Quote:
Originally Posted by 246
And what does "responsible freedom" mean? You're allowed to have freedom, but not if you rock the boat? You're allowed to have freedom of expression but not if it challenges accepted norms? You're allowed to have freedom of thought or speech but not if it goes against the government or other "official" institutions? What would happen to the world if no one pushed envelopes, took risks, asked new questions? It almost sounds like a form of fascism itself.
|
Would irresponsible tyranny be a viable alternative to responsible freedom? Irresponsible freedom is anarchy from the perspective of the peasant...and a dictatorship from the perspective of the elite. They feed off of each other. Responsible freedom is driving a car safely on the open road. You can go anywhere you want...but you cannot unnecessarily endanger other people. Irresponsible freedom would be yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater just for the hell of it. Responsibility without freedom would be the state deciding what is responsible and what is irresponsible...in a dictatorial manner. Fascism is 'God's Law'...and beyond question or challenge. Justice is 'Man's Law'...or negotiable. The U.S. Constitution provides for an orderly method of exchanging ideas and making decisions. This is not a dictatorship and it is not fascism.