"True" Freedom? It's a Myth

This particular post is going to be short and sweet, but after the conversation I had yesterday with a coworker, I felt it necessary to flesh out my ideas in writing.

So here's the setup:  yesterday a coworker and I were having a conversation regarding the Federal Reserve and how it is set up.  And we were talking about the former national banking systems we had in place, and how at one time we had a free market banking system (in the late 1800's).  Now, I'm not a good study on the federal reserve or the gold standard, or any banking system for that matter, but I read a little about it in order to have somewhat of an educated conversation.

To summarize the conversation, his point was that a free market system, or any system in any context that is "free" is better than any types of boundaries or rules imposed upon those in the system, because if there are boundaries, one is not truly free to make the best decisions that are best for him or her.  Definitely a valid argument.

I, of course, took the conversation from the free market banking system and applied it to a much broader context to try to make my point.  Is freedom truly something we all want?  I mean when you consider absolute freedom where there are no boundaries saying yes or no to the decisions we make - what do you have?  At first glance, this freedom sounds amazing, but the more you dig into it, the more you realize that the entire concept of a never-ending and purely boundary-less freedom is flawed.

And here is what spurred that thought.  My coworker made this statement:  "if we were in a true free market system, I would be able to make any and all decisions that were best for me."  That seemingly is an innocent statement, something that we may all want to enjoy - a freedom that doesn't have a third party (i.e. the government), imposing rules, regulations, or unnecessary burdens on us, right?

Well, then I asked him to consider whether that was a system that he truly wanted.  A system in place in our society that would allow for no regulation, no rules, no laws, whatsoever.  Within his own statement defending what he seemingly wanted was the flaw - if everybody made decisions based upon what was best for them, then who looks out for the other person?  Because a decision that is right for me, may very well not be right for you.

I mean in theory, if everybody looked out for themselves, societal chaos would ensue.  There has to be some merit, looking into the history of all of our societies, that no society, big or small, successfully was able to adapt to such a system where everybody took care of their own affairs, and there was no third party helping to ensure it was kept fair among all in society.  Why do you think that is?  Why do you think all great societies in history have had some type of governing structure - a third party if you will?  True freedom would not have such a structure - government would not exist.  And every individual would be "free" to exercise all choices over their own lives.

I think the problem here is that people get caught up in thinking that government in our society is this big evil entity that tells people what to do and it has no right to do so.  Yet, government is merely a way for us to keep a society from destroying its citizens.  If everybody took care of their own, and only worried about what was best for themselves - what do you think would happen?  Do you think that if everybody had the ability to do whatever they wanted, that would make us a more peaceful and prosperous society, simply because everybody got what they wanted?  Do you think if everybody had a chance to make choices that were best for "them," that society as a whole would benefit?

No, I don't believe so.

If I look out for my family, I want to be able to be as successful as I can set my mind to.  This means given the chance to take a little more when it is offered, even though it may rob from Paul over there, in theory I would do it.  Right?  I'm taking care of me - making the best decisions for me.  And Paul, in the same vein is going to be looking out for him - making the best decisions for him.  So, if I accumulate some wealth in property, for example, what's to stop Paul from taking some of my property to make him more successful?  In this true utopian environment that we have built up in our mind where somebody doesn't come along and tell me what I can and cannot do, there is nobody there to tell Paul he can't do that.

That's what government does - it is a third party entity that helps settle disputes when situations arise.  In this particular case, if Paul steals from me, I want my government to tell Paul, he can't do that.  If we were truly in a free society, there would be no government to tell Paul that.  Yes we'd be free, but there would be no rule.  There would be no law to govern the decisions everybody made.  And hence, societal chaos would ensue.  At first it may just be a person attempting to protect himself or herself, but soon, with no rule of law or rule of regulation, societal chaos would grow into all out distrust for one another, and the freedom we all want would come at the expense of bonding with other human beings.  That's why no society has been able to prosper without forming rules of some kind to help govern the way it lives.

I think people want "freedom" when they feel as though a law, or a regulation is somehow encroaching upon them and therefore making it inconvenient to live their lives the way they want to live them.  And sometimes people view this "encroachment" with blinders on - completely oblivious to the fact that there are millions of other people living in our country who have different motivations, different agendas, different ways of living their lives.  No one way is better than the next, though we like to think that the way we live our life is always the best way.  If there isn't some structure, some way to control all of those different agendas, different paths to live one life, then, as I stated above, societal chaos would ensue.  Our current government is the way that we as a society have determined to control that chaos.  And the great social contract by having this thing called government is that it should be fair, it should be impartial, and it should look out for the best interest of the majority of people.  The framers designed it in such a way that the majority should have power over the majority of the decisions in this country - only a select few are guaranteed (rights of individuals being one of them).

I really don't know if I have a concluding point to this particular blog other than to say that people don't necessarily know what it is they want when they talk about "getting government out of my personal business."  If government was completely removed from everybody's personal business, many of the things that we take for granted that government does to help us would also be eliminated.  If a form of government in some context was eliminated completely from our society - societal madness would swarm almost immediately.  Things that we want our government to do, such as enforcing laws against theft, murder, rape, arson, and kidnapping would disappear.  We couldn't drink the water from our tap because there would be no regulations to ensure it was safe to drink.  We couldn't eat meat or even vegetables from the local market, because there is no governmental force ensuring that they are safe to eat.  Hell, we may not even be able to breathe the air because corporations, acting in their own self interest (remember that's freedom after all), wouldn't have to worry about air quality because if they did so, it would negatively effect their bottom line.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is before you complain that we have "too much government" in our lives - really take a step back and look at the idea behind government.  Every regulation, every rule, was put their for some reason.  Somewhere, somebody had an agenda - in some cases for the will of the society, and sometimes to fulfill some personal goal or agenda of an individual, corporation or lobbying group.  But the law was put their nonetheless.  So perhaps it's not government in and of itself that is this big bad evil entity.  Criticize the various rules and regulations all you want, one by one, on the merit of whether they serve the greater good.  But to define government as this big bad evil entity that shouldn't exist is to tear down the very thing that keeps us safe, healthy, and protected from all the ills in the world.

I for one never want "true" freedom.  Because I feel that "true" freedom would not make us free at all.  "True" freedom would in fact make us prisoners to protecting everything we own and love in this world - many things that we take for granted now.

Thanks for reading, comments welcome.

A Detailed List of Why I Intend to Vote for President Obama for a Second Term

As promised, a very detailed list of the reasons I plan to vote for President Barack Obama for a second term of Presidency. Where necessary I have included sources to my information. So facts below are presented as just that facts, while others are opinon-based with sources to back them up. I hope anybody out there who may not know who they're voting for finds this list helpful:

Reason #1 – Pay Equity for Men and Women

1/29/2009 – President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that:

• requires employers to review their practices in regards to compensation for both men and women to ensure they are fair.
• Removes the statute of limitations for employers who recognize they are being paid unfairly to be able to file suit.
• Pay discrimination based upon gender, race, color, national origin, age, and disability is now prohibited.

Mitt Romney's take on the the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - “Mitt Romney supports pay equity and is not looking to change the current law.” However, Romney has not set whether or not he would have signed the law into effect in the first place.

Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/11/mitt_romney_and_lilly_ledbetter_equal_pay_act_we_ll_have_to_get_back_to_you_on_that_.html

Reason #2 – 4 More Million Children Insured Under SCHIP

2/4/2009 – President Obama signs the SCHIP Legislation that:

• Insures 4 more children with health insurance in addition to the 6 million already insured.
• Two attempts under the George W. Bush administration were made to expand the program, but were vetoed by President Bush.

Mitt Romney stated during 1 of George W. Bush's veto that he in fact would do the same thing – veto the legislation that would expand the program.

Source:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dnc-romney-an-schip-off-the-bush-republican-block-58465222.html

Reason #3 – The 2009 Stimulus Package

2/17/2009 – President Obama signs into Law the 2009 Stimulus package that does the following:

• GDP in 2010 raises by 3.8% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth)
• All workers receive a $400 tax credit in their paychecks ($800 per couple).
• $82.2 billion in aid for low income workers, unemployed, and retirees (including job training).
• $70 billion in tax relief for middle income workers by patching the alternative minimum tax for one year.
• $155 billion for health care assistance for the poor and unemployed primarily for Medicaid, health information technology, and insurance premium subsidies.
• $100 billion in education aid to prevent lay-offs, modernize schools, award Pell grants and help low income children & special education programs.
• $48.1 billion in investments for highway, bridge, high-speed rail & other transportation projects
• 1.45 million jobs were saved as a direct or indirect result of the 2009 $80 billion bailout to the automotive companies, GM and Chrysler according to the Center for Automotive Research. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/a-million-jobs.html)

It's hard to tell what Mitt Romney feels on the stimulus package. He has indicated two different things in two different versions of his book “No Apologies.” He has been on record for the stimulus, and he has been on record against the stimulus.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/2011/06/30/has-mitt-romney-flipflopped-on-obamas-stimulus/

We can look into Romney's past, however, and see that Mitt Romney was against the auto bailout that President Obama helped push through for General Motors and Chrysler. He penned an op/ed during the debate that we should “let Detroit go bankrupt,” but has as recently as May taken credit for the auto bailout.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-takes-credit-for-the-auto-bailout-say-what/

Reason #4 – The Credit Card Act

5/22/2009 – President Obama signs into law the Credit Card Act which does the following:

• Credit cardholders protected against arbitrary interest rate increases, hidden and excessive fees, and due date gimmicks

Mitt Romney indicates that he would repeal the Credit Card Act if elected, and that it “produced federal restrictions on credit card companies that have already led to higher interest rates, higher annual fees, and lower credit limits, especially for middle class borrowers.” According to the source below, independent studies have shown the opposite.

Source: http://www.credit.com/blog/2012/02/the-2012-election-your-credit-cards/

Reason # 5 – LGBT Related Issues

Detouring from the time line, here is everything President Obama has done for the LGBT community:

• 6/22/2009 – ended discrimination and hosted the first ever reception at the White House honoring Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered, and Bisexual Pride Month which was hosted by the President and the First Lady.
• 10/28/2009 – federal hate crime law expanded to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. People with HIV/Aids are no longer prevented from entering the United States.
• 1/1/2010 – Discrimination based upon gender identity is now banned in the Federal Work place.
• 6/2/2010 – Federal benefits extended to same sex partners of workers through memo of the Obama administration.
• 12/22/2010 – Gay and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military because the President signs into law the repeal of the decades only Don't Ask Don't Tell Clinton-era policy.
• 12/22/2010 – Obama Administration sponsors a measure to include “sexual orientation” in the definition of human rights adopted by the UN General Assembly.
• 2/23/2011 – The Defense of Marriage Act is is declared unconstitutional and no longer defended in court by the Obama Administration.
• 5/9/2012 – President Barack Obama becomes the first President in United States history to publicly support the legalization of Marriage Equality, specifically same-sex marriage.

Mitt Romney publicly opposes gay marriage. Mitt Romney supports a constitutional amendment defining gay marriage as one man and one woman. Mitt Romney believes that the Defense of Marriage Act should be enforced.

Source: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

Mitt Romney does not support same-sex civil unions.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/mitt-romney-gay-marriage-civil-unions-obama_n_1503597.html

Mitt Romney does not support non-discrimination for gays and lesbians on the federal level. He also opposes sexual orientation and transgender hate crime legislation. He vetoed a bill in 2003 as Governor that would fund hate crimes prevention.

Source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/MittRomney.htm

Reason #6 – Tough on Foreign Policy

Again, straying from the time-line, President Obama has a tough record on foreign policy. He has accomplished the following:

• Since taking office, President Obama has overseen the killings of at least 34 Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other middle-Eastern countries, either by drone, CIA operatives, or other means.
• 5/2/2011 – A directive issued by President Barack Obama orders a CIA task force to enter a Pakistani compound and kill the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks. Bin Laden evaded capture by the Bush administration for 7 years after the initial attack, and at one point, George W. Bush indicated he wasn't concerned with where Osama Bin Laden was (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=related)
• Immediately upon taking office, President Barack Obama prohibits the use of torture (water boarding) by the CIA and military to interrogate prisoners.
• President Barack Obama has successfully removed all American forces from Iraq, as promised. He has a plan to remove all forces out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014, with draw-down beginning in December of 2012.

In general, Mitt Romney didn't form an opinion publicly on getting into Iraq as Governor. He is on record in 2011, during the draw-down, as saying it would be looked back on as a mistake.

Source: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/

Reason #7 – The Health Care Reform Act of 2010

Instead of listing every benefit of the health care reform act, I'm going to just give the link of all the benefits the act will have once fully in effect:

• http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

Mitt Romney does not support the health care act and has vowed to repeal it on day one of his presidency. Though, when governor, he implemented what is referred to as the “godfather” of the Healthcare Reform Act in his state. And because of that act, a little over 98% of the state's residents now have health insurance.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

Various other reasons why I support Barack Obama for a second term:

• President Obama believes in the Buffet Rule (the rule that a person's secretary shouldn't pay more in taxes than the head of a large company who makes their money through investments of stock). President Obama believes in keeping taxes low for the middle class. He believes those making more than $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes (in that he means go back to the Clinton-era tax rates). http://www.barackobama.com/record/taxes?source=primary-nav
• Governor Romney believes in the theory of trickle-down economics. He believes that we should cut taxes for all Americans, including those already paying lower tax rates because of tax loopholes on how they earn their money. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
• President Obama is relying more on donations from small donors in the amounts of $200 or less. In fact, in 2011, his reelection campaign raised nearly half of their donations by people contributing $200 or less. In comparison, Mitt Romney in his 2011 fund raising, only raised 9% of his donations from contributions of $200 or less. Both of these figures say nothing for the super-PACS contributing to both campaigns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.html
• Mitt Romney is being bank-rolled by conservative business men. $10 million has been raised by the Super-PAC “Restore our Future,” by one billionaire alone, casino titan Sheldon Adelson. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/mitt-romney-super-pac_n_1691051.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
• Barack Obama is opposed to the Citizen's United Ruling that, among other things, gave corporations the same rights as individuals when it comes to free speech in elections, along with the ability to raise an unlimited amount of money for any one particular issue or support one particular agenda. Mitt Romney supports the Citizen's United Ruling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/obama-weekly-address-vide_n_434082.html

Okay that about covers it, or at least the major stuff. For a very detailed date by date time-line of events of the accomplishments of President Obama, you can check out: http://www.democratichub.com/obama-administration-accomplishments.aspx?o=ps&t=lc. I know it has taken me a long time to get this up, but I feel it's important to research exactly why you feel a particular way about a candidate and this exercise helped me even further than I thought. President Obama is the candidate for me. He may not be the candidate for you, but at least take some time to research Mitt Romney first before voting for him simply because he isn't President Obama. The biggest enemy our country will have this election, and any election, is the voters who vote simply because they weren't informed on a particular issue. People in today's world have a wealth of information at their fingertips. But with so much information, it is possible to get misinformation as well.