The New York Times calls the word "Freedom" an "anti-government slogan"

[dblack]

Some people think of socialism as synonymous with government. As freedom, most especially free trade, is in direct opposition to socialism, it's easy to see how they'd make the mistake of thinking that freedom is anti-government. But the very purpose of government is to protect our liberty, so from that perspective I see government as anti-socialism. If it's to fulfill its core purpose, it must be.

If by that you mean that any government action that is not narrowly tailored to protecting our liberty, such government action is improper, then I agree.

How about government action design to protect the lives of it citizens?

Protecting lives is part of protecting liberty. But it's protecting lives from the acts of others - not from the realities of life. ie government isn't there to feed, clothe and house us.

So protecting us from invaders would qualify, yes?

Of course. What are you getting at?

I think it's obvious.

Obvious to you maybe. But if you don't want to share, no worries.

Which has priority? Life or Liberty. I think life comes first. That is to protect the citizenry from a threat the Government may have to temporarily curb or suspend some liberties until the fight is over.

Sure. If there's a war going on. What's that got to do with anything?

 

[marvin martian]

That makes perfect sense for a democrat. They see government as the opposite of freedom. That's why they always want more government.

And the commies at the New York Times don't mind saying it out loud, either.

 

[BlindBoo]

Some people think of socialism as synonymous with government. As freedom, most especially free trade, is in direct opposition to socialism, it's easy to see how they'd make the mistake of thinking that freedom is anti-government. But the very purpose of government is to protect our liberty, so from that perspective I see government as anti-socialism. If it's to fulfill its core purpose, it must be.

If by that you mean that any government action that is not narrowly tailored to protecting our liberty, such government action is improper, then I agree.

How about government action design to protect the lives of it citizens?

Protecting lives is part of protecting liberty. But it's protecting lives from the acts of others - not from the realities of life. ie government isn't there to feed, clothe and house us.

So protecting us from invaders would qualify, yes?

Of course. What are you getting at?

I think it's obvious.

Obvious to you maybe. But if you don't want to share, no worries.

Which has priority? Life or Liberty. I think life comes first. That is to protect the citizenry from a threat the Government may have to temporarily curb or suspend some liberties until the fight is over.

Sure. If there's a war going on. What's that got to do with anything?

Only if there is a declared war? Or does some other type of conflict apply?

 

[dblack]

Some people think of socialism as synonymous with government. As freedom, most especially free trade, is in direct opposition to socialism, it's easy to see how they'd make the mistake of thinking that freedom is anti-government. But the very purpose of government is to protect our liberty, so from that perspective I see government as anti-socialism. If it's to fulfill its core purpose, it must be.

If by that you mean that any government action that is not narrowly tailored to protecting our liberty, such government action is improper, then I agree.

How about government action design to protect the lives of it citizens?

Protecting lives is part of protecting liberty. But it's protecting lives from the acts of others - not from the realities of life. ie government isn't there to feed, clothe and house us.

So protecting us from invaders would qualify, yes?

Of course. What are you getting at?

I think it's obvious.

Obvious to you maybe. But if you don't want to share, no worries.

Which has priority? Life or Liberty. I think life comes first. That is to protect the citizenry from a threat the Government may have to temporarily curb or suspend some liberties until the fight is over.

Sure. If there's a war going on. What's that got to do with anything?

Only if there is a declared war? Or does some other type of conflict apply?

Uh huh. Get to the point. You're not So-crates.