire to intrude upon others' lives don't usually have a lasting power structure to maintain their influence in a given system. George reluctantly accepted the presidency despite his popularity and ruled in a relatively restrained fashion. Calvin Coolidge was also a mostly restrained president and refused to break the unwritten maximum of 8 years in office despite his popularity as well.

It's not a failure, but it is an approach to power that few have the discipline for.

 

What you did is spend a whole lot of time trying to rationalize limitations to freedom in order to justify the limitation of freedom. Quite the circular argument you have there. I'll give you a B for effort but your argument is trash.

 

Those are not the only choices. Interesting question spoiled by an over-the-top false choice OP.

 

What is the third choice between individual choice and collective choice?

 

Compromise. It's like the first time that OG realized that if he didn't bash Gorn over the head with his club and they worked together to improve their lives
together. So easy, even a Caveman can do it. (Not sure about some conservatives though ...).

 

Dude, you have nothing to offer us on freedom because you don't even know how the universe works—let alone social systems, laws, and this conversation. The universe has two primary modes in the binary flicker: Preservation & Destruction. Preservation is chains, while destruction is freedom. The dance of these two forces allow the universe to evolve in systematic blossoms of reproducing lifeforms with lifespans, planets, and bodies in the laws of physics. The destruction of these forces allow the energy to move about, transform, change, and grow.

"Freedom" is wholly and completely so unbelievably subjective that throwing it around, especially in the rhetoric of a nation, is nothing short of sheer blasphemy.

The idea is to come up with liberties that allow the systems to flourish for the good of all; this tweaking, however, has taken billions of years of evolution to get where we are—and thousands of more within higher governmental evolution to get where it is. Sometimes the systems fall backward into corruption, other times they move forward; "freedom", however—my friend—was originally attributed to the freedom of taxes, and liberty to capitalistically pursue the powers of the time.

For many, the liberty of women means the loss of liberty for men (the liberty to control them). All securements & liberties are nothing but a dance, and completely subjective. When you say you want freedom, it is like saying you want to eat something. EAT WHAT!?

 

So exactly what is it you are not free to do that is eating you up inside?

 

people aren't half as smart as we'd like to believe they are. we all recognize the need for some sort of government. it's a necessity that keeps the strong from preying on the weak. the problem arises when we see how well a limited government works. we see a few problems solved and think that a few more problems could be solved in the same manner. then a few more and a few more and a few more... soon we are trying to legislate all our problems away, even if they are only potential problems or imaginary problems. in their ignorance, the people believe that each problem they come across can be solved with the judicious use of governmental force and that they can still retain their freedom. what they never seem to understand (until it is far too late) is that an important part of freedom is solving your own problems. each solution you try to force on the population as a whole creates more problems for some and then the solutions to those problems create more problems and on and on.

as i said, as a species we aren't too terribly bright. we've been making this same mistake throughout history.

 

Homosexuals get so riled up at the fact that other people aren't homosexual.

 

Congratulations! You just argued that life is subjective.

 

I can't speak for Fang, but here's a list of where either the feds or certain states prevent people from making their own decisions:

using recreational drugs
getting married to someone of the same gender
having an abortion without getting harassed about it
buying a large drink size
doing online gambling
open carry of a gun outside your home
concealed carry outside of your home
reporting on the ingredients of a fracking solvent
whistleblowing on the illegal activities of a company
buying prescription drugs from Canada (or various other countries)

That's just a small glimpse of the statism that comes from either the feds or state governments. Statism is pretty rampant in a lot of this country when it comes to people wanting to tell others what they can or can't do.

 

If you do not see there are choices between caveman living alone in the woods fighting for his own survival and being a slave to a tyrannical king building his pyramids and such, then I believe that your world view is as stated. I believe that most people, however, can see a lot of playing room between the two.

 

Compromise works for certain things, but there does seem to be a continual push by certain societies to limit the freedoms of individuals for the sake of "societal cohesion."

This is less a problem here than it is in much of Europe. A good example of this is how criticizing minorities can sometimes be labeled as "hate speech", even if the criticisms have a valid basis.

 

Please. It is that "government tyranny" that ensures your "individual liberty."

You can only have "individual liberty" if you are the only person around. The precise moment you come in contact with another individual you infringe on one another's "individual liberty." Without government's tyranny it is every man for himself, only the strong survive to murder, rape and pillage as they wish. That is not "individual liberty," that is anarchy.

So, your "theory" may sound good on right wing talk radio but in the daylight? It's not even smoke and mirrors.

 

Lets not and say we did

The question here is how to define "Freedoms" in a way that makes sense. Fortunately the founders did the heavy lifting.

In simple terms ... your freedoms end where the nose of another begins !

The founding principles of this nation puts individual rights and freedoms/ personal liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. (As per the Declaration)

The other main principle is that the authority of Gov't comes from "We the People" as opposed to Divine Right/God (God says so) as was the case in Europe previous to the enlightenment.

Jefferson summarizes as follows:

For the rational behind these principles on can study the basics of Classical Liberalism - Social Contract (Locke, Rousseau and others)
or if you like I can summarize these basics.

So while in general "freedom" is not clearly defined, in terms of the founding principles of this nation freedom is rather well defined.

 

OP, why do you say that freedom is a hard sell? People use the concept to defend political and legal decisions all the time. It's one of the most common buzzwords.

And of course, as some people have mentioned, government action is not necessarily contradictory to freedom, except according to an extremely narrow liberal perception.

But is that honestly a sensible way to define the term? It's obvious that freedom on a social scale must involve some sort of equilibrium, but things start to get slippery when you consider some rights being deemed more important or valuable than others, or notions of "the collective", "the greater good" and so on which seem perfectly legitimate.

The moral of the story is: don't deal in abstractions, kids.

 

Which is why small-government libertarians aren't anarchists.

There is a use for government, but it isn't to tell me not to walk around with my balls hanging out, or to smoke marijuana.

There is a reason for government, but things have gone way beyond that reason.

 

Why do you find the need to get nasty ?

 

You forget private tyranny. Only the masses controlling the state can end that.

 

what is private tyranny?

 

The stereotype that the average democrat is a welfare-ridden fatty living off food stamps, and the only way to get anything accomplished in life is to be a Republican seems to shine quite brightly in this post.

Who were the main driving force in getting women their voting rights? Democrats. Who was the party who made it possible for people in the LGBT community to feel like they finally had a place in the church, and no longer had to live in the closet? Democrats. You think the Democratic party doesn't grant people freedom? You think we try to keep people down, and dependent? No. Those who have abused the food stamp-welfare system have given it a bad name.

Democrats help people get a start on their lives, and assistance in getting through the hard times each and every one of us faces. That's what should make someone like me proud to say I am a democrat. Freedom is not lop or one-sided. Favoritism toward the Republican party was evident in the OP's post.

 

Running a successful business.

 

It is actually quite simple. People like to talk about freedom, but the truth is freedom requires responsibility and responsibility scares the hell out of people.
The say they like freedom, but they really do not want it. They want the government to take care of them and to tell them what they can and cannot do. They want to believe that government can take care of them.

In the final analysis, people get exactly the kind of government they want, and what they want is a tyranny which acts in a parental role to make sure they cannot screw up too badly. They are willing to sacrifice their freedom, their rights, their dignity, and everything else to believe that they will be protected from themselves.

We are truly a sorry lot.

 

What a joke! The masses cannot and have not EVER controlled the state. The state ALWAYS controls the people. Only a complete idiot would even try to argue that fact.