Why don't Americans understand freedom?

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Quote:

The Legislature is considering allowing liquor stores to open on Sundays and grocery stores to carry full beer, alcohol and wine. Do you favor this? Why?

(Asked at the Robert Hoag Rawlings Public Library.)

"No. I was a drug and alcohol counselor, so I'm totally against this."

Debbie Paraday
CNA
Pueblo

"I don't drink, but I lived in Arizona and the stores are open all the time there. I'm used to it. It's OK. Just don't drink and drive."

Diana Mopo
Retired
Pueblo

"I'm from California, and that's the way it is there. I grew up with it. I'm not opposed."

Geralyn Palacio
Housewife
Pueblo

"If the state can benefit from increased tax dollars, why not? I don't understand why you can't buy liquor on Sunday. I never could understand that."

Jake Black
Server
Pueblo

"I don't favor it. They are open long enough."

Gilbert Montoya
Retired
Pueblo

"I favor grocery stores carrying alcohol, but not liquor stores open on Sunday. The bars are open. That's enough."

Heather McDaniel
Telemarketer
Pueblo West

"No. I believe in all things in moderation. Liquor stores make enough money all week."

Peter Wilson
Landscaper
Pueblo

"Yes. Most other places have it. I don't know why not here."

Gary Parks
Physician
Pueblo

The online version of this story only showed seven of the eight comments that were in the print version of the paper. Here is an email I sent to the Chieftain that went unpublished:

Quote:

"Eight people were polled outside the Robert Hoag Rawlings Public Library on their opinion regarding a possible change in the law requiring Colorado liquor stores to be closed on Sundays. Five of the eight people polled were against changing the law. Not one of the five provided a rational reason. Not one of the five seemed to understand that it isn’t their business what hours a liquor store keeps – nor should it be the government’s business, in a free society.

"If A and B are engaged in a mutually beneficial business transaction, C can opine until the cows come home, but it isn’t his concern. In a free society, C does not have the right to go to X, Y and Z for the purpose of regulating A’s business to C’s satisfaction, unless A and B are engaged in a criminal enterprise in which people, or their property, are in jeopardy.

"This may be a stunning revelation to most Coloradans, in light of the smoking ban, but you don’t have the right to patronize every business in the state. Quite the opposite, business owners reserve the right to refuse service to you for any reason. In a free society, you don’t run to government to force businesses to conform to your wishes, you shrug your shoulders and take your money elsewhere.

"And just so there is no confusion: I say “in a free society” for the purpose of drawing a comparison to the one in which we currently live. Political power is a precious thing, and yet people seem so willing to give it to the government. The more power we give to government, the less free we are. We should be ever vigilant of encroaching governmental power in our lives, even if that power is encroaching into the private lives and industries of people with whom we disagree."

Steven McDuffie

The title of this thread isn't rhetorical: The reason Americans don't understand the concept of freedom is the government is in control of educating children. How on earth could any reasonable person expect government agents (teachers) working for government agencies (public schools) to teach the concept of freedom?

One of the main reasons I dropped out of the race for US House of Representatives (Colorado-District 3) is because of the sorts of sentiments expressed by the people quoted above. I don't have the time or the patience to do what the education system has failed to do: teach voters the dual concepts of economic and personal freedom.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:06 am

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

One of the main reasons I dropped out of the race for US House of Representatives (Colorado-District 3)

Wait... you actually are Steven McDuffie?
You're not bullshitting us?

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

One of the main reasons I dropped out of the race for US House of Representatives (Colorado-District 3)

Wait... you actually are Steven McDuffie?
You're not bullshitting us?

Of course. Why would I bullshit you about that?

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:12 am

I am for it. Even though I don't really drink much the thought of my not being able to buy it on Sundays PISSES me off!
If it is illegal on Sundays it ought to be illegal on every day!

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:23 am

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Of course. Why would I bullshit you about that?

Eh, I guess you're right. Laughing

It's just that I bumped into the paulcongress.com site the other day, on which you're mentioned, and I just got this "it's a small internet after all" feeling.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:47 am

mcduffie wrote:

The reason Americans don't understand the concept of freedom is the government is in control of educating children. How on earth could any reasonable person expect government agents (teachers) working for government agencies (public schools) to teach the concept of freedom?

As a libertarian, it is practically inconcievable to me how this country was founded by people who experienced violent outrage over a basic sales tax, while today, we are content with the whopping barrage of constant federal, state, and local taxes. And still - as evidenced by this current election cycle - the people want the government to do MORE rather than less?!

It seems that we have really come a long way from being outraged by a stamp and tea tax to being lackadaisical about a whopping income tax!

But the way I see it, your theory has the tail wagging the dog. The public schools don't dictate our collective ideology so much as public ideology dictates what gets taught.

Of course, the two are somewhat reciprical, but think of it this way: do the kids control what gets taught? Do they sit on the schoolboard? Are they the curriculum designers?

No. Their parents are, and their parents are a reflection of the community and the prevailing public ideology.

To me, our lack of outrcy over the current leviathanic government trends are simply the product of a very gradual shift over the years towards the idea that government is more trustworthy and benevolent than the private sector.

But I really do think that this shift in cultural view brought about the current educational curricula, rather than the other way around because of the reason I stated above that the parents, not the kids, make, design, and shape the curricula.

Also, as a teacher (who has taught government courses), I really think that for a teacher to advocate a single political view - even a libertarian one! - would be to exercise undue bias.

Of course, we can't only teach facts without weaving them into interpretations. But, we can certainly guard against interpreting too biasedly and inadvertently passing ANY bias onto our students.

So, I disagree also with your implication that we should be teaching students what freedom means (and that it is one particular thing - 'freedom from' rather than another interpretation of 'freedom to.' Both are valid definitions of freedom. Just because we happen to prefer one over the other does not give us the right to teach that preference to our kids.)

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

I had a conversation with an x boss a Christian. He told me that he thought "blue laws" were absurd. He was having another conversation with another Christian elsewhere prior, and said that that guy said that businesses should be closed on Sundays. My x boss asked the guy why.

Unfortunatly too much of society responds like this, "It is the lord's day"

|My boss asked, |"Well what would you do if you didnt have to work?"

Response, "I'd take my family out to breakfeast and then maybe to a movie."

My boss," And WHO exactly would be working in these places if everyone had the day off".

My response hearing this story, "WHAT A DUMBASS|!"

I still dont understand why banks arnt open on sunday. I dont understand why alchohol(other than government wanting it's cut|) has to be in a government store in some states. And if you can drink in a bar on sunday, or drink beer on sunday that you bought friday, WHAT FUCKING DIFFERANCE DOES IT MAKE who sells it or what day?

I think the only laws regarding that should be above 18 and dont drink and drive. Other than that, these laws are nothing but a stupid reminant of "god's day of rest" law.

There used to be, in our history, some counties where you couldnt buy kitchen appliances on sunday.

STUPID SHIT if you ask me.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:00 am

mcduffie wrote:

Why don't Americans understand freedom?

I'm rather torn on this issue. On one hand, I find the current state of American politics to be puerile and trite and do not participate in the system. At the same time, I’m not sure giving more/unlimited freedoms to the typical individual in this country will ultimately lead to a better social environment where the individual would live a happier, healthier life.

On the issue of alcohol and when businesses can sell it…

I’m of the opinion if the substance is legal and it’s legal for other businesses to be open twenty-four seven, then there should be no restrictions on when it can be sold.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

MockingGods wrote:

mcduffie wrote:

Why don't Americans understand freedom?

I'm rather torn on this issue. On one hand, I find the current state of American politics to be puerile and trite and do not participate in the system. At the same time, I’m not sure giving more/unlimited freedoms to the typical individual in this country will ultimately lead to a better social environment where the individual would live a happier, healthier life.

On the issue of alcohol and when businesses can sell it…

I’m of the opinion if the substance is legal and it’s legal for other businesses to be open twenty-four seven, then there should be no restrictions on when it can be sold.

No one wants "anarchy". That is a utopian myth that it can be acheived. Regulations are normal and so are governments.

Whatever people agree to as regulations, should not be based on an extreem etheither way. But on pragmatic data that people observe and the common consensus of the people.

There is a reason that on a one lane road in a residential neighborhood that is slated for 25pmh that one does not do 50mph.

People dont drink and drive because we KNOW that when you drink you cannot drive as well as when you are sober. Empathy is why we have laws against drinking and driving. Both you and I know that if our loved one were harmed by some idiot who chose to do so, or died as a result, we would be angrey over something easly preventable.

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Brian37 wrote:

No one wants "anarchy".

Tut, tut! Many people do want anarchy.

Brian37 wrote:

That is a utopian myth that it can be acheived.

This doesn't appear to be in evidence.

Brian37 wrote:

Regulations are normal and so are governments.

Government is force. I suppose that you are correct, though: force is normal.

Brian37 wrote:

Whatever people agree to as regulations, should not be based on an extreem etheither way. But on pragmatic data that people observe and the common consensus of the people.

Democracy is a form of tyranny.

Brian37 wrote:

There is a reason that on a one lane road in a residential neighborhood that is slated for 25pmh that one does not do 50mph.

Property rights. If I owned a road in a residential neighborhood, I would require drivers drive very slowly.

Brian37 wrote:

People dont drink and drive because we KNOW that when you drink you cannot drive as well as when you are sober.

Wait, what? Many people do drink and drive.

Brian37 wrote:

Empathy is why we have laws against drinking and driving. Both you and I know that if our loved one were harmed by some idiot who chose to do so, or died as a result, we would be angrey over something easly preventable.

No, there are laws against drinking and driving because the owners of the roads decided it would be illegal. If I owned a road, and someone drove drunk on it, I would prevent them from ever driving on my road again.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:09 pm

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

One of the main reasons I dropped out of the race for US House of Representatives (Colorado-District 3)

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Wait... you actually are Steven McDuffie?

Yes, he is. I've known him for nigh on 8 years now.

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

One of the main reasons I dropped out of the race for US House of Representatives (Colorado-District 3)

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Wait... you actually are Steven McDuffie?

Yes, he is. I've known him for nigh on 8 years now.

When I first "met" (in the internet sense of the word) BAAWA, I was a raging Nader supporter. BAAWA and I had many discussions which ultimately led me to realize that liberalism and freedom aren't necessarily the same thing.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:12 pm

Every time i want to go buy some beer it's sunday. Time to change this stupid law.

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:04 am

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

No one wants "anarchy".

Tut, tut! Many people do want anarchy.

Are you one of those people?

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

That is a utopian myth that it can be acheived.

This doesn't appear to be in evidence.

Please define anarchy- the definition I've heard and consider utopian myth is a lawless, ungoverned society, where everyone is relatively happy and safe and just, by the sheer power of their goodness, gets along. This is probably a straw man. However, as soon as two people agree to cooperate based on design by contract, it's no longer anarchy, but some social system imposed on them (albeit willingly) by another.

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Regulations are normal and so are governments.

Government is force. I suppose that you are correct, though: force is normal.

Brian37 wrote:

Whatever people agree to as regulations, should not be based on an extreem etheither way. But on pragmatic data that people observe and the common consensus of the people.

Democracy is a form of tyranny.

Again, define tyranny- The definition I'm familiar with is a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler. However, if it's merely any force that oppresses, then your concept of property rights are also tyrannical.

McDuffy_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

There is a reason that on a one lane road in a residential neighborhood that is slated for 25pmh that one does not do 50mph.

Property rights. If I owned a road in a residential neighborhood, I would require drivers drive very slowly.

Tyrant. Why should I respect your "ownership"?

McDuffy_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

People dont drink and drive because we KNOW that when you drink you cannot drive as well as when you are sober.

Wait, what? Many people do drink and drive.

Brian37 wrote:

Empathy is why we have laws against drinking and driving. Both you and I know that if our loved one were harmed by some idiot who chose to do so, or died as a result, we would be angrey over something easly preventable.

No, there are laws against drinking and driving because the owners of the roads decided it would be illegal. If I owned a road, and someone drove drunk on it, I would prevent them from ever driving on my road again.

And you would prevent this how? It seems to me that anarchy boils down to rule by force.
I simply don't see how anarchy would be any better than our current government form- human nature has a nasty side, and it would be exploited far more in an anarchy than in democracy. Of course, if you could give compelling evidence to the contrary, we can get together and form an anarchy party.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. ~Winston Churchill

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:04 am

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Property rights. If I owned a road in a residential neighborhood, I would require drivers drive very slowly.

Who enforces this private rule and how are the violators prosecuted? Another question I might ask in the same vein, with basically everyone making up their own rules how could one be expected to know all the particular private rules? At some point doesn't it make more sense to make blanket rules for sake of clarity?

Raligan wrote:

I simply don't see how anarchy would be any better than our current government form- human nature has a nasty side, and it would be exploited far more in an anarchy than in democracy.

I'm of the opinion that anarchy would probably be worse (more human suffering not less). It seems some people believe that private ownership is the magic bullet that can solve all of humanities problems. I just don't see it. In fact, I don’t think we’ll truly see a significant evolution in the human social structure until we begin to rid ourselves of the ideals of possession and reciprocal based economic/judicial systems.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore