Rural Liberty
"Tragedy is the price of freedom in the commons... In other words,
in a crowded world survival requires that some freedom be given up."
-Garrett Hardin
Given up or taken up?-
Unfortunately our politicians have not been known to show good judgment when it comes to which freedoms should be 'given' up in order to improve things.
Bush is fine with phone taps, random search and seizure, holding prisoners without council for. . . um. . . ever. (Hey Bush, you gonna tell the families of those you still hold that you have them?)
If there were a scientific proof that sacrificing something would improve society, or more importantly be crucial for survival, then I think you'd be hard pressed to find those who would NOT sacrifice any reasonable amount of activity.
I do think considering it sacrificing 'freedom' may be a stretch.
If something belongs to me, and by sacrificing it society would improve, should it not be up to me to make such a sacrifice?
How can the planet's survival be tied so firmly into the 'giving up' of freedom?
Is the definition of unalienable rights (the constructs of freedom) so greatly misunderstood or worse yet, unknown?
In a free country, who decides? The owner of the rights? Which freedom(s) need removal to prolong life on the planet?
Should whichever idea considered popular enough for removal of freedom be enacted? Mobocracy.
During the Democrat's administrations we would lose guns, SUV's, money, choice, etc., and during the Republican's administrations we would lose hemp, guns, money, environment, choice, and invariably we would be subject to each of the bi-partisans wildest whims.
A forced utopia can not exist. A mandated morality will stir rebellion. A fear based law will inspire more fears. A troubled populace coddled by the illusion of improvement will deny its abuses (Look around, it is like that today).
The philosophy regarding unalienable rights is not diminished by increases in population. Proximity to others or population density does not negate sovereignty.
The amount of resources, people, and space on this planet has no bearing on what a person can think, say, and in the constructs of liberty, do. I would argue that during times of greater population density it is the time when freedom is of greatest value.
This sacrificial philosophy assumes that we are incapable of choosing what is right, and therefore the solution must be implemented over our heads (Did you think I was going to say over our dead bodies?). It does so by stating that our freedom must be given up. Which is like saying your income taxes must be 'given up'. How voluntary is compliance to the IRS? Try NOT giving it up to them.
This opinion of Garrett Hardin begs another question, does this newly crowded world now assume authority over just the densely populated areas, or do the remote small town residents also have to submit to this mass sacrifice of freedom, due to the fact that the other side of the Earth is inhabited by billions and billions of consumers?
What should life's instruction manual read when you are born in a dense planet?
"Welcome to your life, due to increased population, it is no longer yours. Please take you place in line and await your daily bread. No need to give thanks, this is your right." Manual de Commons
And those five percent that protest will have their folks lament, 'why can't he be like us?'
----------------
Dearest Garrett Hardin,
Please consider another approach to resolving the problems that you assume await us just around the bend. Resources may not be infinite and our consumption level may be great, but controlling the masses begs the use of force.
How can we look to the citizens to sacrifice when the largest polluter on this Earth (and dare I say one of the largest consumers) is the American Government?
In fact many of this planet's governments with corrupt corporations in tow (or visa versa) are responsible for the waste, pollution, and generally dire direction some humans have been steering this planet.
If we cleaned house (and by house I mean the Earth), protected the landowners downstream from the giant polluters, and protected the people downwind from the spouting smokestack, and generally turned our focus to the largest and most prolific offenders we would solve the vast amount of problems you blame on 'freedom'.
This is the libertarian answer to your alluded problem.
And by the way, if we have a nation of mindless consumers and workers, I can only blame one source. . . government run public education.
Scott Lindsley
_________________________________
(editing assistance by V. Wagner)
in a crowded world survival requires that some freedom be given up."
-Garrett Hardin
Given up or taken up?-
Unfortunately our politicians have not been known to show good judgment when it comes to which freedoms should be 'given' up in order to improve things.
Bush is fine with phone taps, random search and seizure, holding prisoners without council for. . . um. . . ever. (Hey Bush, you gonna tell the families of those you still hold that you have them?)
If there were a scientific proof that sacrificing something would improve society, or more importantly be crucial for survival, then I think you'd be hard pressed to find those who would NOT sacrifice any reasonable amount of activity.
I do think considering it sacrificing 'freedom' may be a stretch.
If something belongs to me, and by sacrificing it society would improve, should it not be up to me to make such a sacrifice?
How can the planet's survival be tied so firmly into the 'giving up' of freedom?
Is the definition of unalienable rights (the constructs of freedom) so greatly misunderstood or worse yet, unknown?
In a free country, who decides? The owner of the rights? Which freedom(s) need removal to prolong life on the planet?
Should whichever idea considered popular enough for removal of freedom be enacted? Mobocracy.
During the Democrat's administrations we would lose guns, SUV's, money, choice, etc., and during the Republican's administrations we would lose hemp, guns, money, environment, choice, and invariably we would be subject to each of the bi-partisans wildest whims.
A forced utopia can not exist. A mandated morality will stir rebellion. A fear based law will inspire more fears. A troubled populace coddled by the illusion of improvement will deny its abuses (Look around, it is like that today).
The philosophy regarding unalienable rights is not diminished by increases in population. Proximity to others or population density does not negate sovereignty.
The amount of resources, people, and space on this planet has no bearing on what a person can think, say, and in the constructs of liberty, do. I would argue that during times of greater population density it is the time when freedom is of greatest value.
This sacrificial philosophy assumes that we are incapable of choosing what is right, and therefore the solution must be implemented over our heads (Did you think I was going to say over our dead bodies?). It does so by stating that our freedom must be given up. Which is like saying your income taxes must be 'given up'. How voluntary is compliance to the IRS? Try NOT giving it up to them.
This opinion of Garrett Hardin begs another question, does this newly crowded world now assume authority over just the densely populated areas, or do the remote small town residents also have to submit to this mass sacrifice of freedom, due to the fact that the other side of the Earth is inhabited by billions and billions of consumers?
What should life's instruction manual read when you are born in a dense planet?
"Welcome to your life, due to increased population, it is no longer yours. Please take you place in line and await your daily bread. No need to give thanks, this is your right." Manual de Commons
And those five percent that protest will have their folks lament, 'why can't he be like us?'
----------------
Dearest Garrett Hardin,
Please consider another approach to resolving the problems that you assume await us just around the bend. Resources may not be infinite and our consumption level may be great, but controlling the masses begs the use of force.
How can we look to the citizens to sacrifice when the largest polluter on this Earth (and dare I say one of the largest consumers) is the American Government?
In fact many of this planet's governments with corrupt corporations in tow (or visa versa) are responsible for the waste, pollution, and generally dire direction some humans have been steering this planet.
If we cleaned house (and by house I mean the Earth), protected the landowners downstream from the giant polluters, and protected the people downwind from the spouting smokestack, and generally turned our focus to the largest and most prolific offenders we would solve the vast amount of problems you blame on 'freedom'.
This is the libertarian answer to your alluded problem.
And by the way, if we have a nation of mindless consumers and workers, I can only blame one source. . . government run public education.
Scott Lindsley
_________________________________
(editing assistance by V. Wagner)
Comments