Societal freedom

[migrendel]

There are some rights which are truly sacred. They are beyond the reach of majorities, and can never be deprived. Freedom of speech and personal privacy are the two most obvious and most important. On its face, I think that very few would disagree with this proposition.

Some conservatives have argued that a trade-off exists between economic security and personal liberty. I dispute this vehemently, but I imagine their argument centers on the fact that they wish to make money, make more money, and trample on the existence of the deprived, and this is prima facie a social right in itself.  How can this be? How can the accumulation of property take precedence over the basic economic security of many? For when you argue that, the right to be free of poverty, free of ignorance, free of illness, and free of the fear which hangs as a destructive miasma over the lives of so many who did not get dealt such a pleasant hand to play is maligned and fobbed off in the name of capital. Worse yet, this all coincides with the tendency to purloin the truly important social liberties with an evil eye and an unequal hand, targeting those who fail to meet the ridiculous standards the idle have the time to concoct. Dislike them if you wish, for that is your right, but show the graciousness to leave them alone. In the end, freedom shall only exist when we recognizes that it flows not from the vicissitudes of the market, but from the ability to live without the social standards again which so many of us, not bland enough to conform to your lack of vitality, are forced to chafe.

[migrendel]

I haven't the vaguest idea what crawled up your ass, Tredrick, but it seems quite apparent that you have confused being sarcastic with being perceptive.