Comments on: Government vs. Freedom

By: odum

odum — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:09:59 +0000

I don’t think I disagree with any of this. Granted, I blew through it quickly… nevertheless…

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:10:12 +0000

The scary part about all this is that the government is at the point where they’re telling us how much water our toilets can use per flush and what kind of light bulbs we can use and there’s no outcry!!
They want to regulate our health care and our ‘carbon footprint’ too. That’s next on the Great Uniter’s agenda. Hillary is in India right now trying to get them to agree to carbon limits. They’re wisely choosing not to (so far).
The reason Bill and the gang are on board with all this is that they want people to behave in those ways and they know that the use of government force is the only way people will change their behaviors. If the government decided that military service was mandatory, they’d suddenly have a real problem with our freedoms being encroached upon.

On a side-note, have any of these environmental nuts thought about the ecological disaster that these ‘green’ fluorescent bulbs will create? Most people will consider them regular light bulbs and simply throw them in the trash, not realizing they contain mercury, etc.
They’re so enthralled by the climate change lie that they’re not thinking of anything else.

By: Bill Gnade

Bill Gnade — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:04:28 +0000

Excellent!

Let me posit, for the sake of argument, that the federal government taxes me at a flat rate of 25% of gross income (and I will also assume that I am working class). That means that, just to meet my tax liability, 25% of my life as a worker is not mine: I am not free to do, spend, earn or not earn as I choose. Three months of the year, I MUST work FOR the government; it is a form of indentured servitude.

Granted, I am not forced to work at all. Choosing indigence is always an option. But whenever there is a government that collects taxes, freedom is ipso facto limited.

Anyone who denies this fact would be, in my opinion, either a fool or disingenuous. Actually, any such person would be “spectacularly wrong.”

The paradox of liberty is a fascinating one, and is particularly evident in the openness of the Oval Office. If the White House is indeed the “People’s House;” if the President of the United States is the incarnation of the body politic, then it seems that the people should have access to that great house and that important office. But can you imagine what would happen to our country if the White House was always and completely accessible? For a democracy to survive, nay, for freedom to survive, not EVERYTHING can be free; restrictions are essential. Truly, there need to be fixed points (otherwise known as absolutes).

So you are right. And you were right. Perhaps your critics can’t handle that a “woman” could be right, especially a conservative one. I jest, of course, but only partly.