Upon Freedom and Government in the Modern Mind

[Bellator]

We need not elaborate upon how ingrained the concept of freedom has become in the modern conscious. Liberty is considered as freedom from constraint, that is, those precepts that restrict men to certain actions. In this mindset, laws are no longer safeguards or guiding principles, but shackles. It is unfortunate that this philosophy promulgated; for although it had originated from the defenders of reason, in short, it is an unreasonable attitude. For when one considers government as a constraint rather than a office set for the benefit of society, then one’s attitude towards it, such as respect of its authority and performing set civic duties, becomes antagonistic rather than obedient. When the people mistrust the state, in consequence the state becomes distracted from its mission to act as a paternal figure to society, and instead must consistently direct its energy towards pleasing the people. In the United States, this problem rises its head each election, when the candidates must advertise themselves in order to entice the public for votes.

This concept of freedom must change if the rift of suspicion between people and state will be greatly diminished. However, it will require great effort on both parties.

 

[Upturned]

Freedom is not Liberty, Liberty is freedom paid for by the upholding of certain requirements of society.

Government is not paternal, it serves its constituants or it enslaves them. Government is made up of people who want the job, or people who are forcing you to keep them where they are. Both should be associated with accordingly.

 

[Jozefo]

We need not elaborate upon how ingrained the concept of freedom has become in the modern conscious. Liberty is considered as freedom from constraint, that is, those precepts that restrict men to certain actions. In this mindset, laws are no longer safeguards or guiding principles, but shackles. It is unfortunate that this philosophy promulgated; for although it had originated from the defenders of reason, in short, it is an unreasonable attitude. For when one considers government as a constraint rather than a office set for the benefit of society, then one’s attitude towards it, such as respect of its authority and performing set civic duties, becomes antagonistic rather than obedient. When the people mistrust the state, in consequence the state becomes distracted from its mission to act as a paternal figure to society, and instead must consistently direct its energy towards pleasing the people. In the United States, this problem rises its head each election, when the candidates must advertise themselves in order to entice the public for votes.

This concept of freedom must change if the rift of suspicion between people and state will be greatly diminished. However, it will require great effort on both parties.

Freedom is not license. I think it was Pope John Paul II who said freedom was having the ability to do right, or something like that. That being said, States are creatures of men, and as such, legitimately operate by the consent of the governed. That’s freedom as it relates to States. If States are imposing on people who want only to live their lives while harming no other people, then those States are not legitimate.

 

[Bellator]

Freedom is not Liberty, Liberty is freedom paid for by the upholding of certain requirements of society.

Government is not paternal, it serves its constituants or it enslaves them. Government is made up of people who want the job, or people who are forcing you to keep them where they are. Both should be associated with accordingly.

Giving the state a parternal nature was not my invention; it is a reference to an analogy of a certain pope (who I wish I could remember) who considered the church and state as mother and father of society. The Church acts as a nurturer and guide, while the state acts as a protector and provider.

Unfortunately, much needs to be changed before the state can properly act in this role. In all likelihood, it may be impossible for such an institution perfectly exist on earth. But this does not mean that figures in government should strive for such an ideal; if they did, then our current administrative problems would be greatly improved.

 

[Reep]

We need not elaborate upon how ingrained the concept of freedom has become in the modern conscious. Liberty is considered as freedom from constraint, that is, those precepts that restrict men to certain actions. In this mindset, laws are no longer safeguards or guiding principles, but shackles.

It has not always been so. For example, people with a proper Christian respect for liberty and government once believed that the criminal prohibition ought to be reserved for offenses wherein other people are harmed; that is, to **prohibit “murder, theft and the like” in the words of St Thomas Aquinas. **

Modern government knows no such restraint as it criminalizes every tiny thing; such as burying a pet in one’s yard; or allowing some stupid weed to grow on one’s property; or gambling; or barbering or fishing without government permission.

It is **not the people who hold such idiotic laws in contempt **(and I am one) that are the problem. It is the government and the busybodies who support such invasions who are utterly to blame.

Bellator, I could not say it better than–as you said it so well–“laws are no longer safeguards or guiding principles, but shackles.”

Wake up people. The totalitarians are winning.

 

[mackbrislawn]

We need not elaborate upon how ingrained the concept of freedom has become in the modern conscious. Liberty is considered as freedom from constraint, that is, those precepts that restrict men to certain actions. In this mindset, laws are no longer safeguards or guiding principles, but shackles. It is unfortunate that this philosophy promulgated; for although it had originated from the defenders of reason, in short, it is an unreasonable attitude. For when one considers government as a constraint rather than a office set for the benefit of society, then one’s attitude towards it, such as respect of its authority and performing set civic duties, becomes antagonistic rather than obedient. When the people mistrust the state, in consequence the state becomes distracted from its mission to act as a paternal figure to society, and instead must consistently direct its energy towards pleasing the people. In the United States, this problem rises its head each election, when the candidates must advertise themselves in order to entice the public for votes.

This concept of freedom must change if the rift of suspicion between people and state will be greatly diminished. However, it will require great effort on both parties.

A caution. As Christians, God and Church should be our paternal figures. If Caesar is thought of too much as father, then Caesar takes the place of God and Church. Caesar always wants to be worshiped and that is why the early Christians got into trouble. They put something else on a higher plane than Caesar or government and Caesar didn’t like it. The Christians were correct to know that there is something higher than Caesar.

The founding fathers of the United States realized this also, hence they said the people have unalienable rights, endowed upon them by their creator. This means that the state cannot take these rights away, because people have these rights by their very nature. These rights exist prior to Caesar and government. That means we must realize government can never give rights, but only take them away. To repeat, government can only take rights away. In fact, that is the real purpose of government–to decide what rights people should not have. For example, the people should not have the right to go around murdering each other, stealing, etc. Even murderers and thieves will not dispute this. This is in keeping with Christ’s words that Caesar should keep order and punish wrongdoers.