tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-555191244102972923.post8443665483014334830..comments2023-05-11T00:38:23.906-07:00Comments on Stupid Is A Five-Letter Word: Even Bill Whittle Can't Cheer Me UpButtercuphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10201235659652895050noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-555191244102972923.post-50053160438768865222012-07-05T14:25:13.271-07:002012-07-05T14:25:13.271-07:00I think we are both saying the same thing, I just ...I think we are both saying the same thing, I just used the example of government as the instrument by which most men interfere with others because it is the only organization recognized in any society that can utilize FORCE without negative consequences. In fact, it is often the best way to interfere with others and PROFIT by that interference (ie protection, privilege, power).<br /><br />You are right, men can never be free from reality (hunger, etc.) only from others. But men always DESIRE to be free of reality, and that takes force because you can never really avoid it. You can only avoid it for as along as you can make others pay the price of that avoidance. Eventually it all comes tumbling down, but until then, governments can to unimaginable damage - as men organizing to take advantage of other men.Buttercuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10201235659652895050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-555191244102972923.post-12680463947044006792012-07-05T09:28:00.864-07:002012-07-05T09:28:00.864-07:00Well if a criminal murders or robs me, he certainl...Well if a criminal murders or robs me, he certainly limits my freedom although as you say, he ends up paying consequences for that act. My argument was meant to be general, to emphasize that other men whatever their means, rather than natural causes are the only force which can limit our freedom. A government is, after all, just an organization formed by many people. <br /><br />A hungry man is not free? If he is left free of interference and allowed to take actions to eliminate his hunger (restricted only by the rule that he is not allowed to violate the rights of other men), then he is without doubt free. How could he be otherwise?<br /><br />‘And we ain't getting it back.’<br /><br />I agree. Historically, freedom is almost never given back, in any quantity or for any extended length of time. From what I see, the only way to get it back is to take it back. I’m sure that may happen someday but probably not for a long time.Steve Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-555191244102972923.post-24089050388909646772012-07-05T08:43:26.147-07:002012-07-05T08:43:26.147-07:00Yes, you are correct, but I would suggest that you...Yes, you are correct, but I would suggest that your argument takes it too far; it's too specific. We are only able to "interfere" with other people in any significant way, and remain protected from the consequences of the interference, through the force of government. Even the most totalitarian system recognizes that the individual is not allowed to just murder or steal or defraud others on his own. Only through GOVERNMENT can we interfere with others without consequence.Buttercuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10201235659652895050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-555191244102972923.post-48074044884036756842012-07-05T08:24:45.174-07:002012-07-05T08:24:45.174-07:00‘Rarely is it understood as freedom from governmen...‘Rarely is it understood as freedom from government's power.’<br /><br />Freedom is the freedom from interference by other people. There is no other possible meaning of it.Steve Dnoreply@blogger.com