While I agree that economic freedom is #1, the lack of social freedom can very much impact economic freedom. For instance, How can I both have economic freedom and not legally sell drugs, alcohol, tobacco or firearms? The war on drugs makes our streets MORE unsafe-that impacts my business potentially. The War on Terrorism: IF I can not move freely and efficiently, that can impact my business-robbing it of profits. Who gets to decide that those lost profits are worth less than someone else's personal safety? If we look at two of the top economically free nations: here are some questions. How much more wealth would have been created for more people, therefore jobs and new technologies, if they were socially freer as well? There is always opportunity costs- the government's job is basic protection of my property rights and our borders. Let's not forget the War on Drugs ramped up under Reagan as well as other ridiculous freedom grabs-like raising the drinking age and compulsory registering for selective service.
While it is true that the right/conservatives have traditionally been more fiscally responsible and free while socially oppressive, Their home party (Republican) has been going through a more libertarian leaning phase lately. This is good for the party. Good for America. Most understand that they have little actual power to enforce their morality on you in your home, your life. The greater harm to your freedom is the economic oppression and servitude perpetrated against you by the progressives and redistributionist marxists. This has largely come from the left in recent history. When you can't feed yourself what good is your "right' to an abortion? Advocating violence if not merely hyperbole and metaphorically is not acceptable regardless of source or target.
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” --Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945
Though one particular point in it seems a bit out of place to me, and that's the part about the Nazis supposedly coming for the Catholics. I was under the impression that Hitler WAS a Catholic, so I don't understand why his regime would target the church that der Führer himself was a member of.
In fact, most of the sources I've read indicate that the Nazi regime never targeted Catholics at all, except in cases where they were also part of some other group, or if they engaged in political rebellion against the regime. I do know there was one incident where roughly 200 Catholic priests who opposed Hitler were rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps, but that was because they opposed Hitler, and not because they were Catholic.
Can anyone else with a deeper knowledge of history provide me with some additional insight into this? I need some clarification...
The problem with the left wing is not that they believe in social liberty, but that they believe in economic slavery. One can live in an economically free society with social constraints, but economic freedom enslaves all.
I think you meant to say "Saying that metaphorical hype can only come from the left makes about as much sense as saying that a boxer can only punch from the left." Although irritating, which is what it's meant to do, this stuff is really a yawner. Happens all the time from both sides.
If you're in that boxing ring, and you believe your opponent will always come at you from the left, and you only ever guard against attacks coming from the left, then you leave yourself totally open and exposed to attacks coming from the right. You make yourself vulnerable. To achieve victory in the boxing ring, it is necessary to expect attacks from both directions. It is also important to know that sometimes your opponent may try to fake you out, and make you think he's going to attack from one direction, only to attack from the other.
The famous Chinese general Sun Tzu said something similar about warfare: ------------------------------------------ "You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked. Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."
[...]
"The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known; for then the enemy will have to prepare against a possible attack at several different points; and his forces being thus distributed in many directions, the numbers we shall have to face at any given point will be proportionately few. For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak. Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us. Knowing the place and the time of the coming battle, we may concentrate from the greatest distances in order to fight. But if neither time nor place be known, then the left wing will be impotent to succor the right, the right equally impotent to succor the left, the van unable to relieve the rear, or the rear to support the van." ------------------------------------------ ~ From "The Art of War," by Sun Tzu, Chapter 6: Weak Points and Strong http://suntzusaid.com/book/6#sthash.gOTS...
I disagree that anyone should be 'taken out and shot' for a different world view then his. Just because someone thinks differently doesn't mean that their opinion is no longer valid. If people started killing others because of this then the United States would be no different then when Joseph Stalin did his purges in Russia, of people who thought differently then him.
I just think that the metaphor he used incites a saying like 'If you are not like us then you should have no say.' Whether we are Republican or Democrat every one has the right to say something and not have their viewpoint, metaphorically, 'taken out and shot.'
Exactly. A big problem I see with a lot of radical, far-right, fundamentalist conservatives is that they only support economic freedom. They don't give a rat's ass about social, religious, or ideological freedom.
YOU don't give a shit about social freedom...YOU want to use force so MAKE people have associations/dealings with one another that perhaps they do not want to have. hmmpf!
The problem is that some folks use "civil rights" as a bludgeon to force others into servitude against their will. What good is a Civil Rights Act if that is the outcome? Civil rights for whom?
It depends on what you're referring to. If you're talking about government welfare, I would agree. Government welfare has proven to be more of a detriment than a help.
But if you're talking about something else, you'll have to be more specific.
The great welfare state is a prime example, as you point out. I'm curious, though, do you disapprove of the welfare state because it has become detrimental or because it is based on theft?
There are many "something else" examples, but good contemporary examples are the "gay lobby" hammering the baker and photographer using "civil rights" to force those people to provide services against their will. Of course, the baker and photographer MUST lose their battle, either in court or capitulation, because a victory for them would call into question established legal precedence. [Begin sarcasm] After all, we can't allow certain people the free will to choose for themselves who they will serve, work for, or associate with can we? Government has the right to decide that for us or there will be punishments! [End sarcasm]
While that is most definitely true, it is entirely possible for there to be economic freedom without those other freedoms. As Milton Friedman said, "Capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom, but not a sufficient condition."
If you believe people who are into the party rhetoric, the other party [Republicans or Democrats] is so bad they are threat to the very existence of the country.
The War on Terrorism: IF I can not move freely and efficiently, that can impact my business-robbing it of profits. Who gets to decide that those lost profits are worth less than someone else's personal safety? If we look at two of the top economically free nations: here are some questions. How much more wealth would have been created for more people, therefore jobs and new technologies, if they were socially freer as well? There is always opportunity costs- the government's job is basic protection of my property rights and our borders.
Let's not forget the War on Drugs ramped up under Reagan as well as other ridiculous freedom grabs-like raising the drinking age and compulsory registering for selective service.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I
didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to
speak up.” --Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945
Though one particular point in it seems a bit out of place to me, and that's the part about the Nazis supposedly coming for the Catholics. I was under the impression that Hitler WAS a Catholic, so I don't understand why his regime would target the church that der Führer himself was a member of.
In fact, most of the sources I've read indicate that the Nazi regime never targeted Catholics at all, except in cases where they were also part of some other group, or if they engaged in political rebellion against the regime. I do know there was one incident where roughly 200 Catholic priests who opposed Hitler were rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps, but that was because they opposed Hitler, and not because they were Catholic.
Can anyone else with a deeper knowledge of history provide me with some additional insight into this? I need some clarification...
Here's taking the analogy a few steps further:
If you're in that boxing ring, and you believe your opponent will always come at you from the left, and you only ever guard against attacks coming from the left, then you leave yourself totally open and exposed to attacks coming from the right. You make yourself vulnerable. To achieve victory in the boxing ring, it is necessary to expect attacks from both directions. It is also important to know that sometimes your opponent may try to fake you out, and make you think he's going to attack from one direction, only to attack from the other.
The famous Chinese general Sun Tzu said something similar about warfare:
------------------------------------------
"You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked. Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."
[...]
"The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known; for then the enemy will have to prepare against a possible attack at several different points; and his forces being thus distributed in many directions, the numbers we shall have to face at any given point will be proportionately few. For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak. Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us. Knowing the place and the time of the coming battle, we may concentrate from the greatest distances in order to fight. But if neither time nor place be known, then the left wing will be impotent to succor the right, the right equally impotent to succor the left, the van unable to relieve the rear, or the rear to support the van."
------------------------------------------
~ From "The Art of War," by Sun Tzu, Chapter 6: Weak Points and Strong
http://suntzusaid.com/book/6#sthash.gOTS...
I can tell from the quote, though, that the radio personality was speaking metaphorically, not inciting people to murder.
But if you're talking about something else, you'll have to be more specific.
There are many "something else" examples, but good contemporary examples are the "gay lobby" hammering the baker and photographer using "civil rights" to force those people to provide services against their will. Of course, the baker and photographer MUST lose their battle, either in court or capitulation, because a victory for them would call into question established legal precedence. [Begin sarcasm] After all, we can't allow certain people the free will to choose for themselves who they will serve, work for, or associate with can we? Government has the right to decide that for us or there will be punishments! [End sarcasm]
The problem is that most university professors are leftists, so there may not be enough bullets.
Couldn't we hang a few instead?