Liberals are always playing semantic games to confuse us about what is important. And one of their ongoing claims is that we need to always have the “personal freedom” to do whatever we desire and that “personal freedom” is the ultimate goal of our Constitutional liberty.
This is extremely deceptive. Do not let them fool you. Constitutional freedom takes precedence over “personal freedom” every time. “Personal freedom” is only valid if it does not contravene Constitutional freedom and does not impinge on the freedoms of others.
For instance liberals say that “whatever you want to do in the bedroom is nobody else’s business” because you have the “personal freedom” to do whatever you wish. Or they say that we should never be “judgmental” about any other person’s behavior because they should have “personal freedom” to do whatever they want under a truly “free” society.
Nonsense. Don’t let them fool you.
First, consider our Constitutional freedoms which mean that we have certain “unalienable rights” (words from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution) such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (also from the Declaration).
Then our “rights” are further defined in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights which is the first 10 amendments. But they are not really “rights” at all but actually are limits on what the government can impose on us, or so-called “negative rights”. For example the First Amendment describes the ways in which the government may NOT limit our free speech or our faith. It says:
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
Interestingly that Bill of Rights was not even part of the original Constitution ratified in 1787. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 as an afterthought at the request of some of the 13 new states that had ratified the Constitution four years earlier.
But nowhere is there any definition of what “freedom” is. In fact “freedom” cannot be specifically defined ahead of time but only can emanate naturally from the proper decisions that we make, decisions that are allowed and encouraged by the good federal government outlined in the Constitution. That government consists of three separate branches with well-defined duties and with checks and balances on each other. This is the best system every designed in all of human history.
“Freedom”, however, is almost always misrepresented by the socialist left as the “personal freedom” to do what we wish, but that simply is not true. That would be like saying that we can drive as fast as we want because we live in a “free” country like America.
No, friends, all liberty requires limits on our personal behavior. For instance we capitalists are often accused of favoring total freedom for business to do whatever it wants without regulations.
No we don’t. That would be like saying that anyone should have as much “personal freedom” as they want and we know that that is destructive idea. George Washington even said that business must be regulated. And we conservatives agree. In fact many conservatives are quite outspoken against “big business” and they favor small, family-centered and individual-centered business instead that are more responsive to the laws and the common good.
Imagine if any business could do anything it wanted. There would be chaos, just as if there were no speed limits or criminal laws. Lack of regulations led to the stock market swindles and crash of 1929 which wiped out many small investors. The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008 also was caused by unregulated business practices by the government, i.e., lending trillions to poor people who could not pay it back. Meanwhile we conservatives do object to excessive regulation.
How about guns? We conservatives who support the 2nd Amendment are said to want everyone to have the freedom to own guns with no questions asked. But that is false.
First, private gun ownership is specifically legitimized in the Bill of Rights, unlike most “rights” that socialists embrace like homosexual marriage, abortion, sexual freedom etc. Second, if you have ever noted the activities of the National Rifle Association it stresses over and over and over key issues like gun safety, legal gun ownership by responsible citizens, knowledge of the law and of the historical significance of gun ownership by private citizens, and severe prosecution of anyone misusing a firearm to harm another person or commit a crime. We conservatives also support the use of databases so that crazy people and criminals can be tracked and cannot buy guns legally.
But what about “personal freedom” in general? Shouldn’t we be allowed to do whatever we wish?
Of course not. Because that would lead to chaos. We could kill. We could steal. But we should not. That is why we have laws. That is why we conservatives want gun owners to have the freedom to own guns, but severe penalties for misuse. We want the Constitutional AND personal freedom to own a gun, but with great responsibilities imposed.
Liberals, on the other hand, want “personal freedom” with no limits, all under the false guise of “liberty”. But this is to create a paradigm under which liberals can enjoy their own select pleasures without criticism or limits, but more importantly, to undermine our social order, which is their ultimate goal. That is what marijuana legalization is about, and why marijuana legalization is such a terrible idea. Because liberals ultimately will seek to have that “personal freedom” extended to heroin, cocaine and LSD. Once the door is opened to marijuana, they will go further and further. You just watch. It is guaranteed.
Don’t we conservatives believe in “personal freedom”?
Of course, more than anyone. It is conservatives who especially want the oppressive eye and hand of government restrained. We are famous for advocating freedom from government control in favor of “rugged individualism” and the desire to be “left alone” by the government. But we want freedom under a larger rubric of social stability and order.
In other words we believe in personal freedom as long as it does not impinge on Constitutional freedom. On the other hand liberals believe that the two are disconnected and that it makes no difference if your personal freedom impinges on Constitutional freedom or impinges on your neighbor’s Constitutional freedom or personal freedom.
For instance those who fought for marijuana legalization in Colorado now are facing a backlash from parents who don’t want their children smelling the marijuana smoke from next door. So the “personal freedom” to smoke marijuana is impinging on the freedom of the parents to raise their children in the way that they see fit in a free society. Yet many marijuana smokers are saying “So what if the kids smell the smoke? Marijuana smoking is my personal freedom.” This is precisely how they use the issue of “personal freedom” to undermine us.
In another case in Colorado a barber shop owner said that he would not serve customers who come into his shop smelling like marijuana smoke because he didn’t like it, and because mothers had objected that their young children were smelling marijuana in the barber shop.
What happened to that barber? Some marijuana smokers vandalized his shop. This is how these people operate. And don’t think that they won’t use more extreme tactics. These people are on the vicious Democrat left operating under the cloak of “personal freedom”.
Take the example of abortion. Liberals make it out to be an issue of “personal freedom” and “personal choice” for the woman. There are two big problems, however:
First, there is overall cultural degradation under a regime in which abortion is available anytime and becomes routine. This cultural decline harms all of us. Life itself has become devalued when mothers regularly kill their most precious product – their own children.
Easy access to abortion is one of the key forces instigating the violence, dissolution, anger and chaos in our society today but it happens indirectly and so abortion is never blamed.
Second, nobody asks the baby if he/she wants to live or die. And under our Constitutional system of law and justice all parties deserve a hearing and a lawyer.
This concept of ignoring the rights of the child and only considering the desires of the mother is yet another example of how liberals allow “personal freedom” to trump Constitutional freedom. This is why pro-abortionists believe in keeping anyone speaking for the baby, like his/her father, out of the decision of whether to kill the child. It is shocking and reprehensible and another example of how “personal freedom” can be a great affront to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)