Posted by
Glenn Flowers on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:44:50 AM
That Right Which Makes Liberty Possible
Note:
The useage of
(decision) below denotes a choice made. Duh…
The societies of mankind and their governmental efforts down through history are eternally the subject of much study, teaching, and, fortunately for some, disagreement and debate. It is also, unfortunately for all, the source cause for most of mankind’s mistreatment of his fellow man and the majority of wars fought.
Man’s perceived necessity for war can be reduced to just a single underlying, primary cause, that being greed for power and influence and its opposition by those being oppressed. In any meager study of world history this single factor is easily found to account for more than 95% of all violence of man on man. It is the fight to be free that causes most of the strife between men.
That there are those who would dominate others for their own selfish fulfillment is a sad reality that has been forced upon the less poweful..Among rational, critically thinking people the basic, inborn yearning for freedom and self-determination is a valid and moral reason for opposing despotism and tyranny. It is not only accepted as honorable and heroic, but also as the only recourse available.
Why does man find himself violently resistive of being dominated by others? To those accustomed to living freely that question answers itself. To those who have been long oppressed that question need not be asked. It is the right of an individual to make his own choices.
That single, self-evident, inalienable right to determine what is best for one’s self as an individual that is the foundation upon which all other rights, liberties, and freedoms are based. Carried to its most extreme, having no freedom of choice is equal to being imprisoned in solitary confinement, there having no choice at all, and it is certainly not to be free in any way.
It is a very rare situation where the complete elimination of one’s choices is imposed ‘en masse, incarceration being an exception, but it is more likely to be a slow, systematic process in which the individual unwittingly participates in his own subjugation
It is also true that the most options available are found to be held by those living in advanced, relatively wealthy societies. This is not per chance, however. Freedom of choice is, at once, both a motivational driver of individual liberties, and the result of continuing societal development.
Consider:
A small nation with an elected government and rule of law decides (decision) to investigate the source of the hot water killing the fish in the river that runs through their capitol city. It is important because the dead fish are drawing flies and they smell bad, and the fish population is dwindeling rapidly threatening the livelihood of many residents. The results of the investigation will determine the actions needed. (decision)
It is soon found that the water is heated when it flows through a deep chasm recently opened by a powerful earthquake. The hot water started flowing back into the river when it had filled the deep chasm and, now, there is nothing anyone can do to reverse this act of nature. It doesn’t bode well for the future of the fish either.
One of the town elders believes that if the proper measures are taken (decision) the loss of the fish as a retail food commodity can be mitigated, even to the point of a possible increase in return of over 500%. Carried through, his plan (decision) results in the creation of a piping system that delivers, for a small monthly fee, hot water to several towns and villages in the area. The technology expands through research (decision) and it isn’t long before electricity is wired into every household in the nation (decision) .
When government restricts (decision) or bans the rights of the people to make choices there is no motivation (decision) to develop, resulting in even fewer options available. The decision to consume energy and receive the benefits of that consumption inspires the need to be diligent in that usage, resulting in higher technology and a general growth in wealth, health, capabilities, and even more options. It is a snowballing of better and better lives for more and more people. They acquire freedom from the elements, freedom from polluted water and disease, freedom from insect or snake bites, and freedom from the need to gather wood or animal dung for fuel.
Freedom to choose also allows those who have not benefitted from other nations’ increases in technology to have a real reason to hope that they will, eventually. Where no freedom of choice is allowed, no such hope can be justified. For a government to limit (decision) the chances of a poor nation to develop today to increase their own substantial wealth (decision) some fifty or one-hundred years in the future is inhuman and unethical, and brands those restricting decision making on one’s own behalf as devils among men, worthy of severe and resolute punishment.
When you have no options left, you must simply lay down and die. There is no other choice.
Glenn Flowers
Postscript: Mrs. AL astutely pointed out to me that the term "choice" has been stolen and redefined by Roe v Wade and, after re-reading my post I had to agree that my liberal, uhh, multitudinous usage did tend to bring the new meaning to mind. That is the reason for my changing "(choice)" to "(decision)" in most instances. I did grant pardon to some instances of "choice", though. It only seems right to claim that right to choose "choice" when meaning the right Right. Hehehe...
I'm sounding like SmartFella now, huh.