New Freedom vs. Old Freedom

I've had two epiphanies recently.  The first is about freedoms.  When the left proclaims loudly that liberals are the protectors of freedoms, my reaction is one of shock and disbelief. Surely, they must be joking.  That's like saying that weasels are the protectors of chicken eggs.

But, I've recently come to realize they've redefined--like so many other things--what freedoms are.

To me, freedoms are those liberties espoused in the Age of Enlightenment by Classical Liberalism's great thinkers, including Freedom of Thought, Religion, Speech, and expression.

I could be wrong, but the left--as I see it--has redefined freedoms to include, and to the exclusion of those of Classic Liberalism, freedom from poverty, freedom from being offended, freedom from homelessness, freedom from hunger, freedom from being without a cellphone, etc....  And, because they are Collectivists, these are their supreme tenets. 

Redefining assault to include offensive language using the term Verbally Assaulted, they try to take away Free Speech in the name of tolerance to protect their freedom from being offended.

But, these are counter-fit freedoms, and for the following main reason.  These so called freedoms restrict the actions of others.  Thomas Jefferson said it best--and I paraphrase--when he said that true liberty is unobstructed freedom to do whatever you want to do, so long as it does not impede another's ability to do the same.  

The leftists' freedom from offense impedes my Freedom to Thought, Speech, and Expression.  Their freedom from poverty takes away my ability to spend my pay cheque on what I will or on what I value or see as right.  I have to pay for it, and that restricts my actions.  

Their so called freedoms are not simply counter-fits, they are insidious anti-liberal ideals (in the classical sense) that--by their very nature--destroy the freedoms of the individual.  I'm reminded of the words of Patrick Henry when they approach the precious jewel of liberty. 

The second epiphany that I had occurred last night as I attended/supported a charity event.  They said that homelessness was a systemic problem.  Now, I normally recoil in the face of that term; I'm so sick of being blamed for all of societies problems by virtue of the fact that I was born White with a penis.  

Last night, I thought:  You're right.  It is a systemic problem.  Socialism has magnified the problem.  The great Thomas Sowell says that we should judge government programs by their outcome, not their intent.  And, I agree...for government programs.  Has it gotten--the homelessness situation, drug addiction, etc...--better under these programs, or worse; has funding these programs made the situation better, or has the problem grown?  If it has, we *need* to reevaluate what it is that we're actually doing, rather than throwing money at it, which only serves to grow government bureaucracy and exacerbate the problem. 

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer