It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Freedom Isn't Free

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by HauntWok
Freedom isn't free. That's the Right wing battle cry.

It made me pause and think, what exactly do they really mean by this? Of course freedom is free, that's the actual definition of freedom, otherwise, it's not really freedom.

edit on 28-4-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)

Sometimes when people say freedom, what they really mean is liberty.

The two are not the same. Freedom is free, like you said. But, liberty is not free.

Liberty is the freedom to do what you want. That's the statue in the New York harbor. Come to America, pursue your dreams, you can do anything here. That's liberty.

On the other hand, freedom is the liberation from want itself. It's what the Buddha talks about, when he says the truth shall set you free.

Liberty costs, because the ability to do what you want, often interferes with other people's wants, and ability to do what they want. So, if I want to own a piece of property, that nobody can walk on except me, without my permission, I have to pay for that. I have to pay, because my liberty, when exercised, infringes on other people's liberty. They can no longer walk on this plot of land, because I claim it. Physically, they can walk on the land, just like me, but I pay the government to police the neighborhood, to prevent them from using their God given natural liberty to put their foot on any parcel of land, and restrict their liberty, to enforce mine. It's costs money to have liberty.

On the other hand, freedom is different. When you're free, you have no wants, so there's no need to infringe on anyone's wants. We can all have the same freedom, but we can't all have the same liberty.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by SQUEALER

Ah, you make a very valid point. Star for you on this.

Using your land analogy however, some, would argue, that even though you purchased your land, you shouldn't be allowed on it either, because others have also purchased land, and somehow, by others purchasing land, you and they don't deserve to reap the return on that investment.

They believe that this land has already been bought and sold to someone else and the government has recklessly spent that land before you bought it. Even though, you bought and paid for that land, you somehow haven't earned the right to use that land.

They further argue that instead of you buying land, you should instead invest in a mining company that may or may not give you a return on your investment. Or that everyone's land should be handed over to a mining company instead of the purchasers using the land they invested in.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by SQUEALER

We actually don't buy land. What we buy is "protection". We buy the right to be protected in some use of that land.

If I buy land to put up a house, the rights usually don't include the right to dig up the mineral deposits on that land. I only have rights to the top soil. If I discover there's gold and silver underneath that top soil. It isn't really mine. I have to apply for the mineral rights to the land, and make another purchase, to that same property, to dig up the gold.

It is not clear, when land transactions were done in the past, what specific rights were implied in those transactions. The rights to property evolved over time, to include and exclude various things.

For example, when the United States purchased land from Mexico, did they specify they were buying the mineral rights under the land, or was it just the top soil that they now owned?

It is clear that America has the rights to build on the land, to walk the land free of Mexicans, but what about the rights to the commodities under the ground? Who owns that? Do the Mexicans still own the mineral deposits?

Would modern Mexicans have a case, if they went to the international court, and claimed that their forefathers only intended to sell the rights to America to settle on the land, but never intended to sell the mineral rights beneath the ground, and therefore all that mineral wealth is sill theirs?

When America bought Alaska from the Russians, Russia did not know about the huge Oil and Gold deposits that would be found there. Could Russia now claim today, that they only sold the top soil rights back then, and therefore all that Oil and Gold is sill theirs?

The thing about property rights, is that those rights are often ambiguous. You could not have entered into a deal about something that you did not know exists. So if you later discover that in the old chest you sold to the antique dealer, was a precious manuscript in a hidden compartment, who has claim to the hidden wealth?

If you buy a piece of land, and while doing some gardening, you discover a box of cash hidden by drug dealers, whose money is it?

Clearly, the box of cash isn't listed in the deed to the property!

So, the thing about owning property, is that it is often partly undefined. This leaves the door open to contests over the property you think you should own.

Mexico and Russia can both make valid claims to the mineral wealth now enjoyed by Americans, just as the government can stop you from digging up the huge deposit of rare-earths you suddenly discover is under your land.

At the end of the day, the police, locally, and the military, internationally, give us protection to the rights we think we should have. It all depends on how much we pay these entities to protect our point of view, and our liberty to do what we want.

Mexico is unlikely to tackle the United States over the mineral rights, since their military isn't up to the job. But, they might sneak more Mexicans into America, to swing the "vote".

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:11 PM
reply to post by HauntWok

For returning veterans. Who get everything under the sun handed to them. From FREE healthcare for the rest of their lives, to housing assistance, to disability.

I had no intentions of responding to the OP at all until I read that snippet of wisdom.

I am a veteran and a military retiree. I didn't join the USAF because of all of the "free" stuff they promised or the action, the glory, the educational bennes or the "free" healthcare. I joined because I believe that serving your country is the highest calling. (I never considered politics, as I believe politicians serve themselves, not their country). I retired as a MSgt (Master Sergeant for you nonners). As a MSgt, I talked constantly with my Airmen and Junior NCOs... for being labeled as "gen x-ers" or the "me" generation, the young Airman and JNCOs of today's USAF are the most selfless, dedicated and honorable group of men and women as I have ever been in association with. Every single man or woman that joins the US military today knows one thing: there is a pretty damned good chance they will be sent somewhere that every man/woman/child in that location would like nothing better than to kill them. Think about that for a moment as you sip your herbal tea and listen to MSNBC tell you how horrible the military is.
As for "free" healthcare... take a look at the VA. The VA is a mess, and always has been... because it is run by the government. If you look at the VA's track record and still support "Obamacare", I suggest using more "sugar" in the kool-aid... you will need it to get rid of the bitter taste of socialized medicine. The VA docs I have dealt with have been excellent, as have the other staff members... but the system is a trainwreck.

The next time you see that 22 year old amputee that lost his legs in a roadside IED, ask him/her if all of the "free" stuff the political masters have so gratuitously heaped on vets is worth more than his limbs. Ask him how much caviar he buys with his $2000 disability check... ask the soldier that hasn't slept in months because of the nightmares if he enjoys "milking" the benefit system after being labeled with PTSD... and because of the MSM portraying our returning heroes as psychotic monsters, he can't even get a damned job...

People like you just make me ill.

edit on 30-4-2013 by madmac5150 because: I got even angrier

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:42 PM
Good thread.

You might also note the number of war memorials around from the second world war and that freedom is always purchased at the cost of many lives, freedom also has to exist within boundaries to prevent too much of the wrong kind of freedom such as the freedom to kill which is not freedom.

Sometimes a nation must put it's security before freedom even in the face of public outrage especially during time's of conflict or internal strife, though this does not justify it nevertheless it is sometimes the only viable option but the problem arises when such action's are used in support of the wrong cause as right's may be temporarily suspended but when they are not reinstated or the suspending authority's are not held accountable then it becomes a licence to withdraw liberty.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:26 PM
The NRA advocates gun violence? If that was the case don't you think you should keep the law lax so you can easily get a firearm to protect yourself from those murderous NRA members. Better watch out they got guns and they apparently are big fans of violence.

posted on May, 1 2013 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by madmac5150

I'm sorry, were you confused about the job you signed up for? Did they not adequately explain what WAR is all about? Were you surprised by the notion that you may be killed or seriously injured?

Why should we citizens have to pay for something YOU volunteered for, with full knowledge of the consequences of the actions that would be undertaken?

World War II was the LAST war that our FREEDOMS were actually in danger. Ever since then, we have not only been the aggressor, but dead wrong about why we were fighting.

I understand that soldiers (airmen, marines, sailors) have no choice in where they are deployed or what they are to do while there, and that these people are just following orders. But that's just part of the job you volunteered for.

I didn't join the military for a simple reason, I have no desire to shoot people I have nothing against. I have no desire to be shot at by people either.

When I hear about soldiers suffering from Shell Shock (PTSD is just a pansy term for Shell Shock) I have no pity. Get over it, and grow a pair. You knew what you were signing up for. And if you don't have the mental ability to handle stress, don't join the military.

And the MSM aren't portraying our returning vets as monsters, quite the opposite in fact. I wish I were given as much accolades for coming home from work as these guys are.

reply to post by Bundy

The NRA advocates gun violence?


If that was the case don't you think you should keep the law lax so you can easily get a firearm to protect yourself from those murderous NRA members.

Actually I think that anyone who purchases a firearm should have to undergo not only background checks, but also a mental health evaluation.

Better watch out they got guns and they apparently are big fans of violence.

I guess an assault rifle is only useful for planting daffodils right?

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in