By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Isn't freedom merely shorthand way of saying "getting what you want"?

richardhutnik on 21 December 2010
Viper1 said:
Mr Khan said:

You're pretty much correct. We can call the repeal of DADT to be liberty but call the second amendment idiocy, or vice versa ("You can pry this gun from my cold dead hands, but i'll use it to shoot any f*gs as think they can get hitched," or something like that)

Freedom is relative. Communism was freedom in its own right, and the revolutions that toppled Communism also cried freedom. The freedom-loving founding fathers held slaves, etc., etc.,

2 issues.

1. The right to bear arms has more to do with keeping the government from ever becoming a tyranny than simply being a right to shoot whatever.  The first thing a tyrannical regime does it disarm the people (or at least try to).  One of the first rights established to us is the right to change our government if it ever extends beyond the means it was established for and becomes oppressive.  The only way a citizenry could ever overthrow and restablish a government is with arms.  It's a sad fact but one the founding fathers understood.

 

As I understand it, if you read the right to bear arms, it links to a "Well run miliitia" and the founding fathers didn't want the citizens to be unarmed, so that a government being oppressive couldn't be overturned.  From this, comes the right for individuals to bear arms, for personal protection.  However, when the focus becomes on how much firepower citizens need to protect themselves from criminals, then the bigger picture gets lost in this.



Around the Network
FaRmLaNd on 21 December 2010

Of course different people want the world to be in their image. Some images are more equitable then others however and having a framework that doesn't overly restrict other peoples visions allows them to attempt to change the world or their personal lives in the direction they want. Only through the free exchange of ideas can we affect such change.

Not providing people with enough power to be affect such change just leads to rebellion anyway, so for stabilities sake freedom is quite important.

The other point about freedom is that a society that is sufficiently free, allows people to actually live out the style of life that they want. The more control the more hypocracy as people just live their lives in secret. Of course one can be too free and then it just defaults to the most vicious people. Read Somalia for example. It is a balancing act.

Furthermore, there are plenty of freedoms I support that I don't partake of. For example, the right to smoke tobacco, gay marriage, the right to go to the church of your choice etc. So its certainly not just about selfishness.



Viper1 on 22 December 2010
FaRmLaNd said:

Furthermore, there are plenty of freedoms I support that I don't partake of. For example, the right to smoke tobacco, gay marriage, the right to go to the church of your choice etc. So its certainly not just about selfishness.


This.  Freedoms aren't always about individualism.   But this goes back to liberty as I was saying.   Being free in the libertarian sense isn't singular, it's collective.   Individual freedoms and rights should not impede on the individual freedoms and rights of others.   When you strike that balance of liberty for all against the whims of other citizens and the oppression of the government, then you have the freedom that you hear us demanding.



The rEVOLution is not being televised