I've often noted that Americans who identify as "conservative" face a struggle to reconcile opposite views on freedom. On the one hand you have a strong libertarian streak, built around the idea that people ought to be free to do what they please as long as their actions don't intrude on the freedoms of others. The opposing side is the social conservative streak, which is all about intruding on the freedoms of others: the most cherished freedom of American social conservatives is the freedom to restrict the freedom of those they dislike.
It is of course natural that different people will have different ideas of what "freedom" and "liberty" are, how they are achieved, and, perhaps most important, how to resolve the issues that emerge when those perceptions collide. There are a couple of questions relevant to this thread that are still mysteries to me.
First, when did so many people start fearing the government to the extent they do, and why did that come about? I can see a nearly infinite number of reasons to be annoyed with government, frustrated with government, angry with government... but the fear seems completely out of hand. I suspect that part of the trend may stem from the availability of the internet, and the ability of those with extreme views to surround themselves with sources of "information" that reinforce those views and block out all others. This of course happens with all manner of ideologically fringe factions, but it is very notable among those who have chosen to be terrified of government. Again, the material cited by The Curmudgeon in the original post on this thread is a good example. I don't see this fringe as a major "threat", in any collective sense, but it is very possible that individuals who steep in this fear long enough will fly off the handle and wreak some havoc. It has already happened, it will happen again. How to address that fear and its consequences is of course another question. I don't have any very good answers, just trying to define the question!
The other question... if we claim an individual right to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else, at what point does that right come into play? If I think speed limits or taxes are an excessive constraint on my freedom do I then have the right to shoot a cop who pulls me over, or a tax collector? Who or what defines what's a legitimate cause to take up arms against government? Obviously not the government, but if we proclaim that the determination lies with each individual, doesn't that pretty much legitimize any sort of mayhem that any individual wants to embark upon?
I've had cause to be annoyed, frustrated, and angry with the Kafkaesque labyrinth of bureaucracy that is the US Embassy in Manila. I don't fear it, but I sure as hell don't like it. Does that give me the right to start shooting at it or its employees? I would say it does not, because I can't shoot "the government", and I can't shoot "the embassy" (unless I shoot the building, which would be pointless). I could only shoot a person, an individual who has the same rights I have and who probably has little or no personal responsibility for the rules systems that create the annoyance. That would not be acceptable (aside from the fact that the consequences of the action would be unpleasant).
Instead of asking about when and whether the perception of intrusion on rights justifies the use of armed force against "the Government", we might ask at what point, if any, does the perception of intrusion upon rights justify the employment of armed force against other people... because at the end of the day, when you pick up a weapon and use it, you're not using it against "the Government", you're using it against a person.
Bookmarks