"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin
A few years ago, a person I know gave up almost everything he enjoyed for the promise of financial security. He thought, at the time, it was an acceptable trade. Then this promise of financial security turned out to be a complete fabrication. His enjoyment was sold for nothing, and he found himself in a situation where getting out would cause even more problems than staying in. He deserved to lose the things he loved because he was too willing to sell them for security, and so, he ended up with neither.
I'm not sure if Ben Franklin was speaking only of "countries" or if he was thinking, too, of individuals when he made his famous statement. Either way, he was so very, tragically, right.
In a slightly less individual way, Americans have sold their liberty for false promises of security from government. Government which has turned out to be the biggest threat to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ever encountered.
To have "borders" to "protect us" from immigrants, they have traded their liberty to travel freely, even inside those "borders", for government control and usurpation of private property rights. And still no safety has resulted, not even from "immigrants". Only tyranny.
Faced with the fact that not all businesses are operated in an honest way, Americans traded the free market for fascism that, while not having government owning the businesses outright, completely controls them through regulations while stealing a huge chunk of their profits. And yet people still get scammed and harmed.
Because people fear for their safety while flying, they allowed a government takeover of "security" at airports, yet if a bad person is determined, he can still, obviously, wreak havoc. And, they know that none of the good people aboard a plane will be sufficiently armed to resist effectively due to government controls. Security theater, and the disarming of the decent people, hasn't resulted in safety, but in opportunities. Both for "terrorists" and "TSAerrorists".
Security is an illusion. If you seek it you will end up being hurt and enslaved. You are better off taking your chances in the real world, knowing there are no guarantees, than handing over your liberty to someone who has only your subjugation in mind.
________________________
In Albuquerque area news, the fe(de)ral government is targeting Native American communities with anti-meth advertisements. Paid for with your money, of course, like everything government does.
Here's a better idea: stop criminalizing the stuff and let people seek treatment for themselves and their loved ones without fear of prosecution. Stop enabling social stigma that is based upon nothing more than "illegality". Stop making excuses for theft and aggression, and stop criminalizing self defense and the necessary tools to exercise it.
Let people defend themselves from theft and attack no matter who is doing the thieving or attacking, and regardless of what mind-altering substance the guilty party may be on.
More "laws" are not the answer. Stronger enforcement is not the answer. Advertisements are not the answer. Waking up to reality is the only answer.
To add insult to injury, I notice that in the official list of "root causes" (poverty, lack of opportunity, loss of language and culture, challenging family circumstances, hopelessness), almost all of them are a direct result of governmental treatment of the Native population. Now, the prime offenders think they have the solution? Don't bet on it.
Actually, there is no conflict between liberty and security. Without liberty there is no flexibility to create security. Incidentally, you might be interested in the article, "Libertarian Pledge of Nonviolence."
ReplyDeletehttp://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/
Except that violence is sometimes the proper responce to being attacked.
ReplyDeleteI would never condemn someone for refusing to defend themselves with violence, but that is a personal choice and is not necessarily ethical or unethical. I have a different opinion of the ethics of the situation if you see an innocent person being attacked and still refuse to step in.
If a person is being attacked, or sees an innocent person being attacked, they would be fully justified in responding with focused violence.
I could never sign a pledge of non-violence.
I'm not exactly sure you understand what Zero Aggression/non-initiation of force means. It doesn't tie your hands in cases where you need to intervene. It simply states you have no right to initiate force, and you may owe restitution afterwards if the target of your force does not appreciate your intervention.
If you or an innocent person are being harmed, you stepping in and using force to rescue yourself/the innocent is not an initiation of force. It is self-defense.
The main people I see who don't "get it" are those who support the government's aggressive wars around the globe. Such support goes against everything libertarian.
When you get right down to brass tacks, the actual reasons for spoiling your liberty are remarkably frivolous compared to the benefits you enjoy by exercising them.
ReplyDeleteI'm mulling over this observation:
The more distant the alleged abuse of the exercise, the weaker the argument to justify curtailing liberty; consequently, the more violent the "solution" proposed by authoritarians.
Many people go along with the authoritarians out of fear, but I don't think many of them are able to discern whether they are actually afraid of the state-sponsored violence against the non-compliant, or the threat of some anonymous nogoodnik half a continent away.