A Few Thoughts On Freedom

**THIS POST IS SOLELY THE OPINION OF THIS AUTHOR AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE INFLAMMATORY OR DISRESPECTFUL.**

I have stayed out of the political rhetoric posted on this site as I agree, disagree and sometimes just don’t understand some of them.  However, on this Independence Day, I’m gonna let Freedom Ring, and speak my piece.

The United States of America is first, and foremost, a republic.  This means that each and every individual has the same rights as the person next to them.  While it has democratic characteristics, the difference is wide and far reaching:  democracy is too many times nothing more than mob rule.  Our Founding Fathers never meant for a majority to decide what is best for all.  Understand that your constitutional rights have only been infringed when there is physical or civil damage.  This does not include your feelings.  Being offended is not a loss of rights.  I detest and abhor the KKK and neo-nazis and others too numerous to name, however, if they obtain a legal permit, they can march.  If they hurt me or blow up my car, they have violated the Constitution and are subject to any and all penalties that apply. 

It is hard to swallow the hate that too many groups and organizations spout.  It is difficult to accept vile and distasteful words.  But if they do not trespass or damage my property, or trip me when I walk by, they are free to do so. 

In the light of today’s growing unrest and dissatisfaction with leadership and rampant abuse of power, it becomes difficult to separate rights from offense.  Sadly, our public schools do not teach our children to think for themselves, but in these last years, have become forums for promoting their personal agendas.  Example:  “Separation of Church and State!!” is shouted at many town halls and protests.  Too many do not understand the concept and the intent of the Founding Fathers.  It means that the government will not advocate any one religion and all are welcome.  This was an easy premise to apply in earlier years when Christianity was the predominant belief system in this young country,  but with the influx and growing numbers of alternate religions, it has become more difficult to distinguish between true separation and exclusion.   These two ideas are separate and distinct, and it has become increasingly difficult to interpret and apply laws accordingly.

Distribution of wealth has been touted as the only “fair” and “socially responsible” avenue of eliminating poverty and hunger.  I vehemently disagree.  Yes, I acknowledge that there are corporate pirates who are without moral compasses and who twist laws and regulations to pursue greed and power.  Yes, I acknowledge that morally corrupt individuals prey on the innocent.  Yes, I acknowledge that social and economic factors and trends keep some demographic groups in a viscous circle of hopelessness.  What I do not agree with is being told that my success must be shared.  It is the morally right thing to do:  care for those less fortunate, give to charity or help someone in need.  But you cannot write a law that says I have to.  You cannot legislate morality.  You can regulate ethical business procedures and policies.  You can write administrative law to oversee and penalize those whose ethical behavior is corrupt.  But morals are not ethics.  I can be morally corrupt, guilty of infidelity or greed, but my business or professional ethics can meet or exceed standards.  There are many who will have a hard time grasping the difference.  In this convoluted world of today, the lines have become blurred.   One example are laws that force me into contract (i.e.:  car insurance).  While it is the morally correct and financially responsible thing to do, and it protects all parties, to require that I obtain insurance for my vehicle is a direct violation of my Constitutional right not to enter into a contract.  Again, this is another example of blurred lines between intent and application.  

My right to bear arms is inviable.  *sigh*  Yes, there are stone-zip crazy people out there.  Yes, there are zealots and fanatics.  Yes, guns are too easily obtainable by children and criminals.  But these factors do not outweigh my Constitutional right to protect my life.  Period.  A lot of the issues that would lend credence to any argument against gun ownership can be traced directly to failure to consistently enforce existing law.  This topic also stands as another issue where the lines have become blurred and almost invisible, and there are valid points on each side.  I feel that regarding this matter, emotions run high and reason can be misplaced. 

I contemplated whether or not I would respond to any “reviews” of this post.  Probably not.  I fully expect disagreement and appalled reactions.  But, this is America, free speech is still my Constitutional right, just as it is yours to disagree.  It is these very disagreements that shaped the final draft of the Constitution (i.e.:   the Federalist Papers).   

May you all celebrate (or not!) this day of Freedom.  Many cannot express themselves freely or even disagree with the leadership they live under.  We are blessed by who or whatever you think is the higher power, and even if you don’t believe there is one, it is your perfect right to.

Author's Note

My opinions on freedoms as defined by the Constitution

Reviews

[Jerome Malenfant]

I agree with some of what you wrote, such as there's no right to not be offended. But other things, not so much:

“democracy is too many times nothing more than mob rule.” No, “mob rule” implies a disregard for the law, whereas it is often said that we are a “nation of laws, not of men”. Pure democracy is impractical with the large population of the US, but seems to work very well in, for example, New England town meetings. 

“Our Founding Fathers never meant for a majority to decide what is best for all.” True; at that time senators were selected by state legislatures, and only white males who owned sufficient property were allowed to vote. But we’ve evolved past that, based on the finding that rich, powerful people are not necessarily smarter or more moral than non-rich, non-powerful people. Also the idea that the people who fight and die in wars should have some say in whether or not to start one.

“Distribution of wealth has been touted as the only “fair” and “socially responsible” avenue of eliminating poverty and hunger.” I don’t recall anyone ever claiming that. But any system of taxation is a “distribution of wealth”.

Successful businesses in this country are successful because of the hard work, skill, intelligence, luck, etc of their owners and employees, AND because of this country’s infrastructure: its schools, roads, police, judicial system, etc. (If you think not, and think your company’s success, the Acme Widget Company, is due solely to your efforts, then try to start up a widget-making company in, say, a dirt-poor country in the middle of Africa and see how many widgets you sell, or how many skilled, literate employees you can find to hire to make them.) And taxes are what pay for that infrastructure that, combined with your ability, allows your company to succeed.

“…to require that I obtain insurance for my vehicle is a direct violation of my Constitutional right not to enter into a contract.” I wasn’t aware of any such right not to enter into a contract, although I could be wrong about this. And you’re perfectly free not to enter into a contract to insure your vehicle. But there is no Constitutional right to drive a car; so, no insurance, no driving on the roads and the streets that the government built for all of us insurance-buying drivers.

“My right to bear arms is inviable.” No it’s not. You can’t own a bazooka; you can’t own a tank; you can’t own a nuclear bomb. The original intent of the 2nd amendment was all about militias being able to be formed and be armed. So, from this intent, you can own an arm if and only if you’re in a milita.

“But these factors do not outweigh my Constitutional right to protect my life.” A lot of people think that the best way to protect your life and of everyone else is to not have so many armed people. And to support this view all you have to do is to look at a country like England, (or almost ANY country that don’t have a 2nd amendment but does have strict gun laws) and compare the number of people killed by guns here with the number killed in those other countries. It’s at least an order of magnitude difference.

And as to the “failure to consistently enforce existing law”, the NRA and its lapdogs in Congress work overtime in gutting any and all of these “existing laws”.

[Ken Simm.]

An intelligent and well reasoned set of arguments Jerome.

[Jerome Malenfant]

Thank you.

[Carol Cashes]

I have the right to remain silent....just kidding. I am still working on my response, my environment this weekend did not lend itself to serious thought much less coherent or articulate writing. I'll be able to address your points better at work today where it's quiet and I can think undisturbed. I do want to thank you for your well written review and the obvious thought you put into each point. I enjoy healthy debate and while events conspired to keep me from digging into rebuttal, my brain has been working overtime!

[Carol Cashes]

**WHILE I COULD WRITE A THESIS IN REBUTTAL, THAT SERVES NO ONE AND THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THAT. I WORKED VERY HARD TO ENSURE THAT THIS RESPONSE ADDRESSES ALL POINTS WITHOUT HAVING TO ATTACH A BIBLIOGRAPHY. **

Misunderstanding the difference between a right and a privilege has been the source of a lot confusion. A privilege is special entitlement granted to a restricted group or person, and can be revoked. A right is irrevocable, and there are legal and natural rights. Privilege allows these certain groups or individuals to participate or enjoy events or to acquire/own certain objects. A right can be done or pursued because it originates within all individuals, a privilege cannot be pursued without permission.

My use of “mob rule” does imply, as you stated, a disregard for the law. When one looks up the definition of “mob”, while the first explanation references lawlessness, it also refers to a group or crowd of individuals. Too often, however, these groups have their own interests that they pursue, and this can lead to a loss of rights to certain individuals. Rights, not privileges.

I disagree that taxation is a “distribution of wealth”. Taxation pays for those matters that the government has taken responsibility for, or are compelled by the Constitution to oversee: Interstate commerce and its own upkeep. Tax dollars were not meant to be distributed to those with less.

Of course businesses thrive when the infrastructure surrounding their place of business is strong. It factors into a smart individual’s decision to start a business. I never said that my success was due solely to my efforts. However if I was smart enough to start my business in a welcoming environment, I have every right to expect to enjoy all the fruits of my labors. The required business licenses, insurances and business taxes are my contribution to the infrastructure. The rest is mine. Close the loopholes in the tax code that allows billion dollar industries to exponentially increase profit margins for shareholders. Don’t take money from me that is not a tax or license/insurance because someone thinks I have too much and should share the wealth.

Contracts are addressed in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as “liberty of contract”. It prevents government entities from interfering with lawful, legal contracts and substantive due process is the basis for protecting personal rights. If I am not incapacitated, or forced into a contract by another solely for their benefit, any contract I agree to is free from interference. Logic dictates that that would also mean I have the right not to.

The Fifth Amendment grants me the right to travel, and it naturally follows that how I travel is also protected. If I have the financial means to purchase a vehicle, and all other lawful aspects are met (i.e.: not stolen, sales taxes paid, inspections), I have the right to purchase it. If I have the financial means to buy a plane ticket and all other lawful aspects are met (i.e.: not on a Terrorist Watchlist or evading the law), I can travel. Automobile insurance does not pay for infrastructure and if I pay taxes, local, state and federal, then I have already “paid” for the roads I drive on. Automobile insurance is a financial issue, not one of rights. Traffic regulation is only addressed in the Constitution under the Tenth Amendment which gives powers not delegated to the Federal government to the states.

And now we address the big one: The right to bear arms. The courts have consistently upheld the individual’s rights to lawfully bear arms. Gun ownership is regulated by state legislatures and they are only compelled to ensure that the right remains. Each state can control and regulate gun ownership as long as they do not interfere with the right to own said gun. Common law, which existed well before the Bill of Rights, allowed that persons could own guns, and common law was the ruling premise of the Constitution. Lawfully: There is no instance that a tank could be “lawfully” owned as the potential use could never be construed as protection of life or property. Militia? Again, states have the right to form militia (National Guard), but fully interprets “the right of the people” as an individual right. See District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 case where the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. It maintained that the individual’s right to bear arms existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution, and is not contingent upon “militia” or military service.
As for your reference to the NRA, are they not in the same category as Insurance lobbyists? While I despise tactics employed by the larger lobbyists, it falls to voters to elect un-approachable, not-for-sale legislators. And on that point – Good Luck. Our legislators are human, and are subject to human frailties that include greed and all manner of avarice.

I have tried not to ramble, to specifically address all the issues brought forward in Jerome Malenfant’s review. If I missed something, Mr. Malenfant, please do not hesitate to point it out.
I applaud anyone, and everyone, who stands up for their convictions and beliefs, whether I agree or not. Standing on principles shaped this government, and healthy debate and disagreement is necessary to ensure that the law is upheld in the spirit and intent for which it was written.

[Jerome Malenfant]

“Misunderstanding the difference between a right and a privilege has been the source of a lot confusion. .... A right can be done or pursued because it originates within all individuals, a privilege cannot be pursued without permission."

But what is a right and what is a privilege is not self-evident and is something that people can disagree on. One can argue that I (only) acknowledge your right to life, etc., because I want you to acknowledge that same right for me. So rights are universal. A “privilege” would be something that is not universal because it would be impractical or too expensive or too something for society to extend it as a right to everyone.

So rights are not "God-given", they are things that are agreed upon by a society in order to create a better society.

"Too often, however, these groups have their own interests that they pursue, and this can lead to a loss of rights to certain individuals. Rights, not privileges".

True, and the way to lessen this is to make the “mob” as large as possible, so that the competing special interests will balance out and make compromises necessary. Restricting the decision-making process to a small group (an “aristocracy”) just insures that the decisions that get made will mostly benefit just that group.

And few laws are "best for all"; most have winners and losers. If a law violates a basis Constitutional right of a minority, well, that's what the courts are for.

"I disagree that taxation is a “distribution of wealth”. Taxation pays for those matters that the government has taken responsibility for, or are compelled by the Constitution to oversee: Interstate commerce and its own upkeep. Tax dollars were not meant to be distributed to those with less."

Yeah, actually they are:
GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States." (emphasis added)

"Don’t take money from me that is not a tax or license/insurance because someone thinks I have too much and should share the wealth."

Why not? when “you” got your wealth by buying politicians who write the tax code to your advantage. The way the tax code is now, people who’s income comes from actually working for a living pay a higher tax rate than people who got their money by inheriting it from daddy or from living off of investments.

"The Fifth Amendment grants me the right to travel,"

You sure? I don’t see anything in the Fifth about the right to travel. But even if this right is somewhere in the Constitution, the rights in the C are things that the government cannot stop you from doing, not things that the government has to enable you to do. The First Amendment guarantees the right to a free press, it does not require the government to buy you a printing press; the right to travel doesn’t require the government to furnish you with a road. While you may have paid taxes to build the roads, so have the rest of us, and the rest of us don’t want you, as an uninsured driver, driving on the 99.999999… percent of the roads that we paid for. Driving a car is thus a privilege, (you have to pass a test to get a license, and that license can be revoked. And you have to have insurance.), not a right.

And of course you don't have a right to fly on an airplane; the airline companies can kick you off one for, it seems, almost any reason.

As as for the "right" to bear arms: Granted, this is in the C, but that amendment can be interpreted in different ways, with the courts mostly interpreting it the way the NRA and the gum manufacturers want it interpreted. But someone carrying a loaded firearm in public constitutes a potential threat to everyone within range. We have to accept that in the case of police officers and such, but a lot of people do not want to have to accept that threat from ordinary, armed people. They don't want to live in a society where every little dispute could result in somebody pulling out their gun and start shooting, like that incident a few years ago in that theater in Florida. Or when dozens of children die each year from some kid playing with their parents' handgun.

Despite the 2nd Amendment, by my argument at the start, bearing arms should be a privilege, not a right, since most people, even in this country, have no desire to own a gun, and therefore no reason to acknowledge that as a right for all other people.

[Carol Cashes]

Every time that I cited a specific Amendment, my explanation is based on a decision of the Highest Court in our land - The Supreme Court. Did you think I wouldn't fact-check to make sure that I had valid arguments? I did not cite each case as these responses and reviews are not term papers or essays. The language is the language used by the Court, not me.

I suspect we are never going to agree, and that's quite all right, as I've stated several times, opposing views and the debates regarding these opinions are what shaped our country's finest documents.

I would hope that we can agree on one thing: what constitutes good writing. This writing site is how we came to cross paths after all, and that is primary to all else.

I salute you, Mr. Malenfant. I am glad to encounter one who feels so very strongly about their ideals. Too many today have just thrown up their hands in defeat, or choose not to think for themselves and just "parrot" what they have heard and what suits their purpose.

[Jerome Malenfant]

Ok, and thanks for your response.

[Richard🖌]

I am pretty well politically neutral, except to offer that the "game" of politics (in general) seems almost dysfunctionally convoluted to any sense of expedience toward the direction of direly needed progress … to my mind's-eye, of course.
Your words are so completely appealing to me, so harmonious, so deeply as meaningfully and balanced in every aspect with my own values, insights, and conscious outlooks and understandings, that we could well be twins, and I mean this, because in some very literal ways reading you is akin to looking into a mental, intellectual, emotional, and conscious mirror, with the exception of one thing:
Ridding the laws of liability auto insurance that protect others and holds us accountable for our own actions, would free everyone from being financially responsible for their careless, unthinking, uncaring, and accidental acts toward each other.
Automobile liability insurance assures us all that this does not occur, and that we do not fall financial victims to other's actions, materially, medically, and financially. Leaving this aspect of our lives to a moral compass and those who are not financially able to bear the burden of liability simply will not work. Time and circumstance have proven the need for mandated automobile liability insurance.
For as much as I so highly regard and respect my own degree of intelligence and high level of consciousness, I perceive it in yours, and in doing so, it is unlikely you fail to see the need and right for each of us to be legally protected by liability automobile insurance much differently than I do.
Having said all that, I believe your mind works amazingly well for a southern Mississippi gal … LOL!

[Carol Cashes]

Most all liability insurances have a non-insured motorist rider. Do you know the real reason why?read moreMost all liability insurances have a non-insured motorist rider. Do you know the real reason why?
That's because if your insurance has to pursue the party who's at fault, they have built in their own remedy to some extent - one you pay for.

That said, the bigger issue is:

Once the government opens a door, very seldom is it ever closed. Since everyone is nodding their heads and saying "Yes! Make 'em carry insurance!" for the very reasons you cited, few people are noticing that the door to forcing us into contract has now been open - what's next? I agree that everyone should have it, but if that's the case, why does every policy I've ever had, from basic liability to full comprehension have the non-insured rider? You may not recoup all losses with the cap the insurance company places on it, but you will not be left holding the whole bag. Again, though, people agreed and supported this because hey! Who wants to be victimized by financial slackers? No one. What they're missing is that door - that we can be forced into contract - is now open, and do you see the ramifications of that?

There's a bigger picture, and there are a lot of smoke and mirrors to make sure that the majority of us miss it. It's why we were warned and, in fact, charged by our Founding Fathers to be vigilant, be skeptical, ask questions.

I so appreciate your responding to this post. Healthy debate is what shaped every important document of this country, and I personally welcome it.

**Writing this quickly at work, so I hope when I hit "Post Comment" it's not incoherent and jumbled.**

[Richard🖌]

Coherent and clear, Carol:
Nothing manmade I've ever heard of is perfect, but just think of the consequences involved in having no protection whatsoever … talk about going backward.
What's next is really up to us and what we'll allow, and the liability is state mandated, a government, nonetheless, but far easier to avert further control over by the voting masses, than on the federal level (so far).
How are you on seat belt issues, or that another whole can or worms? LOL!

[Carol Cashes]

Click it! That is a "traffic" and personal safety issue, as opposed to fundamental rights.

I didn't miss your Mississippi "gal" poke, Texas. *laughing* Yup. I think Magnolia fumes and Mockingbird s**t is like Adderall for the brain. Worked for me, anyways.....

[emmajoy]

As a Brit and thus, part of our convoluted planet, i find your words absolutely incredible. They obviously come from a thinking brain and a strong heart. You've explained this and that in the process of putting out your opinions and - may i add, in a calm, logical manner. Polite too re those who you already know might disagree.. that is so rare in this bombastic state of parliaments almost everywhere.

Have you thought of standing for office?

Thank you.

[Carol Cashes]

There is no way that I would risk my integrity by becoming a part of the very element that has contributed to misinformation and distraction. I'm glad that you saw merit in this. Many people "parrot" others and have not done the work to establish their own opinions. I have, for various reasons over the years, and it's best if no one agrees 100%, unless you're my identical birth twin and we not only share DNA but identical thought processes. Thank you for reading this and I welcome any and all responses with the exception of knee-jerk reactions. Passion about a set of ideals does not include emotional rhetoric like name calling.

[emmajoy]

Cpould have said a lot more, am a somewhat political creature.. but.. anyone who wants to know my opinions, can scan my more serious posts... and that is NOT a nudge. One can't live in today's world and wish we could go back to the dark ages.. cos, believe me today is getting darker every day!

(Hope this doesn't see trite but, have to buzz, watching tennis from Wimbledon!) x

[Samuel Dickens]

I could address each issue, but hopefully it's enough to say you and I are pretty much on the same page. Perhaps a small difference or two, but not much. More than any other rule I try to live by is "Treat others as you would like to be treated."

[Carol Cashes]

The Golden Rule works with individuals, too bad our government doesn't operate on that premise...

[Carol Cashes]

I know I said I "probably" wouldn't respond to reviews, but I am interested in other's opinions. If you think I'm wrong, change my mind.