|
From
http://www.atheistlloyd.com/subweb/newsletter.html
SML131
It is a fairly well-established concept
that, in America, freedom is a seven-letter word in a one-letter alphabet
consisting of a dollar sign. To many people, personal freedom starts with
less government. To some, it's fewer restrictions against doing anything
they choose, consequences be damned. There are those who limit it to
religious freedom, that being all they regard as important. To children,
it's less "old people" watching their every move; to their parents, it may
be less bosses, less time struggling with work, fewer worries, or any of a
myriad other such ideas. To this group of people, freedom represents, if
anything, a statement requiring 'less'.
Another group requires 'more' of
freedom: The protection of more government is perceived as promoting a
potential for achievement. More laws could protect them from threats
against their safety, their persons, their livelihoods. More police could
better watch over them, more judges, agents, prosecutors, lawyers could
enforce more rules and punish more bad guys and other mean people seen as
the real threats against their freedom. As we have been seeing lately,
though, 'more' government may result in a less effective government.
Groups and individuals often espouse
slogans beginning with 'Freedom From --' or 'Freedom Of --' ending with
their pet interest. The point so far is, when most people think about
freedom, they limit their thoughts to only one or two pet items. Other
freedoms, of concern to others but not to them, may look like threatening
ideas that get them hot under their collars and against which they will
fight.
True freedom must cover all the above,
and more, if the persons involved are not to eventually become, in some
manner, slaves. Government must be strong enough to protect without
interfering in personal aspirations; and it must have the means and the
methods for resolving conflicts within and without while openly serving
the best interests of all the parties involved. Those living under its
jurisdiction must strive, themselves, to be wise and protective of their
freedoms: Wise to their effects upon individuals and the whole, in the
short range and the long, and wise to the cunningness of those whose words
and deeds would remove freedoms at the first opportunity, and wise in
their willingness to protect themselves from that, and in counseling their
peers about those who seek to illicitly increase controls for their own
undeserved benefit.
Bound with true freedom is acceptance
of responsibility, which requires one to know, and be responsible for, all
the possible consequences of its practice. As one sheds responsibility,
one sheds freedom like removing the layers of his clothing, until he is
naked and enslaved. Those who would strip him so, with his consent, would
cast his unprotected carcass aside while life still coursed through it,
and say he gave them permission to do so.
Aspirations are the major purpose
served by freedom, by culture and society, and by life. A nation without
aspirations is a nation in decline, the same as any individual who lives
without them. Such individuals are dangerous to freedom, for by their very
apathy and lack of concern and creative goals for themselves, they promote
the demise of freedoms for others. Aspiration, meaning the drive to
improve your lot in life, is the backbone of what I see my own country
being all about. A nation filled with people who aspire to improve the
conditions of their mental and physical existence, and who possess
creative endeavors they attend to, adds up to a nation seeking to better
its own self, but only if personal freedoms are truly honored and
protected. It will otherwise be only a nation longing to better itself,
from which the tools for doing so have been taken. Those tools will have
been replaced with deviant bureaucratic technicalities, distractions,
impositions, theocratic dominance, and restrictions.
Each person in a truly free society
must maintain his own emotional and intellectual stability in order to
uphold the burden of responsibility that true freedom requires. Honesty is
a prime requisite for the performance of such maintenance; honesty first
with one's own self, from which is then derived the capability of honesty
with others. Honesty with one's own self requires a self-awareness and a
valid natural standard of self-evaluation, in which each person seeks to
increase his knowledge of his or her own real needs and aspirations, and
the foreseeable constructive versus destructive results of various
activities and methods which may be chosen in the ongoing struggle for
attainment.
Another absolute requirement for
supporting a free society is a full secular education for each citizen, to
the maximum of their ability and interest, available at all times during
their lifetimes. We give lip service to something akin to that now, in the
United States, disallowing that poverty prevents access to a full
education for most citizens, and that all schools are not equally
qualified-even if accredited-or recognized by potential employers, a fact
usually not discovered until after the effort has been completed and a
debt remains to be paid. A requirement for welfare recipients might be
that they go to school according to their interests and aptitudes, and
earn and maintain a grade above a certain level to qualify for their
income. Setting up such a program would force us to overcome many
problems, but it could be done and modified on the fly rather than in some
fashion cast in stone, unchangeable whether or not it works. The idea
behind such a program would be that people on the dole are not free
citizens, but smothered as potential slaves, as are those required to pay
the cost of their support.
The least free of our citizens
overpopulate our prison systems at all levels. The idea is not that some
occupy their status because of violating pointless laws, but that all have
been placed "in storage" to separate them from society at a very high
cost, to serve no worthwhile purpose while too many jobs go undone with no
workers. Why torture somebody on an electric chair or waste him with a
lethal injection when hazardous missions need volunteers, or subjects are
needed to test new drugs and medical procedures. The purpose of capital
punishment ought to be to nurture useful citizens. Rather than eliminate,
or simply store away, those who appear to be useless to society, why not
do something that would make them useful? Such missions and tests could be
performed by inmates according to the nature and relevance of their
crimes—those who performed the most heinous crimes could qualify for the
riskiest ventures, and perhaps could be rewarded for their successful
cooperation with an earlier date of release. It could be stated that some
citizens do not ever deserve freedom; it can be equally stated that, if
true, the balance of the citizenry do not deserve the onerous costs of
their maintenance without some expectation of repayment.
|
