Thread: Are We Incrementally Losing Our Freedom?

Originally Posted by Spect

There are those that would prefer to not live in, what you've been referring to as, 'civilized society'.(From reading what you've written I take your meaning of civilized society as; one in which physiological & safety needs have been met. If I have misinterpreted what you said I apologize.) Who may only want VERY minimal interference in their lives, and don't need, again your words, anyone monitoring/providing for their "survival needs". Their happiness comes from providing from themselves.

I cite Libertarians, while they may not be exactly as described above. As I understand it, they seek maximal freedom and very little if any government.

My point being, there two sides to every coin and plenty of middle ground; and the supposition "WE" probably isn't accurate vis-a-vis humanities view on any given topic. There are so many view points about what freedom is, I would think there is always going to be someone who feels their freedom is being infringed upon. For instance:

Personally I feel cheated by the fact I have to pay for public schools. My wife and I don't have children, we don't want any. I see myself having to pay for the -tongue in cheek humor- mistakes ( ok, most of them were probably planned) made by others. I realize I'm in the minority here, and disliking children probably earns me a seat on the wackjob bus. Even though I hate the little buggers, I wouldn't try and make anyone stop having children; that would infringe on your freedoms.

Could government work A la carte, that way everyone can participate in and reap the benefits of, only what they have paid into?

I am child-free as well. I don't like kids, and I will never have any. I'm probably the least maternal and most tocophobic individual on the face of the planet.

However, I do not begrudge having to pay for public education. My disliking of children doesn't stop them from being brought into the world (rightly or wrongly), and as long as they're here, I don't want them deprived of an education just because of the possibility that their parents weren't bright enough to figure out their way around a condom. That isn't the kid's fault. And the kid has a better chance of not growing up to be like that if they're educated.

I'm glad we have a variety of opinions out there. I'm not trying to silence anyway, and I actually used to identify as a libertarian at one point in time.

Until I started reading a little more. One of the things that a fairly large group of libertarians support is pretty much getting rid of the FDA.

How long do a think a country with no food or medicinal oversight at all would stay on the developed nation list?

I personally don't think that a highly motivated, highly advanced society can continue to function or progress if these things are not taken care of.

In a libertarian system, who is it that dies of food poisoning? The poor people, and probably a good chunk of the middle class. All the rich people have their own farms, or buy from extremely expensive markets.

Apart from the idea of dog-eat-dog being at odds with the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, it also doesn't really serve to advance a society.

Not all rich people are necessarily the hardest working (some have never worked at all, if they inherited their wealth). Not all rich people are the highly intelligent, or highly creative.

One of the cool things about America, is that it aspires to be a meritocracy (to varying degrees of success). That means if you're good at what you do, you win.

But if you die as a child from taking medication spiked with heroine, you never get a fair shot. There must be a compromise between providing and expectation.

How long do you think it would be before the country was, once again, royalty vs peasantry?

I just don't think running a modern civilization like that is in any way practical. If they wanted to go off on their own and build a new society, they're more than welcome. But there's a reason they aren't a terribly big party.