About Me

Name: Virginia Daddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

What is Freedom?

   Whenever I think of freedom, I can't help but think of Mel Gibson in Braveheart.  His rousing monologue ending with him screaming the word is a moving scene, no doubt.  But I still wonder what freedom is and how it is applied.  We all use the word to describe the ability to do what we want.  And given a pure definition, that would make sense.  We are only free when we can do what want without interference from someone else.  If we have interference, though, we are not free.
   So, what does that mean in a political sense, since everyone uses the term freely?  I will start by saying pure freedom in a political world is impossible, except for absolute monarchs, tyrants, and oligarchs who can set the rules and enforce them at will.  However, the freedom they would enjoy is not spread to everyone else, because they are subject to the wills of the tyrant. 
   If the above is the case, why does everyone use the term as much as they do?  I think the answer lies behind the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was not to guarantee absolute freedom but to maximize the people's freedom so they can enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  The Founders recognized the need to have a structured society, which would mean they would have to limit some freedoms while they maximized what was possible. 
   They intended to create a society with as minimal influence from above as possible.  Despite this broad goal, implementing it was a source of conflict.  The question was not generally how much interference (one could probably argue this was in question) but from where the interference should come from.  The options were a strong national government made up of the individual, or the directly from the states themselves.  Either way, they all agreed on a couple of things: to maximize our freedoms and that we ourselves should play a big role in doing so.
   So, what does it mean for us to play a big role in ensuring our own freedom?  There are really two components to that.  First, many Founders expected the populace to be active in civil affairs themselves by voicing their opinion on important local matters.  Second, they all emphasized the need to have a virtuous  populace and elected leaders to constantly and consistently protect our freedoms.  By staying involved, the people were able to stay intimately involved in public affairs and to keep the leaders accountable.  By staying morally vituous, they would be free from many temptations that power can bring.  This virtue was key, because a virtuous society would always seek to work together with other groups to maximize everyone's freedoms without trampling one in favor of another.  This meant acting responsibly and respectfully to others.
   What does this mean in defining freedom today?  If absolute freedom is impossible, and it takes involvement and virtue to maximize the freedoms we have, then people demanding rights at the expense of others is an abuse of freedom.  I believe part of virtue is respecting others rights to believe and do as they do.  In fact, this is tolerance.  So, tolerance is a part of freedom.  Far too many are intolerant today, and I don't think the problem is isolated to one group.  Why is that?  Before addressing that answer, let me state that a lack of tolerance is a problem because the intolerant demand others leave, change their behavior, or be subject to much derision.  If the people subjected to intolerance must live in this world, they are not free.
   Now, the reason why intolerance is a problem that spreads beyond just one group (most often conservatives are accused of it, but this is seriously in question) is because freedom has been a word that has lost its traditional meaning in American history, and by that, I mean the intentions of Founders have been lost. Freedom has come to be understood as only possible if it is pure.  The result is that too many think they should be able to do whatever they want at the expense of someone else.  Responsibility plays no role in defining freedom to far too many people today.  Respecting others has equally been erased from the day to day lives of far too many, with their personal freedoms as the prime reason for society to exist (in other words, society should conform to their views). 
   What has resulted is a battle for the chance to act as tyrants and tell people what they should do.  Social conservatives on the one hand telling liberals they shouldn't do certain things, and liberals are saying that conservatives shouldn't be able to do certain things.  Liberals are winning the verbal war by setting the tone of the debate, and by appealing the non-virtuous and selfish nature we all hold.  Absent from this view is responsibility.  But conservatives have responded by digging their heals and have not responded in the most effective fashion.  (I do think conservatives have a better view, but they fail to communicate effectively because they too forget much of what freedom must entail.)  The ultimate result of this battle is not freedom, but rather puts us on a road toward some form of tyranny.  And that result is unacceptable.
   Do I expect a change?  Unfortunately, I do not, though I hold hope that people will recognize that freedom in this country must be limited by ourselves.  Our self limiting of freedom must include the responsibility to accept that others may not view the world the same as we do, and this includes the views of liberals and conservatives (my views on this are that liberals are every bit as intolerant as conservatives, if not more so). 
   And for those who really feel compelled to live in a given way, this is a large country, and responsibility would suggest taking advantage of the vast array of geography, politics, and lifestyles that are given in this country.  This is true because the responsible thing to do is to accept a given community's commitment to a political or moral direction and find a place that is accepting to yours.  Do not force the community to change, because you are limiting their freedom by acting as a tyrant.  You are a tyrant because you force another to accept something they are not willing to accept while you get what you want.  You enforce your will at your will and at the expense of others' wills.
   So, then, what is freedom?  Freedom is knowing that you can't have everything, while doing what is responsible to maximize your liberty and the liberties of others.  If one of these aspects is missing, it is not freedom, but tyranny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (56) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Conservative Conundrum

I was sitting in church yesterday listening to a sermon about Christmas in July.  A fine sermon, no doubt, but it hit me during the session that what conservatives need to do more of is respect others rather than tell them what to do.  This observation can hardly be considered novel, though.  This debate has permeated within the ranks of conservatism before.  The debate is whether or not conservatives, who hold certain things to be true and celebrate certain moral behaviors over the more destructive "free" ones, should demand of others that they follow the moral behaviors so they will  be  protected from the harms such as eternal damnation, disease, the shame of financial and personal ruin from drug use, unwanted pregnancies, etc. 
   All of those goals are good and noble, and we should seek to encourage others to follow these behaviors.  However, in doing so, we must be careful not to forget other conservative tenants to begin with.  If we forget the basic principles of conservatism, we will continue to lose people to these unfavorable ends.  So, what are the basic principles of conservatism that I speak of that we must first pay attention to?  They are freedom to act, freedom from government, responsibility for one's own welfare, and patience that they will see what is truly important.
   The freedom to act is a big thing to remember.  We all share a freedom to do what we think is best for our lives.  If we restrain people's right to live their lives, we become something we don't want to be: tyrants in our own right.  This will work counter to what it is we seek to achieve.  There is little doubt that we believe our views of life lead to a prosperous society and prosperity for the individual.  But when we force our views on others we creat a sense of rebellion in them and they act anyway, arguably worse than they would otherwise.  This is unacceptable, and leads to the second abuse that conservatives must be aware of.
   Before I move to the discussion of big government, let me address this idea that you may be thinking.  I would say that yes, this freedom to live is very similar to the liberals definition of the term.  We must allow people to make their own choices, and that means whatever they choose.  I differ from them in that I do not think people should choose certain things, while they give a virtual green light.  But I do emphasize their ultimate right to make the decisions they make, for better or for worse.
   The reason why I make this distinction is exactly the issue in a big and intrusive government.  If conservatives force their will on others then they are acting the same as a big government.  The freedom to act liberals hold and the expectation of big government is one of the biggest hypocracies of the left, but we must be careful to be consistent.  If we force our views on others we are just the same as those who want a big government, even if our use of force is to seek a radically different goal.  It is the use of force that is the problem here, not the goal.
   Another aspect is the responsibility to accept the consequences of one's own actions.  This is a radical departure with the left, who typically says "its not your fault."  Well, it is often your fault and only when you see that and take action to make it right or to accept your punishment will you improve.  On the other end of the spectrum if you succed and do well you should reap your just rewards, and not share it with those who are in fault.  These ideas are the same.  But the concept does not stop there in this discussion.  Often, social conservatives get bent out of shape when people get hooked on drugs or alcohol or sex or whatever and ruin their lives.  It is hard to watch these people do these things, but they do them of their own accord and have made the choice themselves.  Rather than berating them for it, remember, they made the choices they made.  You didn't.  You don't have feel responsible or necessarilly do anything about it.  Of course, it is good to seek to be active in the rehabilitation of someone like that, but you cannot make them change to begin with.  They must make the choice that they want to change before you can do anything at all.  This is not to say you should not communicate with them the problems they are in, but you must do so in a way that is respectable, otherwise, you come across as forceful.
   Patience is perhaps the key a conservatism.  We must be patient and respectful to those who see the world differently.  And I just said, we cannot make anyone do or think anything different than they do right now short of communicating to them respectfully.  If we say it well, and live our lives like we should, they will see what is good.  But if we are impatient and forceful, heels will be dug in and nothing will be gained.  But we must persistent and patient, conservatives will succeed, but we cannot force the issue beyond  certain boundaries. 
   Those boundaries are that we must respect everyone's right to choose to live, the responsibility not to overly intrude, and must respect the consequences that come from their decisions.  Of course there are other issues involved.  For example, when a spouse is addicted to pornagraphy or an alcoholic, these issues affect the entire family.  You often must get deeply involved.  But in answer to that I would say that if the relationship is that close, you must act appropriately.  This pice is addressed to how social conservatives act to society at large.  Another point I would like to address is that I do not consider myself libertarian.  I call myself conservative because I do not think people should be left completely to their own devices and that rules should apply, though I grant that this idea has certain libertarian tendencies. 
   I also wnat to address how the battle is being treated on the left.  They seek to shift the issue and change terms to mean something that suites their agenda.  How do we address these things?  To follow the above advise, I think.  The more conservatives push, the more justified they will be, and the worse it will be for conservatives.  Stepping back, and letting them live out the choices they have the right to make will be the best way to make the point.  But we must let them suffer the consequences of their choices, otherwise, nothing will be gained.  We need good conservative lawyers and judges to aid in this, and I hope to contribute in some way to that end in a few years.   
   Conservatives for some time now have pushed their agenda in a way that has turned many off, earning the nickname fascist, close minded, evil, etc.  Conservatives should indeed stick to their guns on the social issues they feel strongly about, but be careful not to push too hard.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Faded Glory?

   I was walking through Wal-Mart the other day and noticed an interesting T-shirt.  In preparation for the 4th of July, one of Wal-Mart's brands created several types of patriotic shirts and other clothing items.  Many were you're typical mass produced and solidly pro-America items.  Even this particular shirt looked like that at first glance.  It was a map of the United States with a old sort of look to it, with the American flag filling in the map.  The shirt actually looked fairly nice.  But what struck me as interesting about this shirt was that it was by this brand of Wal-Mart clothing, Faded Glory.  There's nothing wrong with the brand, or the shirt, but on this shirt, they put the name of the brand underneath the map of the country.  So, beneath the map, colored with the flag, there is a caption saying "Faded Glory". 
   I couldn't help but think of how that short little caption advertising the name of a clothing company is so apt at describing our nation today.  "Faded Glory."  This nation was once proud and thriving.  Its people were once proud and strong, united on almost all points.  Sure, there have been times of great discord, and significant differences.  Heck, this very nation I speak of once fought a war against its own brothers.  There have been other times, as well.  However, for the most part, the people of the nation have worked together, and separately I might add, to make this a better nation and themselves better people.  This nation did thrive after the Civil War, and before, becoming the most important nation in the world.  Economically, politically, militarilly, socially, and even culturally this very nation led the world.
   But something has happened along the way.  We still retain great relevence abroad, but its tainted now.  In my short 32 years on this earth I do not know much of what the reality of the past said, but I do know that even in that time something is very different.  As we hit the fourth of July  in this 233 year of this nations existence, I can't help but think that its broken, maybe even beyond repair. 
   One of the uniting sentiments of generations past was hope.  This hope I speak of was of a brighter future.  Men and women would work hard, not because they wanted to, but because they had to and because they wanted a better future.  This better future was for them, and for their children.  Looking around, it is hard to see that same hope in my generation, and increasingly in those that follow. 
   These people have been brought up in such prosperity they've had whatever they wanted.  Cell phones, MP3's, new cars at 16, no jobs, nice new clothes, little harsh discipline, and I could go on for some time.  The bottom line is that they've never had it tough.  They've never had to work, and little is expected of them. From the home to school they've had it easy, I think.
   Many of these people now expect to live the same life they've always led, and expect it to come frome somewhere besides their own labors.  They certainly won't live less they they've become used to, and they've been tought that they deserve the best in everything, because we all have worth and we are all equal.  Therefore, they must retain their status quo even if circumstances around them change.  And since everyone is worthy and supposedly equal this attitude is only entrenched because they "deserve" what they "deserve". 
   These two attitudes, certainly not the only ones, combine to begin to fade the once proud colors of the red, white and blue flag in the map on that shirt.  Complacency, laziness, and an overly large sense of self worth will continue to fade those colors to black.
   There are myriad problems in this nation now.  Politically, economically, socially this nation faces struggles like it has never before seen on such a grand scale.  From the state of the teachers that teach our children at school to the images and messages found on TV (and I am not just talking about the smut), and from the news media organizations to the factions that seek to promote only their agenda, and from the intrusion of our government into our lives to sharp division between rural and urban areas, and every where in between, the problems exist. 
   But the biggest problem is not one of these.  The biggest problem is the attitude far too many people have towards themselves and this nation.  Their self serving desires, apathy to learn what gave them the prosperity they felt two years ago, and a lack of willingness to fix the problems themselves is the biggest problem. 
   Without adjusting this attitude, the glory will contine to fade.  And on this wonderful day, it is hard to get too excited.  Rather, it is really rather somber to those who love what this country was, not what it is becoming.  I don't like writing this piece, because this is still a great country.  It is not too late to turn back, but I fear that will not happen, not any time soon, not until that map is faded and cannot be made out any more.  The nation is becoming something hardly recognizable, and that is a shame.
   
Tags: 4th of July  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »