I think freedom is relative. What I believe is a myth is the total freedom so many right-wingers seem to crave.
To have total freedom would be anarchy and not in anybody’s interest. The Wild West is testament to that – a violent place of lawlessness in which people died young and lived in fear.
For me there is a compromise. I want freedom to practice religion or not, freedom to say what I like short of spreading hate or instigating violence, freedom to be educated without indoctrination, freedom to support whatever politics I like, freedom to walk around without being attacked, freedom to wear what I like, freedom to cause offense and freedom to express my sexuality.
Those are the type of things that I want in a tolerant society and I think the West gets that compromise about right.
Everything is “relative”. What the hell are you on about with the “right-wing” nonsense? Oh, that’s right, you’re one of these old-timey thinking folk that still thinks in terms of “wings”. How very 20th century!
I find it extremely hard to follow your definition of “freedom” as expressed as replicating the Wild West one-hundred and fifty years ago. Perhaps you’re stretching the literal interpretation to the maximum there. That’s just playing silly buggers.
That’s not what defines freedom in this day and age and many adjustments were made throughout last century with fine-tuning it by degrees.
Did you forget that it was the ultra Conservative, Sir Robert Peel, that introduced some proper law and order in Britain?
It’s always a trait of the left-wing contingent – lack of a decent education on the history of our great nation.
How did you possibly arrive at this “right-wing” blurb? If you care to rewind that thought a bit and dig deeper to find out exactly what “wing” of government was responsible for making certain that many of these freedoms were enforced, you might surprise yourself.
I’m A-Political myself, but I think it’s important to at least set the record straight.
Eric – these piece was written in response to a number of people who describe themselves as right-wingers/neoconservatives.
History does show that the Tories were remarkably resistant to affording human rights. Indeed it was only with the birth of the trade union movement that things shifted.
Back at the time of Whigs and Tories they both represented the same people, didn’t they? And why do you think Peel introduced law and order? It couldn’t be to protect the property of the rich could it?