Thought this might make you think and help you
You know, freedom is a funny thing. It's definition, use and ideology has changed over the years in America with many people caught in a current without the understanding of what Liberty is and how the practice of liberty works. My discussion I'm bringing you today my associates and colleagues more specifically has to do with how the political environment affects Freedom and its opposite, control. I'm going to start with an observation which I think most of you will agree with, Leftist or Hawk. Today, the definition of freedom by consensus is becoming more and more simply the opposite or protagonist of any form of adherence. A simple, understanding example off the top of my head is the fight against religion. There are many "Freedom-Lovers" in America that believe Religion is so absolute and instructive; it acts as a form of mind-control. On the right side, there are people that believe the media is a form of control. Both are subjects that have the power to influence and motivate but they both have nothing to do with the other and are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. How can this be? So many people will tell you how controlling the left side of the spectrum is with its anti-majority laws, its lies and agendas when the conservative side is just as controlling but in different, more conventional ways. A lot of people will say the left side is the absence of elimination of almost any form of control (this is a big part of their base too) which is really a mythical lie.
What I'm leading to here folks is pure freedom in ANY form is a complete myth. And I'm not talking about the understood truth people have to abide by the law, the truth is in one way or another in every facet of life, people are subjects of control. So lets look at how freedom is affected and changed going from one side of the spectrum to the other. I would start from left to right to be fair even though I'm a conservative but I think explaining it from right to left would make it far easier to explain my argument.
Now, don't get me wrong folks. I'm definitely a Christian. I go to church, pay my dues, read the bible, etc. But when I'm discussing politics, I look at religion as a gear in the country's essential inner-workings. Since practically the beginning, there has always been religion. Religion is always useful to the government in that it keeps country's crime down, and unites its countrymen to more easily serve if war should be declared. Religion, whether you are a follower of one or not (I strongly urge you to be) works for the government as a form of control. Religion motivates groups of people to do things unanimously. But it is also a thread of beliefs and religious people frown on individual thinking and individual beliefs. Obviously, Religion is a powerful form of control. Every Empire and country that ever was had an official religion in one form or another on top of its laws. This has always been only up until recently. There are many people today that will look at history and argue that religious fervor has made people do things that were unfair or unjustified such as the Spanish inquisitions or the Muslim and Christian conversion campaigns. This in my argument represents the voice of my above definition of modern day freedom.
This voice is the yearning of the human spirit to break free of its mold that has essentially 'imprisoned and chained us' since the beginning. This is also the same voice that blurs the face of the country's citizen as well as enemy. "If we could all realize religion is an evil that drives all mankind apart, perhaps then we can finally understand the obvious truth that we're all humans and no different than each other". Another platform these new breeds have taken is "The Planet not just belongs to us but it belongs to all the living creatures which, we're fortunate for their survival. We have a responsibility to share this world and keep it habitable for all living things, and not be misled by our only being responsible for our selfish selves." Now that's freedom, right? As you can plainly see, both sides are built on control with the Right taking the biggest hit in the western world today. But to argue against this logic for a second (because I am a strong believer in the conservative philosophy), I believe a conservative society although slightly fascist lives with just as much freedom as a liberal society. It's no secret that much of freedom is based on the fragile enactment of...trust. Society today is like a big prison. When someone really goes to jail, they are stripped of most of their rights. It's the same outside when a small number of outcasts break that trust except the rights stripped aren't as severe BUT encompass (most of the time) everybody. So leftist society is not as free as people think or think it should be.
So now we come down to the question. Since both extremes lead to control, should the ideal society be
A. A society and government of enlightened moderation,
B. A society and government governed by either extreme,
C. A society of moderation backed by a government of an extreme, or
D. A society controlled by an understood, common, extreme view backed by a moderate operating government? In this question that should make you think for a while, I think I'm between B and C leaning more towards C. I didn't put down as a choice a country where the government and people both conduct on extremes but the opposite because you really can't have such a country. It just isn't possible unless the country's people are oppressed or moving towards a civil war.
So basically, [without going into causes, consequences or any specifics which I've avoided here but write about frequently in the other threads] once you've gotten up to this point and understand there is no such thing as real freedom in a Republic or Democracy and control is a part of human nature, which extreme is the best and holds the most freedom? What it looks like is you start from the right seeing a rigid, but unified, like-minded, homogenous society that have an understood code of morality and values; whom detest foreigners and foreign ways. The people are proud nationalists with a strong sense of identity as well as endurance. Foreigners, if they exist at all in the country are oppressed and not welcome to immigrate. From here you move towards more women in the workplace, the change of the man being the essential leader of the household, the adoption of more or numerous religions and people (especially the favor of the immigration of intelligent, educated people from any background), the emergence of the belief in racial and sexual equality, etc. America basically wrote the book on this. This would be the middle drifting a little to the left. From here it moves to freedom of expression, the promotion of multiculturalism, the breakdown of censorship, laws protecting or favoring subgroups to combat oppression, grander political compromise, foreign groups dominating or running industries, etc. Now you move to the far-far left. Oh, boy. In a country that's evolved to the far-far left, you have attacks and cover-ups on national history, the expansion of followers in the idea of a war-ridden Global Economy and Government with uniform laws and Acts, the endorsement of the elimination of national choice and decision-making, constant civil unrest, public indoctrination, pronounced territorialism including possible racial and religious slaughter, etc.
