posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 10:50 PM
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
This subject is still percolating inside my head.
Let me split hairs and see what you think.(You and ketsuko.) I get this idea that those that view more from the idea of freedom, do so based on
external barriers/restictions? Those leaning towards the liberty concept view those restrictions as internal ones or their personal views or morals.
Thus one who 'embraces' liberty is one of high(?) moral fiber. That eliminates the terrorist- in one sense- as acts against innocents/civilians would
be outside their personal mores.
Those concerned with 'freedom' do not recognize choice is never taken away. It is given up. One assumes one doesn't have choice when one always has
and always will possess 'choice'.
Those who hold to 'liberty' recognize their choice/options have been and are always present and restrains himself by personal morals, not only by
laws, per say. Restraint is personal choice, not external.
The distinction between the psychopath, the terrorist, etc., that is exercising 'choice' and the person exercising 'liberty' is a personal moral fiber
that is the same or close to those around him. His community, his nation.
This is off the top. make any sense or have I missed something here?