While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact that politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs.
A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty?
I'm going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom.
I'll define the word freedom. And so I'm not accused of being biased, I'll use only "legal" definitions: " Liberty ; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion . . . ." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498.
Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:
"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
It's correct to say freedom is " Liberty ; [an] absence of" government. If there's government, there's "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was nonetheless a slave.
I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence, of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That's nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say, if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim.
Statists argue there has to be political "laws," i.e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.
Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.
When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it, i.e., they would not take away that which they want to protect.
By definition, the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion." And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing, and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destroy the very freedom they lie about protecting. It reminds me of the law of diminishing returns. Wouldn't it be accurate that if we're supposed to be paying government to protect our freedoms, then shouldn't the cost go down at the same rate our freedoms are destroyed? The less to protect, the lower the cost.
Look at the sales pitch these parasites spew: "We must take your freedom away in order to protect it." How do you protect what doesn't exist? Why is this nonsense accepted? Again, because politicians will have you killed if you don't.
So what "freedom" was this guy talking about? If you're restraining and coercing, which is what governments do, then you're unquestionably not protecting freedom because the "restraint [and] coercion" destroyed it.
They "hate us because of our freedom"? What a crock. I'll tell you who really hates freedom: anyone who uses and advocates the use of restraint and coercion. In other words, anyone, regardless of their "nationality" and/or religious beliefs, who refuses to interact with you on a voluntary basis hates freedom.
Let those smirking politicians spin that.