Freedom
I listened with intent over the past week to the various discussions about the word freedom. One of the more “interesting” ones was by a linguist professor from the University of Berkley California. He was trying to explain how the word “freedom” was being commandeered by the right to mean self-gratification. His position was that the word means “the ability to have one’s needs met.”
Now I may be just a middle-aged guy from the Midwest but I can clearly see the polarization in his position. The first position is clearly a libertarian view of freedom and the second is clearly socialistic. But which is it?
Does it matter? One of the aspects of freedom that is so relevant is the ability to converse on such an arcane and obscure subject. Isn’t the point of freedom that the ability exists to have such a discussion without fear of reprimand or worse – imprisonment? But, back to the story. . . .
The professor was making the point that the concept he was espousing was that real freedom is expressed in the choice that allows the greatest number of people to experience that freedom. For example, he states that if a man chooses to drive his car he has the freedom to do so. Both sides agree on that point. But the conservative view is that he also should have the freedom to buy the gas he needs without all the additional taxes and surcharges added on by various rules and regulations. In other words, “keep the government’s nose out of my business.” The good professor commented that the progressive view (I noticed he stayed away from the word “liberal” during his discussion – hmmm) would agree with the taxes and probably be willing to pay more because the additional taxes could be used to improve the roads, allowing better access to products and materials, thus reducing their prices – for a greater number of people. In other words, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one (with apologies to Mr. Spock).” But can they both be right?
I see the red states and the blue states as being divided along the same lines. The cowboy mentality, as the world sees America, is clearly the conservative view. It says, “Don’t tread on me; or, if you do, you might find yourself full of buckshot.” The opposite view is that of the communist countries in which all belongs to the government and is distributed to the people as any has need. It says, “Do not put yourself in front of any other person because you are no better and need try no harder than them – but we expect you to try anyway – without any reward for the effort.”
When the world players hold such vastly different views on the way things should be, is there any middle ground on which they can agree? How is Iran to express its freedom if it is not allows to venture into the nuclear club with the big boys? How are the western powers to preserve freedoms in their countries if the Iranian government posses nuclear weapons? Isn’t it ironic that the United States is taking the “progressive” view in dealing with the conservative position of Iran?
So, if these were your children, what would you tell them?
Now I may be just a middle-aged guy from the Midwest but I can clearly see the polarization in his position. The first position is clearly a libertarian view of freedom and the second is clearly socialistic. But which is it?
Does it matter? One of the aspects of freedom that is so relevant is the ability to converse on such an arcane and obscure subject. Isn’t the point of freedom that the ability exists to have such a discussion without fear of reprimand or worse – imprisonment? But, back to the story. . . .
The professor was making the point that the concept he was espousing was that real freedom is expressed in the choice that allows the greatest number of people to experience that freedom. For example, he states that if a man chooses to drive his car he has the freedom to do so. Both sides agree on that point. But the conservative view is that he also should have the freedom to buy the gas he needs without all the additional taxes and surcharges added on by various rules and regulations. In other words, “keep the government’s nose out of my business.” The good professor commented that the progressive view (I noticed he stayed away from the word “liberal” during his discussion – hmmm) would agree with the taxes and probably be willing to pay more because the additional taxes could be used to improve the roads, allowing better access to products and materials, thus reducing their prices – for a greater number of people. In other words, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one (with apologies to Mr. Spock).” But can they both be right?
I see the red states and the blue states as being divided along the same lines. The cowboy mentality, as the world sees America, is clearly the conservative view. It says, “Don’t tread on me; or, if you do, you might find yourself full of buckshot.” The opposite view is that of the communist countries in which all belongs to the government and is distributed to the people as any has need. It says, “Do not put yourself in front of any other person because you are no better and need try no harder than them – but we expect you to try anyway – without any reward for the effort.”
When the world players hold such vastly different views on the way things should be, is there any middle ground on which they can agree? How is Iran to express its freedom if it is not allows to venture into the nuclear club with the big boys? How are the western powers to preserve freedoms in their countries if the Iranian government posses nuclear weapons? Isn’t it ironic that the United States is taking the “progressive” view in dealing with the conservative position of Iran?
So, if these were your children, what would you tell them?
posted by genebko at
11:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home