Freedom, as defined by Merriam - Webster's Dictionary.

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
2 a: a political right

Responsibility, as defined by Merriam - Webster's Dictionary.

1: the quality or state of being responsible: as a: moral, legal, or mental accountability
2: something for which one is responsible

I find it interesting how people often forget about what it means to be responsible. Responsibility comes in many forms, whether or not you consider those actions as responsibility is what makes the difference.

For example, you are responsible for making sure that you eat, shower, brush your teeth, pay your bills, go to work every day. These things are responsibilities that most people take no thought of.

People often have the diluted notion that government is responsible for the basic aspects of their life, or at least basic provisions. Many people want the government to provide them with health care, food, water, a car, a house... There comes a point where one has to draw the line.

Imagine that you are an infant again. It was pretty nice having everything done for you wasn't it? When you were an infant you didn't have any responsibilities. This is looked upon later in life and regarded as a happy care free time. As a child your life still has direction – direction chosen by others. What you had for dinner was not your choice; it was that of someone else. As a child this doesn't matter to you because you have little perspective on what you like.

As a small child you are not at the age where responsibilities are an issue. As a child you don't question how it is that your parents provide for you. This knowledge comes later.

By the time you are a teenager you have preferences, you know what you want to eat, but sometimes still can't. This is bound to make you frustrated. You have people telling you what to do, and now you know what you want to do. You have changed. Your parents no longer tell you to brush your teeth, because you do this on your own, you understand that your teeth are part of your body, and you must keep them clean. You don't have someone feeding you anymore. You feed yourself, clean yourself, these things are now responsibilities.

Being a child was nice while it lasted, but people often forget how it is that they arrived at adulthood. They made it because either there parents or someone else took the responsibility for them. That is the key; the responsibilities never go away. Responsibilities can only be shifted from one person to another person, or entity.

When the government becomes responsible for more of our lives we loose something which we gained a long time ago, choice. The freedom to chose as we wish how to meet those basic needs; those basic aspects of our lives. This is a loss of freedom.

Choice is limited when we have provided options. Remember Freedom? “The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action”. “The absence of necessity”, meaning you no longer require coercion or constraint in choice, as you did when you were a child. People forget what they have gained. As the government “provides” for us, we inherently have limited choice. Often people are willing to sacrifice choice for convenience. The economy can't function without choice.

When you were a kid you didn't think much about how your parents were able to provide for you. Now there are able bodied adults who wish to have someone else provide for them. The problem is that there are a limited number of people who produce; or whose efforts allow the government to provide for others. As more and more people are “taken care of” by government there are fewer and fewer producers. This cycle is not sustainable.

People wanting the government to provide, and inherently make choices for them, are being reduced to a childhood mentality. In order to be content with what is provided for you, you must have limited perspective. And like a child you must also not understand how it is that the government has the means to provide for you. Remember you didn't appreciate your parents work until you were old enough to recognize it as a responsibility.

This child-like mentality is dangerous, because as I said earlier it is not sustainable. How is any economy structured in this way going to function without some sort of centralized control? Is centralized control (central planning) to replace choice?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889886,00.html

Gun sales are way up!

Two factors are fueling the rise. The first is political. It's no coincidence that a record number of background checks occurred in November, the month Barack Obama was elected President and the Democrats took control of Congress.

In a December survey by the research firm Southwick Associates, nearly 80% of active hunters and target shooters said they believed firearm purchases would "become more difficult" under the new Administration and a Democratic Congress.

"Thus far, the Obama Administration has done what they set out to do," says Joe Keffer, who owns a shop in New Holland, Pa. "And therein lies the concern."

The recession is another factor in the sales jump. Guns are expensive — Baker, for example, paid $200 for her shotgun — yet fear trumps the cost of a weapon for people worried that the economic crisis will lead to more crime.

This is an interesting article to say the least. I like this quote.

Roy Richmond, for example, just bought his first small handgun. He's the heat-packing pastor of a nondenominational church near Oklahoma City. He's carrying the weapon for protection. "Things are getting worse and worse," he says. "There needs to be some people out there with guns."

I agree; the gun control advocates are about to lose to reality. When looking at gun control from a logical standpoint - it only makes sense for the responsible people to have guns. The irresponsible people with ill intentions are going to do whatever is necessary to get or do "what they want". It only makes sense that the responsible people have the ability to protect themselves, or in some cases other people.

This last statement pretty much sums it up.

For gun-control advocates, this dynamic is bitterly ironic. Tough government talk against firearms, amplified by the Obama Administration's popularity, has actually helped spark a sales increase. It's yet another cost of good intentions.

I don't believe that reducing the number of guns amongst law abiding citizens is a "cost of good intentions". Come to think of it, nearly every time the government exerts individual control, touting good intentions, there have been adverse effects. This effect just happens to be a good one; in that people are buying more guns.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7977031.stm

The current aim, reached in an agreement between Presidents George W Bush and Putin in Moscow in 2002 (and known as the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty or Sort) is to cut deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 on each side by 2012.

The new aim is to get an agreement to take those numbers much lower. It will still give them both the power to destroy each other several times over.

And why by December? Because that is when a previous treaty known as Start (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) runs out. Start made dramatic reductions in nuclear forces of some 80% but the key point at this moment is that contains binding agreements on verification and when the treaty runs out so do those commitments. They will have to be renewed if arms control is to be under proper monitoring.

That creates a timetable and an opportunity which both leaders have seized.

"The treaty needs political strengthening," said Mark Fitzpatrick. "It is under siege. The last review conference in 2005 was a failure and non nuclear-armed states are losing faith that the nuclear states are fulfilling their side of the bargain."

However, the reality is that the nuclear-armed states might disarm partially but will not disarm completely.

They are all in the process of modernizing their forces which will reduce them in numbers - but not eliminate them. A nuclear weapons-free world remains pie in the sky because there are - and will be - missiles in the sky instead.

So the United States and Russia are going to push the "Reset Button". No - not the misworded one that Hillary presented to the Russian foreign minister, but a metaphorical one.

The idea that either the United States or Russia are going to reduce their arsenal are ridiculous. Neither the U.S. or Russia are likely to actually use nuclear weapons on their enemy. Having a strong conventional weapons stockpile prevents the direct need for nuclear weapons. I find it interesting that the majority of countries that seem the most worried about a U.S. or Russian stockpile, are those most likely to actually use them.

A dating scenario can be used here to illustrate my point. Relationships require a lot of responsibility. You have to look out for two people, not just yourself. People who suspect the worst are often those who contemplate the worst. Sometimes you have a woman or a man that is constantly worried that their partner is going to cheat. This means that the person questioning the their partners motives constantly has cheating on the brain. This doesn't mean that they have, or will cheat, but that cheating in some form or another is occupying their thought process.

Gun control advocates often follow the same path. Those most afraid of firearms generally tend to be those who know the least, or do not trust themselves with that kind of power.

I think this is similar to the concerns of countries which seem worried about the number of weapons massed by the U.S. and Russia.

The truth is that both countries are already in the midst of reducing the number of nuclear weapons. They don't need as many now as they used to. With the implementation of MIRV technology (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle). each missile consists of multiple warheads. So a reduction in the number of deployment vehicles doesn't really matter when one vehicle can disperse a large number of warheads.

This action by the U.S. and Russia is just an exercise to pacify those who do not understand the issue.

--> My two cents...

Another point to consider: with Iran on the way to having a nuclear weapon and many rogue nations already having nuclear weapons, the U.S. and Russia would both be fools to let their defenses down now. If any country can be trusted with nuclear weapons, it's the U.S. and Russia.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 - 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

Source: DaveRamsey.com

* Dave Ramsey did not write this. It has been circulating around the web for some time but seems more fitting than ever right now.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I called this one in February.

Take a read, tell me where I was wrong.

http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2009/02/16/obama-creating-lstrikegauto-industryl-st

Remember the government doesn't own GM. Funny how the Obama calls for the head of GM and gets it - on a silver platter no less.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-auto/

President Obama said Monday his administration has "no intention" of running General Motors, even as the White House demanded the resignation of the automaker's CEO and called for a "better business plan" before considering lending more government money to bail out the company.

Obama said the companies and the government might have to consider "using our bankruptcy code" to help the companies restructure more efficiently. He said any such action would take place "with the backing of the U.S. government."

Oh and, "with the backing of the U.S. government" means the government will be calling the shots. Sort of like when they called for the firing of GM's CEO.

Note: You DO NOT have to register to leave a comment.