Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Government and "true" freedom do not mix (by anon)

Inspired by a bumper sticker that said “no one is free if anyone is oppressed”

What is the role of Government? If you think government is meant to protect the freedom of others, you need to realize that the only way to protect the freedoms of others is to deny the freedoms of others. Allow me to explain: If I am free to shoot someone I want whenever I want, then I am denying the person I’m shooting the freedom of life.  To protect the freedom of life for the individual who I want to shoot, my freedom to shoot who ever I want is denied. All governments at their core deny freedom. The question is which freedoms override other freedoms. In my shooting example, it is obvious; my freedom to shoot anyone should and is denied to ensure the freedom of others. Complete freedom for all would be complete chaos. This “whose and what freedom should be denied,” is more or less at the core of most issues.  

Should illegal immigrants be denied the freedom to come into America just because they didn’t go through the rigorous immigration process? By the phrasing of the question it seems that this freedom shouldn’t be denied. Should law abiding citizens be forced to pay income taxes and contribute to the system while illegal immigrants don’t pay income taxes and receive all the benefits of tax payer dollars? Maybe illegals don’t receive all the benefits but most benefits we take for granted and don’t realize they are benefits like roads, schools, hospitals, police, and no fear being invaded by outside countries. Whose and what freedom is more important? And so the debate begins.

The whole point of this is to point out what appears to be a not so obvious fact. Governments deny freedom in an effort to protect freedom. A freedom being denied gives way to more important freedoms being protected. The tricky parts is how far is too far. I think we would all agree that N. Korea goes too far in denying its people freedoms. I think we would all agree that if America suddenly said no more laws will be enforced, then massive death and chaos would ensue. Again which freedoms should override other’s freedom and be protected by the government? Well, that’s all debatable. Just know that some freedoms are, will be, and should be denied. So, all this “freedom this and freedom that,” combined with “government this and government that,” is all an oxymoron. Government and (true freedom) absolutely do not mix.


  1. Umm... Duh?
    I think it is actually pretty obvious that any kind of government or sovereign that is established is going to entail the giving up of some individual rights (like the right to murder, steal, etc.).
    So what's your point?
    This post doesn't really say anything significant at all, nor does it argue for anything, which is probably why there hasn't been any comments on it besides this one so far.

  2. Anon 9:04, there is an argument here, though you may think it is benign.

    The interesting aspect to me is that there are clearly two poles that are undesirable. On one side we have Big Brother and all freedom is lost. On the other side, we have anarchy, which seems like freedom, but I agree with the spirit of the OP that freedom would be lost there too. So to have any freedom we need some rules, but not too many. The problem is where to draw the line.

    And that is why I get frustrated with both many modern liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to uncritically espouse more gov't regulation, whereas conservatives uncritically want to abolish all gov't regulation (think Tea Party movement). Both sides start to fall into the opposite poles.

    We need a well-thought out middle ground, but our politicians (and most of the American public) are too stupid to have that conversation. You might criticize the OP for a benign argument, but from my perspective, at least that person gets some of the complexity of freedom - and that says something.

  3. It's ok if this doesn't get tons of posts. It's purpose isn't to insight anger or controversy. Just to point out how complex freedom is. I used obvious example to prove my point. If I was looking for lots of posts I would have called Scott walker a genius or said Christianity is the most evil out of the religions or that gays are inferior on the basis that they can't reproduce or other random contraversal arguments to piss people off. It's quiet easy to piss people off if you want too. Especially since it's anonymous theres no fall out to the writer no matter how insane or wrong it is.

  4. Heh, I had already typed out this long thing about there being some people who view government policy as either pure socialism or lack thereof as anarchism, then I saw Anon 2's post which had almost exactly the same thing.

    I do agree, though, people need to stop thinking about issues of freedom as being black and white, as this is simply not the case. It's good to know that others share this mentality.

  5. Wow, what great logic used in this post! You must be a philosophy student. Just about everything in life entails a denial of freedom of some kind. You may want to crap on the floor in your classes, but like your silly shooting example your freedom to to do so is constrained. Freedom is an illusion.

    1. What a liar you are.

  6. Such lies this blog tells.