A Fable about Freedom

[editec]

Let's parce this out, shall we?

ONCE UPON A TIME their was a kingdom ruled by a simple yet wise man

Ruled by? You mean he was a tyrant

that wanted to ensure the freedom of his subjects

By being their King?

You are sort of confused about the definition of freedom, I think.

but was to simple minded to be bogged down with complex laws so he visited a wise owl of the night for advice.

If he ruled the kingdom, he was king,. Kings are not subject to any law.

The wise owl hooted and said, "Do one thing and one thing and you will be a wise king. Protect the freedom of all forest creatures equally."

How can a king protect freedom?

I won't bother going on, because this parable is simply too stupid to analyse.

It starts from the premise that having a wise TRYRANT insures freedom, for christ's sakes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Or if you go with the Walt Disney version, the grasshopper recognizes the folly of his ways, repents, begs forgiveness for his foolish ways, and the ant graciously helps him out until spring. The grasshopper earns his own way and repays his debt to society by setting a good example and educating other young grasshoppers in self reliance, responsibility, and accountablity.

The ants got pissed because it was their harvest that they had to give up to the grasshopper. They wondered why when the wasp forgave the grasshopper that it came out of their harvest?

Well. . . . .I don't remember a wasp in the story.

But I was thinking about CG's parable of the cows. Somebody added the Republicans. So I will add the Democrats.

The Republicans and Democrats have two cows. The Democrats take a Republican cow and give it to the guy who doesn't have any. The Democrats feel righteous.

 

[ihopehefails]

Let's parce this out, shall we?

ONCE UPON A TIME their was a kingdom ruled by a simple yet wise man

Ruled by? You mean he was a tyrant

that wanted to ensure the freedom of his subjects

By being their King?

You are sort of confused about the definition of freedom, I think.

but was to simple minded to be bogged down with complex laws so he visited a wise owl of the night for advice.

If he ruled the kingdom, he was king,. Kings are not subject to any law.

The wise owl hooted and said, "Do one thing and one thing and you will be a wise king. Protect the freedom of all forest creatures equally."

How can a king protect freedom?

I won't bother going on, because this parable is simply too stupid to analyse.

It starts from the premise that having a wise TRYRANT insures freedom, for christ's sakes.

What difference does it make in terms of the freedom of the people whether that government is a monarchy or democracy? A democracy might follow a constitution that protect the people's freedom but so can a king. A king might violate that constitution but so can a democracitcally elected body so can we really say that a democracy is better at protecting the people's freedom than any other form of government?

 

[Foxfyre]

What difference does it make in terms of the freedom of the people whether that government is a monarchy or democracy? A democracy might follow a constitution that protect the people's freedom but so can a king. A king might violate that constitution but so can a democracitcally elected body so can we really say that a democracy is better at protecting the people's freedom than any other form of government?

That was precisely the genius of the U.S. Constitution and why the government it ordained was like no other that preceded it.

No monarch/king/emperor nor benevolent dictator shall determine what rights the people will have, nor will there be a tyranny of the majority (democracy) to determine that nor will there be a tyranny of the minority (ruling class) to determine that. The Constitution itself spells out what rights the people shall have, and makes it the sole duty of government to defend and secure those rights for the people. Other than securing the rights of the people and preventing the people from infringing on each other's rights, the Constitution then leaves it to the people to govern themselves, a concept unheard of prior to the great American experiment.