Skip to main content

Freedom is Messy

Whenever people get motivated to clean up unsightly mess it tends to involve the destruction of freedom.

The result is important things, like traffic rules, and other things, like home owner's associations... as though people ought to have a right to keep another person from changing car oil in their driveway or washing their car on their own lawn or growing vegetables instead of grass.

And if your neighbor paints her house purple and plants cabbages instead of petunias... that's the price you pay for freedom.

As are roadside vendors, unsightly signs and displays, gaudy decorated crosses to mark car accidents and people with bad taste in fashion.

And protestors. And laws that make the job of law enforcement difficult. And trains that don't run on time.

Freedom is messy.

Now ask yourself what Freedom will look like in Iraq. Will it be messy? Or will it be orderly and peaceful? Will everyone agree? Or can we expect people to have heated disagreements about how the country should be run? Should we expect a rather chaoic mess or an immediate transformation? What should we expect to see and what would failure look like? A mess?

Freedom is messy.

So why do we not expect the mess?

Comments

Anonymous said…
So is baking cookies. An oversimplified comparison, but come ON, who would want to give up the end product of either effort??? Sheesh.

Nice post.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...