Questions for the “Freedom” caucus

Just what is this “Freedom” you lay claim to and who is free to do what to whom?

Is it the “freedom” to own slaves by a few or to make certain people second class citizens?

Or is it the freedom to be have a well-payiing job with respect from your employer?

Is it the “freedom” to gerrymander voting districts to give yourselves an unfair electoral advantage?

Or is it the freedom to know that your vote will count in a fair election?

Is it the “freedom” to be free from paying taxes for all the benefits that have helped you get rich?  Like public schools for educated workers, like roads to move your goods around, like courts to settle any disputes you may have, like police to investigate crimes committed against you, like fire departments to respond quickly to fires or medical emergencies?

Or is it the freedom to have all kinds of resources available that we can only afford collectively by contributing to the best of our ability?

Is it the “freedom” to have wider and wider highways to drive faster and quicker, regardless of the cost to tax bases, to individual families, or to the environment?

Or is it the freedom to be secure in your own house, knowing that the chances are almost non-existent that your house will be condemned to make room for an ever wider freeway?  Is it the freedom to not have to have a car because other forms of transportation are convenient and frequent?

Is it the “freedom" to reduce your own costs by polluting the air and water?

Or is it the freedom to have clean breathable air or to have safe, drinkable water?

Is it the “freedom” to donate large sums to “elected” officials to do your bidding?

Or is it the freedom to know the candidates you can vote for have received “small” amounts of money only from the people who have a right to vote for them.

See also "The false masters of words".

Arizona women demonstrate against “free exercise of religion”

Fortunately, this action was not needed because Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The purpose of the amendment was “Modifies the definition of exercise of religion and allows a person to assert a free exercise claim or defense in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.”

The supposed intent of the amendment was to allow businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians if the owner’s religious views disapproved of gays and lesbians.

Imagine the shock some of the female legislators would have had when a Muslim shopkeeper refused them service because their heads weren’t covered and their skirts were too short.  Imagine the shock of all when a strict Muslim or Orthodox Jew insisted that men and women sit in separate rooms in his restaurant.

Imagine the outcry from “patriotic” Americans if a strongly pacifist Quaker refused service to any past or present military personnel, in or out of uniform.

The list of religious and philosophical ideas that call for people to resist certain actions goes on and on.  Sorry, we all have to get along and accept behaviors which we do not approve of.  The only legitimate resistance are behaviors that impinge on our physical space.  Even making a list of those is a difficult task.

Check your chain mail, it might not protect you from falsehood

I received an email from a friend asking me to pass on a quote supposedly from Warren Buffett that we should have a Constitutional amendment to forbid all members of Congress to run for re-election if the budget is out of balance greater than a certain amount.

For more context, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/buffett.asp.  The chain email, started in 2011, is included on that page.

If all members of any other group were held responsible for the behavior of some members of the group, we would call it discrimination.