What is the comprehensive cost of freedom?

Everyone wants freedom. Yet how often do we consider the cost to sustain it?

How was the freedom we have won sustained? Each free/ish country will have an origin story. For Americans it is accounts of the Revolutionary War and the birth of a Nation. But how is the freedom our forefathers won sustained today?

My argument.

To sustain freedom requires sustained suppression and oppression of minority group/s.

Example.

In my home State of Idaho I come to learn that there is something called the Great American Redoubt. This is an area in Northern Idaho that conservatives from more liberal areas are going to escape liberal oppression. They say they are fleeing liberal oppression yet then fail to see the irony of the statement. To make an area a bastion of conservatism you need to hold the most power which will then be used to suppress liberal influences and increase the strength of conservative influence in the area.

Both the left and right claim to be oppressed, and in many cases they are. Yet neither seems to have much sympathy for the other side when they are being suppressed or oppressed. Seems very hypocritical to me. So long as me and mine have our freedom I do not care about yours being infringed upon. Seems selfish to me.

We the People and United we stand has become my way or the highway. We have been greatly diminish by this.

 

This has been attempted many times in this country. If it manages to hold long enough, it becomes a cult. But cults never last. Best case scenario they just dissolve as members realize what they have become. Worse case they end in tragedy of the "Jim Jones" or "Davidians" type.

 

That statement is incredibly wrong. It is contradictory to the very definition of freedom.

 

You’ve just made a case for why the Constitution, which protects individual liberty, is so important. You protect the individual, you by definition protect the larger group—any of them, and you do so equally.

unfortunately, you don’t seem to realize it

 

Freedom was more about freedom from government interference. The Bill of Rights and the constitution was designed to delineate the general limits of government authority. We started as a new country with fresh parchment. There are still old school forces wanting to centralize power in Washington as a substitute for kings and queens in castles.

 

Are we using freedom and liberty interchangeably here? Granted, their definitions overlap to an extent but they really are separate things.

 

What is the definition of freedom? How can we have freedom that does not infringe upon another's? I think free/ish societies have been struggling to answer that question for thousands of years.

 

It usually does.

 

How do you protect the individual without infringing upon the group when individuals can be part of many different groups, some of which are at odds with one another?

As for the Constitution, how it is interpreted and applied is decided by who is interpreting it and how much power they have to force their interpretation upon society. Simple observation of the left and right reveal the subjective nature of Constitutional interpretation. Both will say theirs is the correct interpretation.

As for equal protections, that is nice in theory by rarely equal in application. Human nature is not egalitarian, it is tribal. Republicans and Democrats are two tribes definitely not egalitarian.

 

If you are looking for some perfect word without interference between groups, it does not exist.

Tolerance works wonders. It is usually found that what the other group is doing is really not that bad after all.

 

Because that is the whole point. I have freedom to speak my mind even if it infringes on you. And I will have to govern myself accordingly if I want someone to support my thought.

The fact that I have the right to free speech isn't diminished because you don't like what I said. It is enforced by the fact I was able to say it without fear of government intervention.

The cost to live in a country that was the first to abolish slavery, demand representation for taxation, and provide a government for the people by the people has its detractors. And that cost is paid for with American lives. The opponent to this costly freedom is authoritarianism.

So freedom ain't free, but its the best option we know of. We are free from ruling classes that decide what they believe we should be.

And we see it political term after political term of a growing government attempting to chip away, to get more control over the people when we should be downsizing this government and taking those powers away. They are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

 

From my POV it rarely does.

 

Then what is the point of this thread?

 

A woman was removed from an American Airlines flight in Miami for refusing to wear a mask. She declared it infringed upon her freedom.
What was the cost of this freedom?
Her cost was not getting to London as planned and being put on a list that will not let her fly on that airline at least until she appeals that decision. To do that she may need alawyer.
The airline's cost was turning around a plane 90 minutes into a flight - so the cost of flying that plane 3 hours. The cost of rebooking, housing or refunding fares for 129 passengers.
The cost for the other passengers was not getting to London as planned. For some losing at least one night's hotel deposit

It looks like that womans freedom was expensive.

 

There are certainly limits to speech rendering it not free if free is defined as unhindered. I like to say we have free/ish speech. Every enforced law, rule and regulation infringes upon our freedom. None of us have complete freedom, nor could a society effectively function on such a foundation. We all want freedom, yet it often comes at the cost of infringing upon another’s freedom. Even in the absence of government there is still a law… survival of the fittest where some of the fittest will use their strength to suppress the weak. The concept of freedom is hindered by our tribal nature. Liberals and conservatives have very different views on the topic of freedom.

We are free from ruling classes? I wish that were true but I fear it is not.

We do have great freedoms, yet I can think of cases in which I feel mine have been unjustly curtailed. Shrinking government will allow more freedom for some yet potentially less for others. It is easy to be idealistic, but such idealism tend to come with unforeseen consequences. I wish smaller government were the fix-all. Yet the unintended consequence will be that some with power will wield it in ways that hold others down. A major problem with unhindered capitalism is that it favors the powerful, the greedy and the morals bankrupt, thus the need for freedom limiting rules to protect the weak.

 

To show that our freedom often come at the cost of another's freedom being suppressed.

 

Perhaps, but if the terms are interchangeable to a degree I am not sure what difference it makes? What are the key differences between freedom and liberty? Dictionary definitions tend to reveal shades of grey.

 

People literally die to defend your freedoms. I'd say that is a pretty big cost. The biggest you can get. And they willingly gave it.

You misunderstand what the American Redoubt is about. Its about less government. Less rules and laws. This actually means that liberals are free to express their influence all that they want. It is not suppressed.

I live in Idaho myself.

In my town there was once a lady many years ago who moved to here from California. She was wanting to get away from all the laws and rules. She bought a nice plot of land of about 10 acres about a mile outside of town. Her neighbor who had been there all his life was a typical farmer with many types of vehicles on his property. However she thought that such was not needed and that it made the area look bad. She then went through all the motions to try and enact a law that banned having more than 2 vehicles on a property for the whole county. This was of course voted unanimously "no". She ended up moving away about half a year later (she couldn't stand the cold weather). Was she suppressed? Nope. She was given her due diligence of consideration.

So, unless your claim is that anyone and everyone's voice must be adhered to always in the positive, with laws enacted in that light...then there was no suppression going on.

Also, where I live in Idaho, many simply do not care about other parts of the country. Its not because of your belief in "So long as me and mine have our freedom I do not care about yours being infringed upon." though. Its simply because many in the county I live in have a "live and let live" type of attitude. "You do your thing, we'll do ours. If you want to live that way, that's your choice." In this county most people know that if you don't like something about the area you live in then you're free to move away from it, or fight to make changes. We know this because MANY Californian's and Washingtonians show us this every single year. With many moving here because they're sick of the laws in those states. And then finding that there's just a bit "too much" freedom here, they move away again.... funnily enough more than just a few end up moving back to those states.

 

I have to strongly disagree. Oppression can only be the result of power and control. More government equals more oppression. Suppressing government equals freedom.

The cost of freedom is a lot like the cost of going to the dentist. Its expensive, but it always costs more not to go and its more painful.

 

Thats where the old saying came from.
God made men
Colt made them equal

I am of the opinion that you are free as you demand. Freedom isn't a magical wand that can be used. It is a form of government and the provision of laws that we live by. If you are oppressed, attacked, or injured you have legal options. Freedom doesn't protect you or give you any guarantees you aren't willing to fight for.

I have a right to carry my firearm. If I am attacked by an aggressor and have a reasonable fear for my life, I can defend myself in any manor I deem necessary. I have the right to form a militia against a tyrannical government. In fact its my duty as an American to do so.

Freedom isn't free. And there is no guarantees for freedom. This is the land of opportunity, not guarantees. How you promote that in your own mind and being is up to you individually. But you live in a land that provides you with legal tools to overcome adversity for almost anything you can think of.

I have the distinct impression (and I could be wrong) you are a black male based on former conversations and just my gut. So if my instinct is correct, I would say you have a very different outlook on what freedom means than a white male (like myself) thinks as being a minority would obviously provide more adversity to overcome. So lets just assume, I am correct for a second.

Your outlook on what freedom means in this country is from the perspective of someone who throughout life has had to fight for freedoms most white people take for granted as they are never questioned. Oppression, racism, discrimination, and culture have much deeper attributes for a black male as its seems its always at his doorstep where as a white male wouldn't know anything about that. So it is my belief you equate fairness with freedom. Yet, unfortunately, they are not the same and most obviously not the same between individual races in this country. And most likely, never will be.

So is it possible you and I can have an honest conversation as to what freedom means as our own bias dictates? Is it possible? The honest answer (In my most humble opinion) would be no. Not out of spite or anger but how is it even possible for me to even conceive or understand someone elses struggle via race in this country. Again, the honest answer is, I wouldn't know where to begin.

But what I can tell you as fact, I would gladly die on your front porch defending your right as a free man from anyone who would try and take that from you. No matter what color they are. And the good news is, I am not alone in that premise. Everyone I served with would do the exact same thing. Without question.

And if you aren't a black male, don't I look like a ****ing idiot. But it doesn't change what I posted.

 

The Redoubt movement is not oppressive toward minorities, neither are they racists. They would prefer a black Christian neighbour to a white hedonist. The founder of the movement is black.

Everything you have said above is exactly why local autonomy is such a pillar of my political philosophy.

 

I don't see what your redoubt has anything to do with your premise. How is the Redoubt suppressing or oppressing their neighbors?

 

You have given me much to ponder. I am not sure I agree with you but neither am I sure you are wrong. Thanks for the food for thought. I will spend some time considering your words.

 

I agree that oppression can only be the result of power and control. I also agree that more government equals more oppression. It makes sense that less government means more freedom, yet it comes with potential freedom limiting consequences as well.

The more we are free from government the more the individual decided the limit of their power and control. The problem with allowing individuals to decide such things for themselves is that many will fight over where their power and control stops and where another’s begins. How does one decide such things without ego, selfishness or bias corrupting such important decisions? Even in the absence of government involvement, individuals will fight over power and control. We humans are tribal as opposed to egalitarian thus ensuring perpetual fights over power and control, no matter how big or small the government is.