Liberty is Security Libertarians and Franklin are wrong.. dreaming a utopic bull crap
In PRACTICE VS THEORY, reality vs fantasy ..irrespective of those idealist libertarians and their B.S. as well as those CONSERVATIVE ideologues trying to politically gain from such B.S. obsession with freedom,
No matter how you slice it, frame it, create rhetoric...the fact remains that the majority of Americans want their government because of a deep interest in security to protect the freedoms that can be achieve. While Americans wage their tails in theory when hearing the word "Free" in reality and practice they prefer their security available from their government.
The Libertarian frustration in imposing their ideology bottom line is still people prefer Security over Liberty - now of course the Libertarian ideology is about satisfying the interest of property owners or the wealthy...nothing more coming back to Security Trumps Liberty....lets examine:
The conservative thinking is:
“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”
While this is an exaggeration....
"Most libertarians will, at some point or another, succumb to the misanthropic feelings displayed in Bastiat’s remark.
Despite the voluminous research annually published by brilliant libertarian social scientists, the enthusiasm of libertarian activists, and the generous funding bestowed on many libertarian think tanks, the state continues its inexorable growth, with the public’s blessing.
"The libertarian’s uninterrupted frustration provides ample reason for to resent, or even despise, his fellow man." as for example moochers or sheeples
If our fellow citizens are as lazy and avaricious as Bastiat implies, however why should we wish to provide them liberty at all? They certainly do not deserve it. The answer is that man’s relationship with the state is slightly more complicated than Bastiat suggested, and filling in the gaps can help resolve this conundrum and move toward a free society.
"Many of the programs citizens demand from their government could described as, “something for nothing.” For liberty advocates, this realization is disheartening; if the average man slothful and predatory as Bastiat suggests, how can we ever expect liberty in a democratic nation? The argument that Bastiat’s remark needs to be; we need a more thorough understanding of precisely what people want from the state. While a substantial portion of any nation’s population may desire, as Bastiat implied, “to live at the expense of the state,” the state’s growth cannot be entirely explained by the desire for a free lunch. Rather, I suggest that the state’s growth is driven by a different desire: SECURITY"
"I see little evidence that the average man truly expects to receive a life of lavish comfort from the state without having to exert himself. Instead, modern man is terrified of uncertainty and the world’s natural insecurity, and is desperate to rid his life of unpredictability. "
"Each day we are painfully reminded of the fundamental unfairness of the world: a citizen loses their dream home to a natural disaster; a dedicated worker loses his job during a recession; an unexpected illness deprives a family of its breadwinner; a stock-market crash destroys a retiree’s accumulated wealth; a diligent student graduates from a top university, yet nonetheless faces dismal job prospects coupled with crushing studentloan payments; an ordinary office worker dies in a terrorist attack or other act of random violence.
It all seems so unjust, and we are often inclined to shake our fists at the heavens, cursing the unfairness of our lot. We believe we work hard and play by the rules, we should reap the appropriate benefits. The state’s allure stems from its promise of security. Much of mankind believes that, if we simply provide the state more power, we can finally rein the world’s stochastic elements and never again feel like playthings of the gods. The average man does not want everything handed to him; he does, however, want his living standard to follow a consistent upward trajectory. He is not against working for it, but he wants his lifestyle to change like a ratchet—only moving in one direction. Provided he goes to work and continues to follow societal norms, he should be as wealthy tomorrow as he is today, if not more so. Because economic slumps, wars, natural disasters, and other vagaries of fate are not his fault, most of us believe that he should not suffer for them.
We desire what Thomas Sowell (1999) described as “cosmic justice.” The state promises to forever banish these insecurities provide justice to the world, and most of us believe this promise.
In the social sciences, this hatred of unpredictability and possible loss is known as “risk aversion.” Generally speaking, risk aversion is the tendency of individuals to willingly trade higher expected payoffs for greater levels certainty. A great number of us would prefer a secure, low-paying job over an insecure existence as an entrepreneur—"
"even if starting our own business could eventually create incredible wealth."
This explains the extraordinary popularity of federal entitlement programs like Social Security. It is comforting to believe that, no matter what, the state will provide for us in our old age or enfeeblement, and most of us happily pay exorbitant tax rates to maintain that sense security. We should not forget President Bush’s utter failure to instigate any kind of Social Security reform in 2005.
People consider Social Security a sure thing, and for that reason do not want it reformed in any way.
It may be the case that mankind has always despised uncertainty and looked to the state for protection against whims of fate. French philosopher Chantal Delsol (2003), however, suggests that this fear of uncertainty is particularly acute in the modern world. Possessing neither the tragic fatalism of his ancient pagan ancestors nor the Christian hope for redemption in the next life embraced by his more recent foregoers, modern man is particularly agitated world’s many uncertainties. Having rejected even the possibility of the transcendent, modern man has become obsessed with maintaining his material comforts, and, according to Delsol, will give technocrats anything they exchange for a promise of stability:
Contemporary man does not want to take risks, not for lack of courage, but because he fears the uncertain, fears encountering unanswerable questions. He not only needs material security, but peace of mind as well. In this respect, our age is a kind of high-security zone, in which technology and the state allow us to avoid risk. It is as if the considerable progress accomplished in order to further our well-being and peace of mind had proportionately
reduced our ability to expose existence to risk. "
Even when the elected government by the people and for the people may fail in providing perfect security and may up being mediocre at this task it is still the best to nothing.