Posts
...there is no need for freedom's advocates to be inclined to braid each other's hair and bake cookies together in order to speak out when Man's basic liberties are under assault.In the same posting, he notes this is the flavor of the Ron Paul presidential movement. That's an understatement, of course. The most fascinating story of this political season is the "coalition of the freedom-minded" that is working passionately to move Paul up in the polls. The same Republican operatives who like to talk about "a big tent party" are those who sneer at Paul for attracting "independents and Democrats" into his fold. And when a candidate has support from such diverse sources as the Constitution Party crowd and aspiring hip-hop artists, something is bringing them all together.
An attack on the free speech rights of a pro-war, strong government guy is an attack on everyone, including those of us who happen to be anti-war and anti-government.
I suggest that "something" is a desire to return to true, individual freedom... the freedom to be left alone to work out the course of one's own life with minimal interference from others. Yes, it means some people will make choices with which we disagree, either morally or personally. To the extent those choices harm no one else, it's simply not a matter for the State. As one commenter on Vox's site put it: "If you don't love my freedom as much as you love your freedom, it's not freedom you love." According to the Bible, we're allowed the freedom to self-destruct, and it's on our own heads--not society's--when we suffer for our poor choices. When we seek more direct control over others than even God chooses to exercise, it should give us great pause.
Regime change in Iraq was effected by the so-called "coalition of the willing." Perhaps regime change at home will finally be effected by the "coalition of the free."
No comments:
Post a Comment