I think that for my first experimental foray into blogging, I would like to discuss something that is at the core of many of my beliefs. Freedom. Specifically, what does freedom mean? Not just the definition, but also what are the ramifications of that? I think that a lot of people throw the word around a lot without ever thinking about the whole picture. Let's start by defining freedom to establish the base. From Merriam-Webster:

So we can see, definitions d, e, f, g, and h are more usage definitions that derived more from the way we use the word than the core definition. They come from phrases that entered common usage and became their own entry in a dictionary. Therefore, in the context of a "free people" we are looking at a few things that represent being free:

1. Having choice without coercion, constraint or necessity
2. Not being subject to the power of others
3. Not subject to onerous requirements or demands
4. A political right

That becomes a pretty nice list. That sounds pretty "free". I think most people would agree to these concepts. As a matter of the design of the US government, as laid out in the Constitution, there are limits to freedom, however. My freedom is limited in that it ends where it would affect your freedom. As was famously said:

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." 
- attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

So when the Constitution was written, a man was free to carry his gun. He was free to shoot his gun. That freedom ended when he caused damage to another person or their property. At that point, he has crossed the line and has exceeded his rights. That is why we have laws. He has now committed a crime. Now, he will have to pay the penalties of that law. It is critical to note, however, that it is the criminal act that caused this man to be subject to penalty. It is NOT the potential to break the law that makes him guilty.

I want to restate that point. It is NEVER the potential to break the law that makes anyone a criminal. What does that mean? That means, that if we are to be a free people, we WILL have the ability to harm others. We will have the means to commit crime. We will have to choose between right and wrong. Remember the first part of our definition of freedom: having a choice without coercion, constraint, or necessity. You have to take the good with the bad. Conditional freedom is not free and never will be. The freedom to make your own fortune and be who you want to be comes with the freedom to make the wrong choice and be a criminal. They are inextricably linked. You cannot have one without the other. That is the purpose of laws. To define when freedom has been exceeded and exact penalties for that behavior. You have that freedom until you actually DO something to lose that right.

The overall ramifications of this are widespread and I'm sure that I'll miss many points that I want to make. I guess there is always tomorrow for those. The main point that I want to communicate, however, is that we, as a people, need to realize that many of the current hot topics in news and political discussion center around giving away our FREEDOM because we are scared someone might break a law. If anyone cares to look at unbiased numbers, this is frequently happening based on events that are extremely unlikely to happen. It is also often a freedom that has little to no bearing on the ability to actually break said law.

The specifics are pretty extensive and probably need to be the topics for future posts. I guess I'll leave off my rant for the moment. Don't want to expend all my energy on my first attempt here. Hope you enjoyed and let me know what you think. Thanks.