# Freedom: Earned or a Right?



## DurocShark (May 26, 2010)

I know, flamebait. But I'm in an honest discussion on another forum (started by that "4 out of 5 people believe internet access to be a fundamental human right" story), and thought I'd see where we could go with it here.

To me, freedom is absolutely NOT a right. It must be earned and defended or it is lost. 

The other side of the argument is that it *is* a right, but must still be defended. 

I suppose it could just be semantics but to me they are two opposed worldviews.


----------



## Russianwolf (May 26, 2010)

I believe it is a right, but to be respected it must be earned and in any event must be defended.


----------



## ed4copies (May 26, 2010)

The source of the problem is defining "Freedom".

My dad, a WWII veteran (88yo) rarely makes "deep" statements.  When I visited recently, I was surprised to hear him say, "This sure is not the freedom we pictured when we fought in the war".

Really got me thinking about the men and women who have battled for the USA, because their government said the cause was worth the price.

To keep this completely Apolitical, just think of the war veterans.  Did the WWII guys define freedom the same as the Korea era, then the Vietnam, then the Iraq I, or the Afganistan, or Iraq II?

These are the men and women who have given much, yet our government determines their purpose for fighting.  Sure would be nice to listen to WHAT they THINK they are protecting.  -----Our "Freedom".

To avoid having this thread deleted, remember to stay out of politics and religion.  We walk a very tight rope, but it HAS been done successfully in the past.

Good luck to our current membership!! and active contributors.

(This weekend is MEMORIAL Day, remember???)


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (May 26, 2010)

Seems like a weird thing to argue - how do you EARN a freedom?  It's a guarantee, determined by legal documents and backed up by the government.  

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms determines what Rights, and Freedoms, a Canadian has.  It's a rather short document, but the basic Freedoms are: 

*Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    (a) freedom of conscience and religion; 
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
    (d) freedom of association. *

The Rights are longer.  So Freedoms are not the same as Rights, but both are protected by the Charter...if you're Canadian.  I have no idea what the US documentation shows, however.


----------



## snyiper (May 26, 2010)

Our Freedom in my opinion is our right, bought and paid for in human blood from our troops past and present. They fought and died to give us the rights we have. This is a everyday battle they fight on foriegn shores and at home to preserve our right to said freedoms. Seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## Rfturner (May 26, 2010)

Freedom is both a right and it is earned. The only way that this country was founded was through men and women sacrificing for thier country. Every generation has to earn the right of Freedom for themselves. I know many vets some of them are WWII marines, Navy, and one from Hitlers Youth(nicest man you'll ever meet he was forced to join when the Germans took over his country). The perspective of each is interesting. They tell of stories that the entire country stood behind them and as a country we fought. The progression since then has been away from the earned portion. I am 20 and the majority of my generation have lost the Earned portion completely because so many are used to give me, give me and never sacrificed anything in thier lives. As Americans we have to stand up for the right of freedom and teach the next generation that it comes through sacrifice and it is like a right of passage passed down to every generation.


----------



## jbthbt (May 26, 2010)

I've genuinely tried to think through the main posters point and it seems to me like there is slight differentiation between your definition of a 'right' and mine. To assert that freedom must be earned and defended presents that if you are unable to be victorious in your efforts to earn and defend freedom that you are undeserving of freedom. If I fight for another's freedom, does that mean that they are subject to me until they can take it away from me? If freedom is lost, does that mean it wasn't 'right' for us to have it in the first place?

I wholeheartedly believe that freedom must be defended, but I can hardly make the jump to assuming that those who are unable or unwilling to fight are automatically denied the freedom to pursue their own will. I would even go so far as to argue that the mere existence of human will indicates that freedom is in fact a right that cannot be denied. True, it may be infringed upon, but only to the extent that we choose to allow it. No one can steal the ability to think and choose, so that is a freedom that will always exist. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the other somewhat 'political' freedoms can be infringed upon unless defended, but their ability to be infringed upon does not negate the fact that the only way these can be truly denied us is by death. Are you free to make the choice between freedom and subjugation? Are you free to choose to fight for your freedom? I believe it stands to reason that the fact that we can choose to fight for freedom says that freedom is in fact a right.


----------



## Displaced Canadian (May 26, 2010)

Ed hit the nail on the head when he said define freedom. There is the Enemy ship off the port bow. Load the guns, man the cannons, and prepare to repel boarders freedom and the I can play the bagpipes in my backyard after dark without somebody hitting me with a phone book freedom. I think both sides of the argument are a lot closer than they think. Both seem to say that if someone infringes on my right to freedom or liberty and what ever gives them to me, right or not, needs to be enforced or defended.
 I didn't mean to offend any bagpipe players :biggrin:


----------



## DennisM (May 26, 2010)

DurocShark said:


> I know, flamebait. But I'm in an honest discussion on another forum (started by that *"4 out of 5 people believe internet access to be a fundamental human right"* story), and thought I'd see where we could go with it here.
> 
> To me, freedom is absolutely NOT a right. It must be earned and defended or it is lost.
> 
> ...



Well that statement there, means a lot. Was internet access envisioned to be a right, open equally to all? No. It was not, it was a means to communicate between universities and government offices.

Now freedom, to an American yes it is a right, period. defining that right is where the complications come into play. Amendments 1-9 (include 10 as well, since its ratified with the previous 9)


BUT

When the universal adoption of it becomes such that it is almost a necessity to work and or communicate with others in your life, then it does approach becoming a right that should be available to all.


----------



## ed4copies (May 26, 2010)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> Seems like a weird thing to argue - how do you EARN a freedom?  It's a guarantee, determined by legal documents and backed up by the government.
> 
> The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms determines what Rights, and Freedoms, a Canadian has.  It's a rather short document, but the basic Freedoms are:
> 
> ...



May I assemble a group in an auditorium and propose plans for "blowing up" a government building?

The assembly is peaceful, so my freedom should be protected by this document--
(Just the first wrinkle, rarely is a statement  as universal as it appears when written!!)


----------



## DurocShark (May 26, 2010)

DennisM said:


> When the universal adoption of it becomes such that it is almost a necessity to work and or communicate with others in your life, then it does approach becoming a right that should be available to all.




Devil's advocate here... Is it your right to be fed, whether you earned the food or not? 

That's a much more basic need than the intartubes.


----------



## ed4copies (May 26, 2010)

DurocShark said:


> Devil's advocate here... Is it your right to be fed, whether you earned the food or not?
> 
> That's a much more basic need than the intartubes.



IF you have a right to be fed, can you sue "mother nature" for a drought?

IF there IS food, someone raised it or it was raised on land owned by someone.  They have a right to be compensated for your removal of THEIR food.

Or, must we remove "property rights" in favor of "feed all the hungry"?

(see your devil and raise you a fallen angel!!)


----------



## Rmartin (May 26, 2010)

The US constitution grants inalienable rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights are those granted by God. So it goes from God to the people to the government.


----------



## DurocShark (May 26, 2010)

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Getting into human rights is a tricky business. If I have a right to internet access, who pays for it? Someone has to. Should it be the government (taxpayers)? My neighbor (who won't turn on WEP on his wifi)? The library (taxpayers again)? 

If freedom is a right, who pays for it? Should I expect that my neighbors go to war so I can sit and watch American Idol? Someone has to pay for it.


----------



## DurocShark (May 26, 2010)

Rmartin said:


> The US constitution grants inalienable rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights are those granted by God. So it goes from God to the people to the government.



I don't recall the God-given right to liberty being in the bible, though it's been a while since I've read through it. Do you have a passage? 

I'd gladly concede the point if it's there.


----------



## workinforwood (May 26, 2010)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> Seems like a weird thing to argue - how do you EARN a freedom?  It's a guarantee, determined by legal documents and backed up by the government.
> 
> The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms determines what Rights, and Freedoms, a Canadian has.  It's a rather short document, but the basic Freedoms are:
> 
> ...



Tell that to Howard Stern who was kicked off the airways for making fun of French people.    You have the freedom of thought, belief and opinion unless the government says not today!  People who are not Canadian can not make fun of Canadians on Canadian airways, even if those same people make fun of every kind of people there is so that there is no sort of racial or ethnical link that could ever be made..its' just their job to do so.
No...I am not a Stern supporter one way or the other...I am simply a supporter of free speech on public airways provided cursing is beeped out and it is not hate speech, which I define as trying to cause violence.

There's too many hypocrisies..and that is a world wide thing. Freedom is just a very thin thread of hope anymore.


----------



## Russianwolf (May 26, 2010)

workinforwood said:


> can not make fun of Canadians on Canadian airways, .



Air Waves.

Sorry pet peeve of a former radio comms guy.


----------



## Russianwolf (May 26, 2010)

ed4copies said:


> IF you have a right to be fed, can you sue "mother nature" for a drought?
> 
> IF there IS food, someone raised it or it was raised on land owned by someone.  They have a right to be compensated for your removal of THEIR food.
> 
> ...



According to the Native Indians you can't own land, so there. :biggrin:


----------



## Gin N' Tonic (May 26, 2010)

Russianwolf said:


> According to the Native Indians you can't own land, so there. :biggrin:



NATIVE AMERICANS!

Pet peeve of someone with Native American lineage.


----------



## jbmauser (May 26, 2010)

Mankind existed for thousands of years with the concept of a king, ruler whatever you call him or her.  The Kings owned everything and in a sense everybody.  Freedom then was whatever the king let you get away with.  

We  revolted and became a people without a King.  Something very unique in the world at the time.   A tribe of sorts with a chief who did not need to be a warrior though he was.

Those that revolted and won earned our freedom.  It is not up to each generation to earn it, it is a gift that is passed down to each succeeding generation.  It is each generations to preserve it or loose it.  

The problem today is too many people don't see the value of it, too many people could care less to preserve it and lastly and sadly, too many people don't have the stomach to earn it back.

The only thing that would get most people to rise up would be the complete  loss of their Cable and Sat service.  

I guess I am more cynical than I thought.


----------



## RAdams (May 26, 2010)

I think "Human Rights" are what man uses to keep from killing one another in times of drama. 

The fact of the matter is... We have no rights. Not the right to be free, or eat, or breathe or anything else. "Rights" are a man made notion that simply lets people disagree without blowing each others heads off. 

It is not a Lion's right to kill another animal to eat. It is not another animals right to live. Rights does not even play into the chase. It is S.O.F. 

So no, In my opinion, Freedom is not a right. It is a luxury. You have to work hard or be fortunate or both to have such luxuries. We, as free persons, have a slighted view of what we are entitled to. The world owes us nothing, yet from it, we take everything!


----------



## hewunch (May 26, 2010)

Rmartin said:


> The US constitution grants inalienable rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights are those granted by God. So it goes from God to the people to the government.



Nit pick. It is in the Declaration of Independence. 

As far as the Bible and Liberty Galatians 5 and Luke 4 both speak of it. I could find more I believe if pressed. :wink:


----------



## DurocShark (May 26, 2010)

Luke 4:18 said:
			
		

> The Spirit of the Lord  is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the  poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance  to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty  them that are bruised,





			
				Galatians 5:13 said:
			
		

> 3You, my brothers, were  called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful  nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love.  14The entire law is  summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each  other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.



Hmm.. I considered these passages to be about freedom to worship the God of the Bible, and personal freedom and the responsibility to yourself.  Worth reading again. You'd think I'd spend more time reading the Bible since I spend 60 hours a week in a church. :wink:


----------



## ed4copies (May 26, 2010)

Recall Terms of Service--avoid religion.


----------



## THarvey (May 26, 2010)

ed4copies said:


> Recall Terms of Service--avoid religion.



Noted -- Retracted.  Thanks.


----------



## ed4copies (May 26, 2010)

Russianwolf said:


> According to the Native Indians you can't own land, so there. :biggrin:




Which takes us down another interesting path.

The Native Americans lived in "mutually-supportive" tribes.  (An early commune).  They respected each other's rights, but were subject to a hierarchy.  Perhaps that is a "better" alternative??


----------



## hewunch (May 26, 2010)

DurocShark said:


> Hmm.. I considered these passages to be about freedom to worship the God of the Bible, and personal freedom and the responsibility to yourself.  Worth reading again. You'd think I'd spend more time reading the Bible since I spend 60 hours a week in a church. :wink:



I guess it goes to one's definition of liberty. I consider the freedom to worship the greatest of all and the beginning of all liberties.


----------



## Rmartin (May 26, 2010)

DurocShark said:


> I don't recall the God-given right to liberty being in the bible, though it's been a while since I've read through it. Do you have a passage?
> 
> I'd gladly concede the point if it's there.


 
I didn't mention a bible.

Inalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

U.S. constitution:
 "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

Seems rather clear to me. Why are you trying to pick a fight?


----------



## hewunch (May 26, 2010)

Declaration of Independence... not the Constitution. What you quote is not in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## DurocShark (May 26, 2010)

Rmartin said:


> I didn't mention a bible.
> 
> Inalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> ...




I wasn't trying to pick a fight. Since we've been reminded that there's no religion allowed, I'll stop that part of this debate.


----------



## DennisM (May 26, 2010)

DurocShark said:


> Devil's advocate here... Is it your right to be fed, whether you earned the food or not?
> 
> That's a much more basic need than the intartubes.



That is true, and and yes, it is our right as humans, as Americans to ensure that each and everyone of us are feed. If I am raising a dog and choose not to feed it, I will be fined and possibly imprisoned, but yet our country doesnt have to take care of its own people the same way? 

Phone service is something that is not a granted right, but in todays society it is essential to survival to some degree and there are programs in place to ensure that those without have the means to have it, that is more along the lines as my statement on the internet. Not saying fiber to the house here, but basic society imposed needs are meet..


----------



## DurocShark (May 26, 2010)

Is it a right to be fed, or a duty to feed others? 

Is it a right to have internet access, or a duty to provide it to others?

Personally I consider it a duty to serve. But it's absolutely NOT the right of those I'm serving to expect that service.


----------



## witz1976 (May 26, 2010)

DurocShark said:


> Is it a right to be fed, or a duty to feed others?



Neither, it is human compassion that makes us want to be sure others are fed.  It is in our DNA to keep our species surviving.  Just like all other species. 



DurocShark said:


> Is it a right to have internet access, or a duty to provide it to others?



Neither, the internet was developed for government use.  It was then commercialized and is considered a luxury.  Luxuries are not a right it is something that is earned. 



DurocShark said:


> Personally I consider it a duty to serve. But it's absolutely NOT the right of those I'm serving to expect that service.



I consider it a privilege & honor to serve.   We are fortunate to be in a Country (USA) where we are not required to serve to protect our freedoms (speech, elections, religion, you know the stuff in the Constitution & Bill of Rights).  I like millions others have (for the most part) have volunteered (excluding the Draft) to serve our Country.  There are some Countries that consider it a duty and requires all it's citizens to serve.


----------



## bitshird (May 26, 2010)

We do have a responsibility to defend our freedom, while it was written in the bill of rights that we have these unalienable rights,  I think we have to look at the mindset of the bills authors and creators. Also it was noted that we must keep a standing Militia, so apparently they assumed that at some future point in time and history that we would need to defend our rights and protect our freedom. Thomas Jefferson 's greatest fear was a Government that could someday become unresponsive to the needs and freedoms of the people it was supposed to serve. And like the kids in the car always ask, "are we there yet" I have looked at the internet since I first heard of it in about 1987 as this last bastion of uncensored area for just about any thing. But this was before it really got to being used for Identity theft, and terrorism plots and outright larceny. I honestly don't see where we can claim the internet as a right. Jeff could shut this site down any time he wants. Arpa.net and Darpa were never intended for public use, so I guess it's not a right, rather a privilege, and like so many other things which we consider our RIGHTS we have abused them.


----------



## Rmartin (May 26, 2010)

hewunch said:


> Declaration of Independence... not the Constitution. What you quote is not in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence.


 

Yes of course! My bad.

I should have said Liberty comes from the IAP to the penturners:biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## tim self (May 26, 2010)

I agree, FREEDOM is a right that has been earned.  The cost has been the blood of our forefathers and those who die every day defending the dream of freedom for others.  It is not a RIGHT guaranteed by a piece of paper.  I believe that those who believe so have a entitlement mentality.


----------



## Russianwolf (May 26, 2010)

Gin N' Tonic said:


> NATIVE AMERICANS!
> 
> Pet peeve of someone with Native American lineage.



Catawba and Cherokee myself.... I use the word intentionally to be non-PC. :biggrin:


----------



## lazyguy (May 26, 2010)

As pointed out earlier the Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  These rights that the Declaration was speaking of were first “self-evident” you know like no duh and second, they cannot be taken away, they come from the Creator. Some of those rights the Declaration continues are listed and Governments of man are to “secure” those rights. Notice it doesn’t say that the Government is the grantor of rights rather it continues on waxing eloquently about what should happen if Government does not secure those rights. You have individual rights but to what? What is the scope of these rights? I think the founders had it correct in the ones they enumerated, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Rolled up into those seven words is that you have a right to live free and try to be happy. I do not believe that we can say anyone has a right to a commodity. The internet just as food and gas are commodities. But freedom cannot be sold or bought however it is often paid for at a great cost.  So remember the sage words of the Beastie Boys  “ you gotta fight!! for right!! to parrrrrty”


----------



## Russianwolf (May 26, 2010)

One thing. The Declaration of Independence is NOT an official US document. It is just an angry letter written for and signed by a bunch of disgruntled men to King George.


----------



## hewunch (May 26, 2010)

Well to "not be official" it sure is treated like one. I know we are picking nits at this point in that there was no "US" at the time of the Declaration of Independence, but without it, there probably wouldn't be a US


----------



## lazyguy (May 26, 2010)

hewunch said:


> Well to "not be official" it sure is treated like one. I know we are picking nits at this point in that there was no "US" at the time of the Declaration of Independence, but without it, there probably wouldn't be a US



Last para starts out
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America"
while we didn't have the Constitution and the Article of Confederation was five years out were from that sentence on the united States of America. And in 1781 with the Articles became The United States of America


----------



## Grizz (May 26, 2010)

Freedom is not the right to do what we please, but an opportunity to do that which is right.


----------



## jskeen (May 26, 2010)

ed4copies said:


> Which takes us down another interesting path.
> 
> The Native Americans lived in "mutually-supportive" tribes.  (An early commune).  They respected each other's rights, but were subject to a hierarchy.  Perhaps that is a "better" alternative??



Well, also consider that one of the most universal beliefs among the Native Americans was that their tribe or extended family were the only "true" humans, and that most others were only partially human or of debased lineage in some way, fit mostly to be killed or enslaved in ritual warfare.  The literal translation of most tribes name for themselves is almost always "the people" or "true people".  My "true people" were Mescalero Apache on one side and Kotsoteka Comanche on the other (about 1/16 of each, not enough to count, but enough to maintain interest). 

As for Freedom, I am of the opinion that it is neither a right nor a normal state of being for the human animal.  Freedom is a temporary state of affairs wherein the normal oppression of the majority by the stronger minority is suspended.  Usually due to the planning and sacrifices of a tiny group of truly gifted individuals.  These individuals from time to time throughout history have been able to engineer social situations where there was a workable balance of responsibility and authority within a social framework that was able to nurture and protect this unnatural situation of minimal social injustice.  Unfortunately, this delicate balance is intrinsically unstable and always oscillates out of control when those who are in possession of the authority become unwilling or incapable to take on the responsibilities that should accompany it.  The resultant degradation of social forms from autocratic monarchy to hereditary despotism, or from republic to warm body democracy seem to be unavoidable given the tendency of humans to vote them selves bread and circuses, or food stamps and cable tv, whichever is most technologically feasible.  Roman Empire or 16'th century France, or the late great United States of America, all ultimately decay from within, and are overtaken by the barbarians.  

But it's a wonderful place to live right up to the point when it's not anymore.


----------



## robutacion (May 26, 2010)

An very old man told me once, when I was a young boy, _"My freedom starts when yours finish...!"_.  Many years later and I still  haven't worked out what he meant...!

On the other hand, freedom is like a double edged sword, used right you enjoy its meaning, used wrong and you will find out in jails what it exactly means...!

Cheers
George


----------



## cozee (May 27, 2010)

I know people who are imprisoned yet they will tell you that they have never been more free than they are now. I know people who many would call impoverished yet they too will tell you that they have never been more free in their lives. I know people who have great wealth and riches but will tell you they feel imprisoned. I know people who travel the world but yet feel oppressed.

True freedom has nothing to do with the natural, temporal, or tangible. True freedom goes far beyond that.


----------



## phillywood (May 27, 2010)

you really want to understand the depth of this issue then loook at the other countries and then stop and think how much of it we as americans have. and, since it has gottni nto politics and religion then i leave it here. but go loo at the movie calles babies( not that I am advertising it)  and then you 'd understand what freedom and right is all about. I respect and honoe those who fought for us to let us live in such luxury, and ask those who are still alive then you'd get your answer to this discussion. otherwise you ae just sitting and speculating  all along.


----------



## DCBluesman (May 27, 2010)

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"...Miss ya, Tex.


----------



## jocat54 (May 27, 2010)

DurocShark said:


> I know, flamebait. But I'm in an honest discussion on another forum (started by that "4 out of 5 people believe internet access to be a fundamental human right" story), and thought I'd see where we could go with it here.
> 
> To me, freedom is absolutely NOT a right. It must be earned and defended or it is lost.
> 
> ...


 

Freedom to me is a right that has been earned and defended by many brave men and women. Many of us has fought to give you that right of freedom--you even have the right and freedom to burn my flag--BUT if you do it in front of me you will PAY for your freedom to do so.


----------



## Glass Scratcher (May 27, 2010)

OK, it's late and I'll throw my hat in the ring so to speak...

Freedom is gained and kept by the expenditure of flesh & blood, sweat, and plenty of tears, lots of money and boatloads of ammunition.

On the idea that the internet being a luxurey that has to be earned, maybe, realistically it has to be paid for.

As for saying bad things about the Frenchie-French, I love the women, the men- not so much.

On telephones and being able to live without one...  I would love to.


----------



## MDEdwards (May 27, 2010)

The assumptions of American law reach back to the Magna Carta and 'natural law'. In that reguard it is assumed that we people act naturally when it comes to threats, to civilized behavior. Ben Franklin said that the constituion protects our right to 'persue' happiness, but it is up to us to catch it.
Michael
Al Udeid, Qatar


----------



## hilltopper46 (May 27, 2010)

I haven't read every post herein, but I have skimmed through most of them. So if I am repeating a thought that someone put out previously, I apologize.

It's interesting to me that we love to talk about freedom and what freedoms are our right to have and to hold, but we forget to mention responsibility.  I believe the freedom and *responsibility* go hand in hand.

If we are free to do whatever we want we have to be responsible enough not to do what encroaches too far on other people's freedom. I think that is what is meant by a quote in an earlier post 





> An very old man told me once, when I was a young boy, "My freedom starts when yours finish...!".



I see too many people who take their freedoms too far because they neglect their responsibility.  It is because of their irresponsibility that we need laws and rules that put boundaries on freedom. 

I may desire the freedom to drive my vehicle as fast as it will go, but I have the responsibility to drive it in a safe manner that prevents injury to others and their property. 
I may want the freedom to drill for oil wherever I want, but I have the responsibility to be prepared to cope with things when pipes break.


----------



## GaryMGg (May 27, 2010)

Whether it's a right or not, ALL the freedoms we have in America are paid 
for by those who gave their service and some paid for with their lives so 
we could enjoy the results of their labor:
It is the VETERAN, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion. 
It is the VETERAN, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble. 
It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. 
It is the VETERAN, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote. 

Thank you VETERANS.


----------



## Mr Vic (May 28, 2010)

The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness should only be limited by the point at which they infringe or deny anothers right. If this limit is exceeded then we have a fight, be it arrest or global conflict. It also must be earned by your daily conduct in support of others rights.

Having waived those rights for 20 years and offered my life to defend them, In my humble opinion you have those right but you must get off your dead butt and earn the means to support them.

In conclusion......please take a moment this coming Monday to offer thaks to the men and women who hav, are and will give all do defend this rights for you!!!:usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag:


----------



## KD5NRH (May 28, 2010)

jbthbt said:


> If freedom is lost, does that mean it wasn't 'right' for us to have it in the first place?



I'm physically capable of cutting your fingers off.  Does that mean your fingers rightfully belong to me?

Just because you may have to fight to keep something doesn't make it any less yours.  Even if you lose the fight, that doesn't mean the taker has any right to deprive you of it.


----------



## ThomJ (May 28, 2010)

"All gave some, Some gave all" Thank you those who served


----------



## jgourlay (May 28, 2010)

Two definitions of Freedom.  I'll say the first has "problems", the second is more accurate.  Then we'll talk about "rights" in that context.

1.  "Freedom To"  This is your fundamentally marxist definition.  You do not have the "freedom to do something" unless you have the actual ability on the ground to do that thing.  "I want the freedom to access the internet."  This statement is a code for "I want somebody to pay for my wifi."

2.  "Freedom From"  This is the classical notion of 'freedom'.  You have the freedom "to do" something BECAUSE there is no one *ACTIVELY* preventing you from doing it.  "I have the freedom to my sit in my living room and drink lemonade" not because I actually HAVE lemonade and a living room, but because there is not a policeman sitting in my ottoman following orders to prevent said drinking.

So...rights....

1.  "The right to"  Derives from "freedom to" As in, "I have a right to the internet".  This is a code word for "somebody owes me access to the internet."  This confounds the words "right" and "privilege".  Further, in the long term it is whollly self-contradictory as in this framework ANY desire can be construed as a "right" and once so construed becomes the "responsibility" of everyone to fulfill.  That ball rolls in the direction of the government taking everything you have, and enrolling you into slavery-by-another-name, because infinite resources is what it takes to fulfill the infinity of "rights".  And, of course, you cannot then enjoy "your rights" because providing for someone else's rights inevitably will interfere with your own.  AKA "My right to a beach front mansion in malibu was violated by the government because they wanted to provide for someone else's right to a new car!"  It is key to note here that this inevitably devolves to the government deciding what your rights are, and those rights changing from administration to administration.

2.  "the right from" or more accurately "the right to be free from".  Again, the classical construction of "rights" AKA "The right to be left alone".  I do not have a "right" to anything that someone else would therefore be required to provide.  I do, however, have a right not be interfered with.  The natural corollary is "except where I am interfering with someone else".  Notable here is that the government (aka, your neighbors) do not get to decide what your rights are.  They can spell out some specific examples (aka "The Bill of Rights"), but are instead in the position of having to justify every interference into your life by pointing our how they are preventing you from violating someone else's life.

So here is the test.  "I have the right to xxx" or "I have the freedom to xxx".  If "xxx" would require someone else to to or provide something in order for you to enjoy that "right" or "freedom", it's not a "right" or "freedom" but is instead a privilege.  You will either enjoy that "right" or "freedom" because of someone else's freely given largesse, or because the state committed the criminal (although legal) act of either extorting provision from someone else, or compelled them to provide for you directly.  

On the other hand, if "xxx" simply requires that other people (including the state) leave you alone and let you do your thing, and "your thing" does not involve theft, fraud, or compulsion against someone else, then you have yourself a bona fide legitimate "right" or "freedom".


----------



## leaycraft (May 30, 2010)

Let us think in terms of "privilege" rather than a right.  Mush of what we have is a privilege in that we have to meet criteria and pay fees- think drivers license.

A right is that which is guaranteed us by birth, the Declaration of Independence, the Charter of Rights, Magna Carta.   All of these documents require that the individual must be vigilant and willing to defend these rights.  When I enlisted I took the following:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This is who we assure that all who are born or chose to become citizens keep their rights.

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Remember our fallen and support those who serve.

To my fellow veterans here thank-you, I'm proud to be one of you. late Sgt. 2d Bn 102 Armor.  Medical


----------



## wolftat (May 30, 2010)

Freedom is just a sheild that non conformist hide behind. You only are free to do as others approve and even then you are still far from free.


----------



## bitshird (May 30, 2010)

Kind of like Birds are free to fly in the sky???


----------



## jskeen (May 30, 2010)

wolftat said:


> Freedom is just a sheild that non conformist hide behind. You only are free to do as others approve and even then you are still far from free.



Well, that's true to a degree, but only because the sheep have no need for freedom, no concept of what it means, and usually think that by conforming more slavishly to whatever the fashionista/advertising trend of the day is, they are demonstrating "freedom"  But who is more unfree?  The IBM jr manager in his cloned brooks brothers suit and red tie, or the biker in his leathers, chains and tats?  (or a marine in his high-and-tight, corps tshirt and bumper sticker)  All are conforming to a code imposed upon them by someone else in order to "belong" to a group.  Perhaps it is a code that they willingly and proudly accept, but it is still conforming.  

Is true freedom the crusty old desert rat, living out in the boonies and not seeing anybody else for weeks at a time (but not bothering to send in a 1040 every year either?)  Or is it the Montagnard partisan, fighting on for his people and their homeland long after everyone else abandoned them, hunted and bloodied but unbowed?  

All humans trade some degree of autonomy for the benefits of society and coexistance with their fellow man.  The question is how much, and how willingly they make that trade.


----------



## GaryMGg (May 30, 2010)

Hello Joe G. -- I wondered how long it'd take you to wander over here from WN.
Congratulations on managing to post those thoughts without actually crossing into the realm of Politics.
That was quite a feat! :wink:
What I'd like to know is Is your def. #1 a little contrived?
I ask KNOWING we share numerous pol. philosophical ideas.
The reason I ask is:
I have the Freedom To Grow vegetables in my garden and eat fresh produce from said garden rather than buying it from large commercial producers.
I have that freedom because I bought and paid for my land and I have the knowledge and skill to do it.
I also have the Freedom From having my garden pilfered (excepting turkeys and deer) as I have the material means to keep thieves out of my garden.
Is your "Freedom To" merely illustrating one form of that type of Freedom?

Welcome aboard,
Gary

Who is John Galt?


----------



## wolftat (May 30, 2010)

jskeen said:


> Well, that's true to a degree, but only because the sheep have no need for freedom, no concept of what it means, and usually think that by conforming more slavishly to whatever the fashionista/advertising trend of the day is, they are demonstrating "freedom" But who is more unfree? The IBM jr manager in his cloned brooks brothers suit and red tie, or the biker in his leathers, chains and tats? (or a marine in his high-and-tight, corps tshirt and bumper sticker) All are conforming to a code imposed upon them by someone else in order to "belong" to a group. Perhaps it is a code that they willingly and proudly accept, but it is still conforming.
> 
> Is true freedom the crusty old desert rat, living out in the boonies and not seeing anybody else for weeks at a time (but not bothering to send in a 1040 every year either?) Or is it the Montagnard partisan, fighting on for his people and their homeland long after everyone else abandoned them, hunted and bloodied but unbowed?
> 
> All humans trade some degree of autonomy for the benefits of society and coexistance with their fellow man. The question is how much, and how willingly they make that trade.


I believe the Marine is actually one who truly understands that he is not free, but will fight to the death to defend the belief that someday he will be.

Basically what I am saying is that there is no such thing as complete freedom no matter what you do, so is it a right? Maybe... Is it a privledge? Maybe... Will people continue to argue, fight, and die over things that they have no control over? That is a definate yes.

The only way you will ever be free is to accept that you need to free yourself first. You will need to figure out for yourself how to do that.


----------



## jskeen (May 30, 2010)

wolftat said:


> I believe the Marine is actually one who truly understands that he is not free, but will fight to the death to defend the belief that someday he will be.
> 
> Basically what I am saying is that there is no such thing as complete freedom no matter what you do, so is it a right? Maybe... Is it a privledge? Maybe... Will people continue to argue, fight, and die over things that they have no control over? That is a definate yes.
> 
> The only way you will ever be free is to accept that you need to free yourself first. You will need to figure out for yourself how to do that.



True, very true.  A warrior willingly gives up his own personal autonomy in order to achieve benefits for others first, and secondly for himself if he survives to enjoy them.  This is the responsibilty that is the obverse of true freedom, and that is becoming more and more rare in our society.  This is unfortunate, albeit predictable.  

Like the Marley Mon said;  "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, None but yourself can free your mind!"

Spartan Mothers are reputed to have said  'Son, either with this or on this.' when handing them their shields on the eve of battle.  According to Plutarch, when asked why it was dishonorable to return without a shield and not without a helmet, the Spartan king Demaratos (510-491 BC) is said to have replied: "Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of all."

The flame of Spartan honor survives undimmed by more than 2000 years, while their ultimate conquerors, the Romans are mostly remembered for political corruption, debauchery and poor table manners.


----------



## cozee (May 30, 2010)

wolftat said:


> I believe the Marine is actually one who truly understands that he is not free, but will fight to the death to defend the belief that someday he will be.




AMEN!! And if not freedom for himself, then for others who follow him!!


----------



## Glass Scratcher (May 31, 2010)

GaryMGg said:


> snip
> 
> I have the Freedom To Grow vegetables in my garden and eat fresh produce from said garden rather than buying it from large commercial producers.
> I have that freedom because I bought and paid for my land and I have the knowledge and skill to do it.
> ...



You best keep an eye on Monsanto and their GMO's then.


----------



## jskeen (May 31, 2010)

Glass Scratcher said:


> You best keep an eye on Monsanto and their GMO's then.



Hey Charles, did your wife make you watch food inc. too, or did you develop an interest in this subject on your own?  

James


----------



## MDEdwards (May 31, 2010)

In England the Monarch 'gives' you rights and priveleges.
In America those rights bestowed by god (or nature if you will). 
_...That something that cost so much in human lives should be surrendered piecemeal in exchange for [trendy] visions or rhetoric seems grotesque. Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their 'betters.'" Sowell_
_DuroShark began with: I_ know, flamebait. But I'm in an honest discussion on another forum (started by that "4 out of 5 people believe internet access to be a fundamental human right" story), and thought I'd see where we could go with it here.
Access to the internet is a 'Fee for Sevice' bussiness, not different than a barber or cable TV(are you stealing Cable?). This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Michael Edwards, MSgt
379 EAES
Al Udeid AB, Qatar................................exercising the 1st Amnd.
Thank you,   Bill Jackson Edwards for sacrificing your life for the cause of  liberty ; Khe Sahn, South Vietnam, May 1967; we still mourn.


----------



## Glass Scratcher (May 31, 2010)

jskeen said:


> Hey Charles, did your wife make you watch food inc. too, or did you develop an interest in this subject on your own?
> 
> James



Was that the documentary on PBS a few months back?  If so I saw it.
Monsanto is EVIL.  Suing farmers for growing from seed stock that they have been seed saving.  Sueing for patent infringement (gene patents) because the open pollinated GMOs hybridised with natural plant varieties grown in nearby fields.  Almost sounds like it was planned to capture the seed market...

I got interrested back in the late 80's when the open pollinated corn debacle occured.  I have been trying to seed save heirloom tomatoes in the last few years, and now the local heirloom Datil pepper.  This next year I am going to add plant cutting/cloning to my little experiment so I can have full tomato, pepper, eggplant and others earlier and not have to worry so much with hybridization(it keeps me up at night and I watch PBS documentaries :wink: ).

We don't have Freedom, or Justice for that matter, just limits.


----------



## cozee (May 31, 2010)

Glass Scratcher said:


> We don't have Freedom, or Justice for that matter, just limits.



And with the passing of each and every day, that which we have progressively gets smaller. I am beginning to feel like I live in Sweethaven (Sweetwater)!!


----------

