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.

[barleygirl]

You've done a good job of presenting your case in terms of the "facts" as you interpret them. I like that you don't state your ideas in terms of one side or another, but as a more generalized viewpoint, free from the overly exaggerated "left" and "right" politics of our times. Living in a state of "freedom" can be messy & you've showed us how this mess can appear to you & your sensibilities. It's good to know how others see this, as it helps me sort it out in my own mind. The thing that seems to be missing these days is having such discussions where we can express ourselves instead of being lumped into some detested group of "others" . . . good job commemorating my birthday! *wink! wink!* Fondly, Margie

[Trace]

It is so nice and refreshingly pleasant to read your thoughts. It amazes me how so many just don't get it.

I am glad you do and are not afraid or intimidated to speak your mind. And I am also glad that what you said is so evident to those that take the time to research and understand our constitution and realize this is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Which we hear all too often.

Stay strong.
Enjoyed your letter.

Trace

[Carol Cashes]

I hope you read some of the responses, too. Quite a bit of debate regarding these Constitutional Ideals ensued and it was wonderful to "preach". *laughing* Never afraid to speak my piece, just selective sometimes about who gets the sermon!

[Trace]

I read all the comments rebuttals and counterpoint. You defended your argument quite well. Bravo.

[Carol Cashes]

*bowing* Much thanks for reading. It was an interesting week...

[Trace]

One more figure on guns
More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child. But in point of fact, only a minority of Americans own guns

[Trace]

Point in fact... 49% is a minority. Lol

[Carol Cashes]

Interesting, as well, a commentary on those who would decry our "gun culture." Should the courts at some time in the future attempt to ban weapons, under the General Welfare Clause that has become the blanket authority to legislate the "richest" lobby group or the "moral" majority, they would make criminals of many an honest man. It would take 3 or 4 generations to eliminate gun ownership. Don't see it happening. Even our Freedom of Speech is being curtailed by "hate speech", but guns? That's as American as apple pie and the Star Bangled Banner! *snort* I like breathin' so I won't say "cold dead fingers", but I'd probably have new shrubbery in the back yard!

[Ken Simm.]

A few points to start Carol.
The Voltaire quote about defending your right to say what you want even if I disagree is a mainstay of anyone I think of with a moral compass.
Speaking as a citizen of a country with no written constitution, (unless you count the Magna Carta). I have always felt that the American Constitution is one of the finest pieces of writing, nay poetry in the history of mankind. That does not stop me from disagreeing with parts of it however. Or rather to be more accurate interpretations of parts. For instance the Second Ammendment, The right to bear arms. You say it is the right to defend oneself and that is an inalienable right. I cannot see that for several reasons. I come from a country with very strict gun laws and a lot less gun crime than the States. Hand guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill humans. That in my view is and can never be right. How does that gel with your religious beliefs? You shalt not kill for instance.The NRA of course and I suspect you agree, say that it is not the tool, it is the human that uses it. How does that fit with the difference in gun laws between my and virtually every other economically viable country in the world and yours? We don't have guns there is far less gun crime. That seems a logical extension of freedom. My right not to be killed even by accident. Yes guns are necessary but not desirable by any code I can dream of.
Preachers of hate are usually lacking in some kind of education whereby they say forceably that I am inherently better than you. All men are created equal says your mostly religious country. Rightly so. All men remain equal unless they fail to believe what I believe is what the hate preacher says. Then they are not. I think it was an American student ,(don't know his name) who said in an answer once that all religions state that if you don't believe what I believe you will go to some kind of hell, (Certainly the big three do). Ergo everybody will go to hell. Hate preachers forment civil unrest and damage other beliefs than theirs. Therefore they should be regulated according to a defined morality. For the benefit of all. Would you say that a man who radicalises a youth has the right to do so? Then that youth commits an act of terrorism. And kills. Isn't that dead set against your fundamental right to life? (Pun intended)
Yes, free speech is inalienable and rightly so. I refer you again to the famous quote by Voltaire. But there are caveats. Someone who spreads hate in an evangelical and political way is in fact supressing your fundamental freedom of speech.
Much of what you say I have no issue with. I am an aetheist and I DO have a moral compass.Although some that you mention would have an issue with that. Whose freedom is better then? And that moral compass states quite unequivocally that every man has the right to the pursuit of life, liberty happiness; but not at the expense of the majority. Anything less is anarchy. And anarchy is anything but freedom to the pursuit of all the above.
No set of rules for life has ever turned out in the whole history of mankind to be perfect. And none will. It does not and should not stop us from trying to seek them. for the good of all. Not just the rich or the well educated or the politically savvy. Yes that world is a utopia but it is a dream worth pursuing.

[Jimmy Yetts]

As far as I'm concerned, there is little, here, with which to take issue.
We were founded as a nation of laws not men.
Those who believe "democracy" is synonymous with "freedom," apparently, cannot discern the difference between sanctioned mob-rule and lack of governmental duress.
Kudos, Carol!--you are an exceptionally well-informed American.

[Carol Cashes]

Thank you for reading this editorial. Many, sadly, do not understand the difference, and are not being taught this in school. When you attempt to have a discussion about democracy and a republic, their young eyes glaze over and they spit out what little they remember from High School History, Social Studies, and what we used to call Civics. This was, in part, my contribution to their sadly lacking education. I don't expect them to agree, just think...think.

[Delmar Cooper]

When I first read Grimm's Fairy Tales I concluded these things can't possibly be for children, but, at least ostensibly, they were. Perhaps children were tougher in the Grimms day.

The same held true for the constitution. Appalling almost, but then perhaps patriots were tougher in the days of post revolutionary America. I don't want to meddle with it, or change it, mostly because we are fresh out of Washingtons, Frankilins, Jeffersons and down to damn few remaining Hamiltons. So I am content to muddle along as is and cut my neighbor's grass while he is away in the hospital. It is hard for him, being only three fifths of a person even before resorting to Medicare.

[Coyote Poetry]

USA is far from perfect. I believe best place to live and succeed. The Constitution is needed. I enjoyed and I liked your thoughts. I believe we must ensure we keep the basic rights of freedom alive and well. Thank you Carol for sharing your words and thoughts.
Coyote

[Carol Cashes]

Thank you for reading. The Constitution is actually a marvel - its principles, if properly interpreted by lawmakers and courts will stand true and fair. Alas, once the human element is added, the broth is bound to sour eventually.

[Coyote Poetry]

You are right. New leaders want to change something that worked and still can.

[J. J. Nightingale]

Well written/said... I agree with all except the auto liability Insurance part...


JAZZY

[Carol Cashes]

It seems to be the one issue that sticks in everyone's craw...but I can't be "right' about everything, eh?

[J. J. Nightingale]

LOL.. also I take issue with the seat belt fines.. if one doesn't want to protect themselves, then the Gov. shouldn't force them to.. 100$ fine in NM if caught not wearing a seat belt !!!!............

[J. J. Nightingale]

You are welcome.....................

[Carol Cashes]

I agree that the penalties are too steep, but Click It! or Ticket! the one thing I don't mind...just contrariness on my part, I suspect. *laughing*

[J. J. Nightingale]

HA.........................:)..............

[J. J. Nightingale]

I always click it... but don't think it's right to fine someone who doesn't..they might as well fine a diabetic for eating sugar.....lol