|I watched a video today, which I do not wish to name, nor quote, but
he gave me an idea. What is personal freedom, and what if everyone
decided to act on that all at the same time?
Let me tell you right now, that here and there I'm going to get on my
SOAP BOX and tell it the way it is. This isn't going to be a
whole page about religious hogwash and just talking spiritual love and
joy. The truth is going to be told following this, so know this in
To begin with, know we spend a good deal of
life in a kind of slavery, a slave to duty, to myths of freedom, a slave
to the isms of politics, political correctness and religion.. We are a
slave to the ideas of money and the false idea that if one had money one
succeded and if not, one is a failure. We are enslaved in the need to
acquire, to belong, to be accepted, to have others pass their judgments
on ua. Remember how badly it hurt if someone didn't like the way we
looked, or what we wore or what we said? The first step to personal
freedom is reccognizing thar we are slaves within.
The second step is to recognize that we don't have to
be perfect in other people's eyes. Who made others our judge and
jury? We are all perfect, each in our own way.
The third step is to take nothing on its face, accept
nothing as the truth unless it is the truth for you. We need to ask
questions of all that is presented to us. We need to ask what is right
and wrong and make our own decisions based on how it feels within
To own the self and belong only to ourselves is
the basic key to personal freedom.
Slavery starts in infancy, but we don't know that as
infants. When we are infants, all we require is food and water, a
clean diaper and a clean place to sleep and grow.. It's really
nice to have a mother and father to hold us and love us.
If you choose to be a parent, thats what you owe
them. Your freedom was in choosing to be a parent and we need to
do that wisely. Being a parent is a great responsibility so make
sure you choose it for yourself, not let others talk you into it because
its right for them. That's the freedom they choose for themselves.
It's a great joy to be a parent, after we get enough
sleep and the baby doesn't cry all the time because we are feeding it
junk food and its tummy hurts. Been there - done that, right?
If you haven't yet been a parent, know that it comes
with the territory.
The rules of society jump right in to tell us how to
be a good parent. First thing when a boy is born is for the doctor
to insist that it be circumcized. Oh really? Then why was
the child born the way he was? Think twice on choosing that for
your child. Don't base it on religion or things you've heard.
If you are the Dad - how is it working for you? As in the vaccine
question that comes next, once done, it can't be undone.
The next thing we have to decide is vaccines and
there are tons of laws about that, and scary stories on both sides of
Here are 42 pages of facts to read and to make up
your own mind with: Remember that once your child is vaccinated,
it has to live with your choice forever - the rest of its life. It
cannot be undone.
Once, fed, clothed and loved, your child will want
TOYS! The child needs to entertain itself, learn from toys.
It'll make a toy out of anything it can reach and touch, even before it
can crawl. The child doesn't need anything fancy - just make sure
its clean because the child will put it into its mouth and chew on it no
matter what it is. So, no sharp edges, and nothing poisonous.
And once a tooth appears, it will be shredded in the mouth too, so be
careful what you choose, even paper, books, and newspaper tastes great
to a child, and anything it finds on the floor if that is where the
child is laying.
Children don't need fancy toys. What you see on
TV (I hope you have unplugged it by now) the child can learn from
anything around the house. A child can even learn from its own
body parts, like fingers andr toes, noses, hair, arms, legs - start
there because you are teaching your child in a loving way and that's all
it cares about right then.
Every parent knows that a child will like the box a
toy came in better than the toy anyway. Boxes make great toys.
Clean blocks of wood are great too and remember that knocking things
down are more fun than buildintg things for a child.
Play dates for kids? Yikes! I pity the
kids for the choices you make for them. Not every kid is a great
role model for a child. Notice I have differentiated between kids
and your child for a reason. You don't really know what that other
kid is going to teach your child do you? Thinkk twice about that.
You have to use daycare? Are you sure?
How about grandma if you have to work outside the home. You'd be
better off for a father and mother to work different hours if necessary,
OR, live in a cheaper place so Mom can stay home and take care of the
child herself. Your child will be so much better off to live in a
small home than in a daycare center no amtter how great the teacher is.
But, that is your choice to make and nobody should
make it for you. Make that decision for yourself, not
because someone else tells you what to do.
Don't make your decision based on what Dee Finney
said because she raised six great kids and was a stay at home Mom for
most of their childhood. Their Dad worked three jobs to make that
happen and we had a fabulous garden and Mom learned to cook, can, sew,
barter clothes, whatever it took back in the 60's before women's lib
came into fashion and changed the world.
NOTE FROM DEE: I can see you rolling your eyes
and laughing about now, if not groaning in derision. . My children
were raised in the 60's when we had a different life than people do now.
This is a different genreation - actually two generations separate me
from you. just keep in mind that we are trying to change the world
for the better and you have to do that for yourself first.
Who your child plays with is your next decision and
even I had to make those decisions - even in the 60's. a kid from
around the corner couldn't play with my kids because he brought a
Playboy magazine to our backyard behind the garage and showed it to my
sons. He was only six years old. Believe me, he never came
back to our house. I have to say here that he ddin't live past his
teens either because of how he was raised, but I can't judge his parents
- it might have been another reason that kid turned out the way he
Then we come to school age, and I have a lot to say
about our school system because I was raised in it during WWII and to do
the duck and cover drill in case the bombs came. My father wore a
helmet when he walked the streets at night to make sure we were safe.
We lived on ration stamps then. Other wars came and went while I
was growing up, bomb shelters were built, jet planes flew overhead,
breaking the sound barrier.
Other generations have lived through other wars.
Every generation lost parents, friends, relatives to war. Mine
too! That's what we need to change as fast as we can.
But, lets get back to education - I don't like the
publc school system for a variety of reasons and what they teach is
first on the list. From friends I have heard that parochial
schools are probably worse, where they get religion drummed into them
first before the other lies get taught to them.
Education for the most part is LIES! If you
don't already know that, then you shouldn't have children because that
is what is going to be taught to them. Then once you get beyond
the lies and teach science - know that real science is yearsr ahead of
what is taught in schools because old codgers can't let go of what was
taught to them and get with real science.
Reality is so much different than what everyone
thinks it is. As an example, when are school going to teach
kids that people from other solar systems came to earth and
changed humanity - actually created humans? When are schools
going to start teaching the truth about Christopher Columbus and what
the white people of Europe did to the Native Americans? The
atrocities were horrible, and we sitll celebrate Columbus Day and
If you prefer to homeschool, and I really like that idea, just know
that 'you' are the truth teller and not the books, so you had better know
the truth for yourself because you are the only one your child is going
to hear it from. The books you teach from come from the lying
school system if they are the 'public' school systemm.
I can't speak for or about charter schools or other systems because I
haven't read their books, so you will be on our own with them.
Your child will trust you to know truth from lies. Get your
information from the internet because there are a lot of wise people
telling the truth out there and you have to decide what is true and what
Once you are done with the school system, your child will make
his/her own decisions about what you taught them. By then, truth
will have changed accordingly depending on what you read to begin wtih.
I can tell you here that if you read the word 'theory' - that's
what it is - it is not gospel truth and even what is called 'gospel' is
not necessarily true either.
The only thing really TRUE can be proven in some way. If it
can't be proven, then it is questionable.
I don't intend to tell you how to raise a teenager, because teens
raise themselves the way they want to no matter what you tell them
because they think for themselves according to what their friends say.
Unless you jail your children over the age of 10 or 11, you can't stop
them from learning from others - right or wrong.
Maybe by then, somehow you can tell them right from wrong but even
then, they have their own minds and will do what they want when they
want to no matter what you say unless you scare them into behaving
properly and I really hope you don't scare your kids the way my parents
I still have fears taught to me by my parents, but I learned that
getting on a bus doesn't mean I'm going to die in a ditch just because
another bus drove into a ditch and a kid died.
Watch carefully that you don't put a lot of fear into your children.
If you have a special child who has gifts of one kind or another,
encourage them to pursue it even if you don't have the same gift.
Children, these days are born knowing things from birth that many of us
didn't learn until we were in our 40's. Don't tell your children 'you
can't see' something they say they can, or say they 'know' something.
Many childrena are being born 'knowing things' or 'hearing things' that
we couldn't as children.
And don't squelch creativity no matter what it is as long as they
aren'nt hurting themselves or burning the house down.
My own children told me when they were in their 20's, some of the
things they did creatively when they were young.. Some of the things
they did were electrical and gasoline powered rockets. Those kinds
of thingS would scare any mother.
Of course at some point, we all can take stock of where we are
in life and think about what we want to do or be in life if we haven't
done it at the same the time we raised our children.
Some people don'nt have the energy to do all that at the same time,
but some do if you are lucky to have that type of personality.
It's like being able to watch TV and do other things at the same time,
talk on th ephone, take notes, read, all kids of things - that is
called multi-tasking. Many of us can do taht, even when we get
older and take the time to think about whether we can make this a better
world - better than when we came into it.
Especially like when we think about how many wars we've lived through
and are facing another one, and we have always trusted the government
to do what is right, and then discover that government play games when
we aren't lookining for other reasons than what is good for its own
You know that right? At least I hope you do.
Here's what we need to think about - even though it isn't affecting
us personally. At least we hope it isn't, but some of those
things affect us even when we aren't looking, and hold us back from what
is really how people on the whole want to live - its not just
about government - its about personal freedom.
10-4-12 - NEWS ON FREEDOM BEING REMOVED
BREAKING -->> Federal Court RULES "in favor of indefinite DETENTION"
FREEDOM is dead !!
Just like in North Korea, China, Cuba etc U.S. Freedom is dead, You have
none of your other Constitutional protections because now you can be
arrested and imprisoned indefinitely with No charges, No evidence,
required and then you have No rights to a lawyer or ever having a trial
by your peers. (Or even a phone call telling others where you are !)
Federal Court overturns District Judge decision & rules in favor of
In and around Sept 12, 2012 District Judge Katherine Forest ruled to
ban the enforcement of part of a new law that permits indefinite
military detention, a measure critics including a prize-winning
journalist say is too vague and threatens free speech.
HOWEVER, the Federal government's wheels turned quickly and in
no time judges appointed by Obama overturned her decision.
As the NDAA's co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin said during a speech
on the floor in December, it was the Obama administration that demanded
the removal of language that would have protected Americans from being
subject to indefinite detention.
The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American
citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ¦and the
administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S.
citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this
section, said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
It was the administration that asked us to remove the very
language which we had in the bill which passed the committee ¦we
removed it at the request of the administration, said Levin,
emphasizing, It was the administration which asked us to remove
the very language the absence of which is now objected to.
From: Eileen Dannemann
Sent: Thursday, October 4,
2012 9:12 AM
Subject: BREAKING NEWS:
Federal Court OVERTURNS District Judge
constitutional decision & rules in favor of
overturns District Judge
decision & rules in
favor of indefinite
In and around Sept 12, 2012 District Judge Katherine Forest
ruled to ban
enforcement of part
of a new law that
a measure critics
journalist say is
too vague and
quickly and in no
appointed by Obama
As the NDAA’s co-sponsor Senator
Carl Levin said during
a speech on the floor in
, it was
the Obama administration that
demanded the removal of language
that would have protected
Americans from being subject to
“The language which precluded
the application of Section 1031
to American citizens was in the
bill that we originally
approved…and the administration
asked us to remove the language
which says that U.S. citizens
and lawful residents would not
be subject to this section,”
said Levin, Chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
“It was the administration that
asked us to remove the very
language which we had in the
bill which passed the
committee…we removed it at the
request of the administration,”
said Levin, emphasizing, “It was
the administration which asked
us to remove the very language
the absence of which is now
Director, National Coalition of Organized Women
Myths and legends of Lilith date back farther than the
original texts of
Learn about Lilith in the Christian Bible, Lilith in
Hebrew Mysticism, Lilith as a ...
I've written about Lillith before:
Jan 22, 2012 –
NOTE FROM DEE: EVERY WOMAN DESERVES TO BE LIKE
LILLITH BECAUSE NO WOMAN NEEDS TO BE SUBSERVIANT TO MEN WHO
JUST WANT TO BE MEAN TO THEM. WOMEN DESERVE TO BE AT LEAST EQUAL TO
MEN. THERE WOULD BE NO HUMAN RACE WITHOUT WOMEN WHO GO THROUGH
PREGNANCY, AND PAINFUL DELIVERIES TO PROVIDE THIS WORLD WITH
Here is just a few paragraphs from the other page:
The Bible's dual accounts of the creation of the first woman, which
led its author to the conclusion that Adam had a first wife
before his marriage to Eve. Adam's original mate was the demonic Lilith
who had been fashioned, just like her male counterpart, from the dust of
the earth. Lilith insisted from the outset on equal treatment, a fact
which caused constant friction between the couple. Eventually the
frustrated Lilith used her magical powers to fly away from her spouse.
At Adam's urging, God dispatched three angels to negotiate her return.
When these angels made threats against Lilith's demonic descendants, she
countered that she would prey eternally upon newborn human babies, who
could be saved only by invoking the protection of the three angels. In
the end Lilith stood her ground and never returned to her husband.
The story implies that when Eve was afterwards fashioned out of
Adam's rib (symbolic of her subjection to him), this was to serve as an
antidote to Lilith's short-lived attempt at egalitarianism. Here,
declare the feminists matronizingly, we have a clear statement of the
Rabbinic Attitude Towards Women!
There is only one slight problem with this theory: The story of
Lilith is not actually found in any authentic Rabbinic tradition.
Although it is repeatedly cited as a "Rabbinic legend" or a "midrash,"
it is not recorded in any ancient Jewish text!
The tale of Lilith originates in a medieval work called "the Alphabet
of Ben-Sira," a work whose relationship to the conventional streams of
Judaism is, to say the least, problematic.
The unknown author of this work has filled it with many elements that
seem designed to upset the sensibilities of traditional Jews. In
particular, the heroes of the Bible and Talmud are frequently portrayed
in the most perverse colours. Thus, the book's protagonist, Ben-Sira, is
said to have issued from an incestuous union between the prophet
Jeremiah and his daughter. Joshua is described as a buffoon too fat to
ride a horse. King David comes across as a heartless and spiteful figure
who secretly delights in the death of his son Absalom, while putting on
a disingenuous public display of grief. The book is consistently
sounding the praises of hypocritical and insincere behaviour.
So shocking and abhorrent are some of the contents of "the Alphabet
of Ben-Sira" that modern scholars have been at a loss to explain why
anyone would have written such a book. Some see it as an impious digest
of risqué folk-tales. Others have suggested that it was a polemical
broadside aimed at Christians, Karaites, or some other opposing
movement. I personally would not rule out the possibility that it was
actually an anti-Jewish satire--though, to be sure, it did come to be
accepted by the Jewish mystics of medieval Germany; and amulets to fend
off the vengeful Lilith became an essential protection for newborn
infants in many Jewish communities.
Eventually the tale of Lilith was included in a popular
English-language compendium of Rabbinic legend, and some uncritical
readers--unable or unwilling to check after the editor's sources--cited
it as a representative Rabbinic statement on the topic. As tends to
happen in such instances, subsequent authors kept copying from one
another until the original error turned into an unchallenged historical
Certainly there are volumes of real texts and traditions that
could benefit from a searching and critical feminist analysis, and it is
a shame to focus so much intellectual energy on a dubious and
uncharacteristic legend of this sort.
NOTE: I WROTE 171 PAGES ABOUT SLAVERY WHICH IS ANOTHER TOPIC, BUT
WELL WORTH READING ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAD SO MUCH OF IT IN THIS COUNTRY,
EVEN IN THE NORTH.
I'VE WRITTEN 758 PAGES ABOUT EDUCATION, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT EDUCATION IS
VERY DEAR TO MY HEART BECAUSE MY FATHER DENIED THAT TO ME. THAT'S
HOW HIS GENERATION WAS ABOUT FEMALE EDUCATION.
NOTE: I SEE SEVERAL GROUPS PROPOSING THAT THEY ARE TEACHING
CHRISTIANS THE DANGERS OF BELONGING TO RELIGIOUS CULTS - BUT IF THEY ARE
ALSO A RELIGION - THEY ARE STILL SUSPECT, SO I AM NOT GOING TO LINK TO
ANY ONE RELIGIOUS GROUP NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY SAY THEY ARE. THEY
MIGHT BE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO JUDGE THEM, BUT I DON'T WANT TO LEAN IN
THAT DIRECTION HERE.
What is Personal Freedom
What is personal freedom? The reference point for most of us is an
inner experience. It can relate to outer conditions or your personal
values or your identity. It usually means “from” something like
limitation, fear, prejudice, or lack.. Thomas Leonard, a founder of the
modern coaching movement talked about the need for surplus in key areas
of our lives like
money, time, space. He felt that this was a way to have a cushion
from the hard knocks of life. That is one way to try to ensure your
optimum life. Have enough of what you want and a surplus to do what you
want when you want. It is based on creating external conditions in your
life, and that is a reasonable component of freedom and happiness. it's
good and worthwhile to take care of those areas.However, you can have
all of the external components in place and still be miserable. Fear,
guilt, anger or incompleteness may dominate your inner life and that is
certainly not free. So a second level of the optimum life is a healthy
inner life, and one that expresses your authentic self. A person who
self actualizes, operates on a higher level of personal freedom. When
you fulfill your inner nature there is a joy and freedom that can't be
obtained by external circumstances alone.
A third level of personal freedom is totally inner based. It is a
state of contentment and peace that isn't altered by anything outside of
you. It is transcendent in nature. It comes when your personal self
expands in unity with a universal nature. Expanding your identity to a
larger state that is made of love, peace, and joy transforms the idea of
your existance. You have now become truly free. You have been to the
mountaintop and that will never leave you.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING DEBATE ON PERSONAL FREEDOM.
I AM NOT TAKING SIDES : I'M JUST PRESENTING IT FOR YOU TO READ:
**This round will be Lincoln-Douglas style**
Throughout the ages, mankind has sought many things:
, prosperity, power, and fame. But among these
things rises something greater, more valuable, than any of
these things combined, and that thing is freedom. Gandhi
said of freedom, "It is the breath of life. What would a man
not pay for living?" Because choosing personal freedom
possesses more inherent worth, not only in situations where
personal freedom and economic security conflict, but in all
areas of life, I Affirm the resolution: When in conflict,
personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.
To establish some common ground in today's debate, let's
examine some definitions:
Personal freedom: the power or liberty to order one's own
actions and property as long as they do not infringe upon
the rights of others.
Economic security: the condition of having a stable source
of financial income that allows for access to basic
infrastructure needs pertaining to
, education, dwelling, information, and social
Conflict: incompatibility or mutual exclusivity as of one
idea, desire, event, or activity with another
Value: consider (someone or something) to be important or
With the definitions established, it's necessary to ask why
we ought to Affirm the resolution.
The value we are presented with are those of personal
freedom and economic security, and thus the value that I as
the Affirmative will be upholding is that of personal
freedom (as previously defined). Personal freedom is not
only valuable because of what it brings us–independence–but
also because of what it is–arguably the most important right
that human beings are endowed with. To prove why the
resolution is true, let's examine three contentions:
Contention 1: Conflict is the limit
When analyzing this resolution, it is essential that we only
look at examples of personal freedom and economic security
when they come into conflict. After all, there are a number
of scenarios in which we find personal freedom and economic
security to be in perfect harmony. Thus, the question of the
resolution is specifically limited to the area of conflict:
when we must choose one over the other. Additionally, it's
important to recognize that we must compare these values
from the perspective of an third party, because it's
impossible to use your own personal freedom to devalue that
same freedom. Likewise, if you choose to value economic
security, you are exercising your personal freedom in that
very action. Therefore, we have to consider personal freedom
and economic security when they are valued by an external
actor–someone else must be doing the valuing. So why is
personal freedom superior? This leads directly into
Contention 2: Valuing personal freedom creates independence
Independence is commonly thought of in terms of the American
Revolution, cries of liberty, and rights being fought for.
But at it's core, independence is so much more than just
being free. Inherent within the idea of independence is that
not only are you free, but you are free from the control of
others. Independence is defined as, "not depending on
another's authority; not depending on another for livelihood
or subsistence." When we value personal freedom, it allows
us to become less reliant on others for our needs, and more
reliant on ourselves. The problem that arises when valuing
economic security over personal freedom is that it
necessitates dependence on others. For example, when you go
out and get a job, you are exercising your personal freedom,
and as a result, gain finances for basic needs–economic
security. However, when a decision must be made–get a job
and exercise personal freedom, or slack off and get checks
from the government–we find that valuing economic security
leads to dependence on others, and creates an irresponsible
and irrational mindset. The government has two options:
allow you to exercise your freedom to go get a job, thereby
valuing personal freedom, or send you monthly checks so long
as you don't have a job, thereby valuing economic security.
The fundamental problem is that this encourages an
others-reliant mindset, instead of a self-reliant mindset.
Part of the reason why the free market is so successful is
because the system values personal freedom above economic
security as a fundamental precept. In a society's
marketplace, there is conflict: we have to choose to either
value freedom of those in the market to make their own
decisions, or we must choose to value the economic security
of society as a whole, and try to ensure that everyone has a
fairly equal level of goods and services–basically
socialism. The superior choice–capitalism–creates a system
where people must learn to be reliant upon themselves, while
the latter choice incentivizes laziness, a mindset of
entitlement, and a state where we are dependent on the
government to supply our every want and need. Ultimately,
the mindset created by valuing economic security over
personal freedom when in conflict, is a negative one, that
leads to failure in the long run. Valuing personal freedom
allows people to be independent, make well reasoned
decisions, and learn to become self-sufficient in the long
Contention 3: Personal freedom is inherently valuable
[quote]. Freedom is the most important of all the rights
that mankind has. Without freedom, what use is life? We are
merely slaves to another, our lives dependent on the whims
of another. Without freedom, our property means nothing–for
all we are concerned, we *are* property. While economic
security has its place, it can never take the inherent value
that personal freedom has when the two conflict. This
principle is illustrated perfectly in the historical example
of slavery. Much of the south viewed slaves as property, and
decided to take away the personal freedom of the Africans,
for the supposedly "higher value" of economic and financial
security. In the end, however, the government realized that
not only was slavery unfeasible for the long term success of
America, but more importantly, it was a gross violation of
rights and freedoms, and was inherently immoral.
In the end, personal freedom ought to be valued above
economic security when in conflict, because while economic
security necessitates dependence on others and has no
intrinsic worth, personal freedom possesses both practical
and moral value, due to the independence it creates and the
inherent value it has. What would you not be willing to pay
for your life? And what good is your life, unless you are
I agree with my opponent's definitions.
Contention 1: Economic security is a foundation of a good
For most of us, school is a lot of hard work. Not only are
we not allowed to spend the time at school as we wish, but
after school, we must do a lot of time-consuming (and mostly
useless) homework. It's obvious that school restrains our
personal freedom. Why then do most of us attend school? The
answer is that school promises us a well-paying career
(a.k.a. economic security), and a well-paying career
promises a luxurious life. Thus economic security is more
valuable than personal freedom.
Contention 2: Economic security is the limit of personal
What you have limits what you can do. No where is this
concept more prevalent than in finances. Those who have
money can build giant buildings, make multiple movies, and
buy whatever the heck they want. Those who don't have money
can only watch enviously. Since personal freedom is a
measure of your liberty to do the things you want, it makes
sense to state that economic security is a measure of
personal freedom. Thus economic security must come first.
Contention 3: Independence depends on economic security
When a person without money wants to accomplish something
that is above his/her financial means, he/she has to borrow
from people who have money. The person without money is
dependent on the people with money. If that same person had
adequate financial means, he/she would not be dependent on
others, and thus would be independent. Thus economic
security is more important than personal freedom, since
without economic security you cannot be truly independent,
and without independence you cannot truly be free.
In this argument, I'll be addressing Con's case, and then
reiterating the validity of my own case.
I'm assuming that since a value wasn't explicitly presented,
Con is supporting economic security as their value.
Response to Con's Contention 1: The entirety of Con's
argument here is that because economic security is
necessary, and because it comes first, it is superior. This
argument, however, has no legitimate grounds. I'll address
these ideas, and then refute the example of schools.
1. While it is true that everyone needs some sort of
economic security, this by no means proves economic security
to be superior–necessity does not equal superiority. In
Soviet Russia, or other Socialist nations, people were
guaranteed a certain level of economic security, having
access to things like food, shelter, a form of income, and
other basic infrastructural needs. However, their quality of
life was very poor, their valuing of economic security over
their freedom led to reliance on a corrupt and illegitimate
government, and the moral value of personal freedom was
implicated. Economic security led to others-dependence and a
devaluing of morality.
2. Con commits the logical fallacy "post hoc, proper hoc,"
saying that because we have economic security before we have
a high-quality life, economic security is more valuable. Con
also commits circular reasoning: by valuing economic
security, we have a luxurious life. What is a luxurious
life? Essentially, having lots of economic security! Con
proves nothing. The example of schools is also fallacious,
as it not only is based on the flawed circular reasoning,
but also is simply untrue. Several highly successful people
have dropped out of school and yet had success. Without the
freedom to pursue your life in a meaningful way in the
future through an exercise of personal freedom, economic
security and "luxury" ends up being meaningless.
Response to Con's Contention 2: Con's second contention,
unfortunately, falls prey to the same problem as the
previous: circularity. Con constantly appeals to the
standard of economic security to prove why economic security
is good. Second, the examples of "building giant buildings"
or "making multiple movies" really have nothing to do with
the resolution, since they don't show personal freedom
conflicting with economic security. Even if you accept that
personal freedom is limited by economic security (which it
isn't–nations that have been in deep poverty have been able
produce intelligent people and resourceful commodities),
that doesn't prove economic security is more valuable, just
as a tape measure is not more important than the person that
Response to Con's Contention 3: Two responses. One, Con
seems to appealing to the higher standard of personal
freedom, when he says, "without economic security you cannot
be truly independent, and without independence you cannot be
truly free." This seems as though Con is conceding that
personal freedom is the highest goal, and that economic
security can help achieve that goal. If that is the case,
then a vote for Pro is justified. Two, Con also seems to be
agreeing with me in regards to the independence argument.
While it may seem that Con is arguing for economic security
here, in reality, they admit to my very point: if you want
to accomplish something above your financial means (buy a
$3000 TV set), and you go out and borrow money from someone
else, that is valuing economic security. Even if you
disagree with that, the person buying the TV would also be
exercising their own personal freedom in order to get
economic security–that obviously leaves us in a bind, as I
identified in my Contention 1, and it's also not an example
of conflict. *When in conflict,* economic security valued
over personal freedom (such as the example I gave in my
Contention 2) does in fact create others-dependence, and a
socialistic welfare state where everyone depends on the
government for sustenance.
This being said, let's return to the Pro case and see why
not only is it still valid, but it has gone almost
completely unrefuted by Con.
In my Contention 1, I pointed out how conflict examples are
the only applicable ones to the resolution–all others must
be disregarded because of the wording of the topic. I also
showed how it's impossible to value economic security higher
than personal freedom if you choose to use your own freedom
to do that very thing. We must examine all examples of
conflict from the perspective of an external actor (someone
else doing the valuing). These issues were largely ignored
by Con, who went on to use examples without conflict, and
examples with the individual as their own actor. As this
argument was not refuted, it should be considered conceded,
and since Con has not complied with these standards, all of
their arguments contradicting this standard should be thrown
Under my Contention 2, I argued that personal freedom
creates independence–a state where we are reliant upon
ourselves for our well being. As a general principle,
economic security creates irresponsibility when it's valued
above personal freedom when the two conflict, because it
allows for your fundamental ability to make decisions to be
undermined in return for money. In my example of government
welfare, you can either use your freedom to go get a job, or
you can sacrifice your freedom and get a check. The latter
option clearly provides no long-term stability, and in fact,
breeds an irresponsible mindset, which is why we should
reject economic security when it conflicts with personal
My third (3) Contention went entirely unaddressed. Con
completely ignored the fact that personal freedom has
inherent moral value, that all other human rights and
dignity depend on this one concept. Economic security has no
intrinsic value–it never has, and it never will. Economic
security is money. Personal freedom is the foundation that
sets the standard and the principle for the worth of
mankind. Without that freedom, man is no better than an
animal, and if that's the mindset we hold to, the world
would be a terrible place.
In conclusion, personal freedom still clearly reigns
superior to economic security when the two conflict, because
it is more responsible, creates independence, and is
inherently valuable, while economic security is not. For
these reasons, please vote Pro.
Response to Pro's Contention 1:
Pro states that a third party should be doing the valuing.
My arguments are based on the values of the general public,
and not on my own personal beliefs. Therefore, my arguments
follow his standard and remain unrefuted.
Response to Pro's Contention 2:
Pro uses a poor analogy to support this contention. It is
true that it is your freedom to get a job, but it is also
true that it is your freedom to not seek jobs. On the job,
you are under the command of your boss. Your boss restrains
your personal freedom, but provides you with economic
security. If you don't have a job, you have all the personal
freedom you can ever want, but your economic security is
limited to a monthly check from the government (or not even
that, depending on what country you live in). That my
opponent uses this analogy means that he concedes to the
fact that economic security comes first.
Response to Pro's Contention 3:
All values are inherently valuable, but some are more
valuable than others. Some values can only be realized if
certain other values are realized. Since the latter values
must be realized first, they are inherently more valuable. I
have shown that for one to have true personal freedom, one
must be economically secure. Thus economic security is
inherently more valuable than personal freedom.
I will now support my own case.
Con Contention 1:
My opponent claims that people of Soviet Russia were
guaranteed a certain level of economic security but were
deprived of their freedom, and thus their quality of life
was poor. I'd like to see his source for this.
Also, I could give a counterexample that would immediately
refute his point. The people of present day Communist China,
although not free, still maintain a relatively high quality
of life. Don't argue with me on this point, because I have
visited China many times.
My opponent also claims that my school analogy is
fallacious. He claims that several people drop out of school
and are successful. Now I pose this question to you: what
percentage of the human population can actually do that? You
would find that a very small percentage of people actually
do this, and that the vast majority of people depend on
education to gain economic security.
My opponent concludes his response to my contention 1 by
saying that without freedom, economic security is
meaningless. I'll pose him this question: if he lived in
another country, and the government of that country suddenly
decided to take away all his material belongings (his house,
his electronics, his groceries, etc.), would he relinquish
his belongings and avoid jail or go to jail and keep his
My opponent misses the point. Your personal freedom cannot
go beyond your economic security, therefore making economic
security more valuable, as through economic security you
obtain the means to realize two values, and through personal
freedom you obtain the means to realize none. Pro then
compares my point to a tape measure. This is highly
inaccurate, as a tape measure in no way limits the height of
a person, it only measures the height. Economic security is
the limit, not the measure, of personal freedom. Thus a
better analogy would be the exoskeleton of an insect, where
the exoskeleton limits the size of the insect, and if you
destroy the exoskeleton, you destroy the insect.
Pro claims that I am conceding that personal freedom is the
highest goal. Whether or not it is the highest goal depends
entirely on the individual, and thus here Pro deviates from
his own standards (third party has to do the valuing). My
point is that while personal freedom may emphasize
independence, one cannot have independence if one is not
economically secure. Thus my opponent's second contention
supports my case and not his.
Let me show you how borrowing money is an example of
conflict between personal freedom and economic security.
When you borrow money, you are expanding your personal
freedom but undermining your economic security, as you are
going above your financial means. Obviously, with some
people struggling to pay off credit card debt, borrowing
money isn't always a good decision. This leads me to the
When personal freedom is valued over economic security, the
result is a vicious cycle of economic dependence on others
leading to further undermining of one's economic security.
My conclusion has been proved, while my opponent's is only a
claim and has not been backed by hard evidence. Thus it has
been proved once again that economic security must come
first. For the above reasons, I urge a CON ballot.
In this speech, I'll address what Con said against my
Contentions, and then reassert what I said against his case.
Contention 1: Con misunderstands the argument here. I'm not
saying that our own personal beliefs can't be brought into
the debate. Rather, I'm saying that in all examples of
conflict, it is imperative that the subject of the example
not be doing the valuing themselves. For example, a person
cannot choose to devalue their own choice. But when we take
into account an external actor (like the government), that
external actor can do the valuing for us. We'll see how this
applies later on.
Contention 2: You can use your freedom to not get a job, but
that example doesn't show any conflict with economic
security. I'm not sure of the point Con was attempting to
make with this response. While Con's response to the freedom
restrained with a job may sound plausible, the problem this
falls prey to is the contradiction of Contention 1 (that he
agreed to). If an individual goes and uses their own freedom
to go get a job (thereby limiting their own freedom), they
are valuing personal freedom in order to restrain personal
freedom, which obviously presents us with an impossible and
unresolved principle. The only possible way this can make
sense in the context of the resolution is if an external
actor values one thing or the other. If you don't have a
job, your freedom is limited by the government in the sense
that you cannot go out and get a job without losing the
economic security you have. The two are directly in
conflict. It is not the case with using your own freedom to
get a job, because 1. that doesn't work under this topic,
and 2. You'd be using your own freedom to get economic
security (in which case, there really is no actual conflict,
which was defined as mutual exclusivity). This doesn't
refute my response that primacy does not equal superiority
(the earth existed before humans did, but that doesn't make
the earth of superior value to human beings).
Contention 3: Incorrect. Not all values are inherently
valuable. Money can be a value, but money has no inherent
worth–it is what is known as a pragmatic value, something
that is good only because of what it brings us. In the same
way, economic security is merely having a stable source of
finances to have basic services. That is not by any means an
inherently valuable goal. Pragmatically valuable in some
cases, sure. But not inherently valuable. Con's argument
that primacy equals superiority is fundamentally flawed, as
it can be empirically denied. Extremely impoverished nations
can have large amounts of personal freedom, but little to no
economic security. Personal freedom is not defined by what
you can make (that's economic security: making money), but
by how dependent you are on others, and when you choose to
throw away personal freedom to gain economic security, you
will inevitably lose independence and become more dependent
on others. That is what conflict is defined as. When you
throw out economic security, however, to value personal
freedom, it is much more likely that one can be self reliant
as they are making choices of their own accord, which
necessitates wise and responsible decisions.
Response to Con Contention 1: Here's my source quote:
"Although the country suffered enormous devastation and lost
more than twenty million lives, it had gained considerable
territory and now ranked as one of the two great world
powers along with the United States. Nonetheless, life in
the country continued to suffer. Industrial production was
once again concentrated on heavy industry, agricultural
failures produced widespread famine, political freedoms were
restricted even further, and another huge wave of purges was
carried out. As the Cold War got underway, an increasing
proportion of the Soviet Union's resources were funneled
into military projects, further exacerbating the quality of
Examples are great, but that doesn't prove the principle I
was illustrating. I agree with Con, based on statistics,
that China has somewhat of a high quality of life. This was
not my main argument in my previous response, although it
was a secondary one. The main response to the quality of
life argument was that initially brought up: quality of life
= a high degree of economic security. This argument hasn't
changed, and Con's argument is still circular. Even if you
agree with Con's argument that economic security creates
quality of life (which has already been shown to be false in
some instances, true in others–leaving us with an
inconsistent principle), that doesn't prove anything, other
than that economic security achieves greater amounts of
In response to the school analogy, the percentage of people
who can do this has absolutely nothing to do with our
debate. The point of that analogy was to illustrate that 1.
Con's argument was circular (which he hasn't yet refuted),
and 2. that Con's principle was not true in all situations.
Examples illustrate the truth of principles, and if we only
debate over examples instead of principles, nothing will
really be resolved. Economic security simply isn't the
highest value because it doesn't allow one to be
self-reliant when you throw out personal freedom, and it
doesn't possess any intrinsic worth.
If I were in jail, my material belongings would be pretty
worthless. However, if the government took away all that I
owned but allowed me complete personal freedom, I could go
and get another job, another house, more food, etc. Besides,
we already agreed that economic security is defined as
"financial stability that allows for access to basic
services," and it's entirely possible to survive without
having money (difficult, granted, but possible).
Response to Con Contention 2: Economic security is only the
financial means one has, not the ability of that person. If
you want to get "luxurious" life and have lots of expensive
things, economic security might be useful. But valuing a
stable source of income will theoretically achieve luxury
(which is simply the accumulation of wealth). I didn't miss
the point of Con's argument, I simply addressed it at it's
root: economic security doesn't limit someone, and even if
it did, that doesn't show conflict (and thus has nothing to
do with the debate). The argument Con makes is also
circular. Therefore, his contention falls.
Response to Con Contention 3: I don't deviate from my
standard, and I didn't claim that it's based on the
individual. I simply pointed out a contradiction on Con's
part. My point is that, while I and Con both agree that
economic security and personal freedom are important and
work together often times, the question of the resolution is
explicitly which is more valuable in conflict. Whether one
works well with the other has nothing to do with that. If we
must choose between either one or the other, personal
freedom allows for independence because it requires one to
make decisions that will be responsible, while on the other
side of the coin, economic security essentially encourages
laziness, and thus dependence.
1. Borrowing is not a conflict, and 2. It's not an external
actor. When you borrow money, you choose to value access to
those goods and services. Obviously you choose to borrow
money. Which is why you can't exercise your own personal
freedom in order to value your personal freedom (that ends
up in a circle, which we want to avoid, as it proves
When you value personal freedom over economic security, you
can still survive, and have the ability to provide for
yourself. But if you choose to have a stable income and
throw away your free choice, that inherently leads to
depending on whoever is giving you said stable income.
Personal freedom forces you to be self-reliant. Also,
economic security is a pragmatic value, personal freedom is
intrinsic. Personal freedom is more valuable than economic
security. Since I win both justifications, please vote Pro.
Since my opponent will be out of town this week, Round 3
will be the last round.
I'll address my opponent's rebuttals, and then reassert my
Contention 1: The quote that my opponent used was about
Stalinist Russia. There are several things wrong with using
Stalin as an example for this debate. First of all, how may
people like Stalin have appeared throughout history? I know
about only two, which means that the cases that my opponent
mentions are quite rare. Second, Stalin's reign does not
show a conflict of economic security and personal freedom.
Because of Stalin's paranoia, the people of Russia would
have been deprived of their freedom whether the USSR was a
world power or not.
In the vast majority of cases, economic security does
significantly affect quality of life. A simple example would
be a millionaire's mansion compared with a slum dog's shack.
Thus my contention still stands.
In response to my school analogy, my opponent claims that
because some people can drop out of school and be
successful, my reasoning is circular and not true in all
cases. Even if this is so, my reasoning is true in the
majority of cases. Thus my principle is upheld.
My opponent claims that if he were in jail, his material
belongings would be useless. That may be so, but you are
guaranteed survival in prison, whereas if you are penniless
and out of prison, there is no saying whether you would
survive. Remember, I said you were in a foreign country. I
did not say whether or not they had programs to help the
poor survive. If I were him, I would reassess my decision.
Contention 2: What I meant by this contention was that one's
financial means are limited by one's economic security. Your
personal freedom is limited by your financial means. My
opponent has not addressed this. Notice that I don't give a
situation here, because this contention is just a reason to
choose economic security over personal freedom. My opponent
says that this contention doesn't show conflict. I can say
the same about both of his contentions.
Contention 3: I have already shown that borrowing money is a
conflict between personal freedom and economic security. My
opponent has not refuted my reasoning. Just because you
choose to borrow money doesn't mean that borrowing is not a
conflict of values.
From the borrowing example I concluded that personal freedom
valued over economic security leads to a vicious cycle of
debt and dependence on others. Pro has not refuted this
Pro's contention 1: In any sort of conflict, the only one
who can do the valuing is the subject of the conflict.
Therefore Pros contention 1 falls. Pro has changed his
contention from 'all arguments should be debated in the
perspective of a third party' to 'the subject of a conflict
should not be doing the valuing'.
Pro's contention 2: Economic security comes from work, but
the workplace also robs you of some of your freedom. There
is obviously conflict between economic security and personal
freedom here, and most people choose economic security.
My opponent's version does not work. You don't lose economic
security if you get a job. No matter what job you get, you
always get a higher paycheck than the government gives you.
When you get a job, you lose some of your freedom.
Pro's contention 3: Pro tries to refute my argument that
economic security comes before personal freedom by citing
impoverished nations as an example. The question is, is the
personal freedom enjoyed by people of impoverished nations
any use? There are few useful things that they are able to
do, and each day hundreds of them die from disease.
Pro goes on to say that personal freedom is defined by how
dependent you are on others. This definition does not agree
with the definition he stated in Round 1, and I've already
shown that a lack of economic security necessitates
dependence on others.
Pro also says that not all values are inherently valuable
but provides no explanation as to what inherent value is. He
says that money is good only because of what it brings us.
In Round 1 he states that economic security is "the
condition of having a stable source of financial income that
allows for access to basic infrastructure needs pertaining
to health, education, dwelling, information, and social
protection." Economic security is necessary for survival. By
devaluing economic security, my opponent is devaluing life
Because economic security is the foundation of a good life,
is the limit of personal freedom, and allows independence, I
urge a CON ballot.
The Ten States That Restrict Personal Freedom (And Those That Protect
The debate about who is “free” in the United States is older than the
Bill of Rights. Whether people are better off with laws designed to
protect them but limit their freedom, or with very few laws, allowing
them to fend for themselves, clouds the issue.
Consider helmet laws: people who don’t wear motorcycle helmets are
probably more often seriously injured in accidents. Is the freedom to
ride helmetless worth the increased risk? This is one simplified version
of the debate surrounding almost all issues of liberty in the United
24/7 Wall St. reviewed
the George Mason
University’s biannual “Freedom in the 50 States” report authored by
the school’s Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank. According to the
report’s authors, they “explicitly ground [their] conception of freedom
on an individual-rights framework. In [their] view, individuals should
be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties as they
see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.” As a
result, a more “free” state in the study will have more liberal social
policies and more conservative economic policies. The report considered
“a wide range of public policies, from income taxation to gun control,
from homeschooling regulation to drug policy.
The Freedom report ranks individual liberty of state residents based
on three major categories: fiscal freedom, personal freedom, and
regulatory freedom. Fiscal freedom involves issues including state
taxes, government spending, and wages. Regulatory freedom involves the
impact that local laws have on personal economic choices and property,
including labor regulation, mandatory health insurance, and eminent
domain. Personal freedom involves individual choice, such as the right
to drink, smoke and shoot guns.
One of recurring themes in the report is the issue of eminent domain.
People who have their property seized by the state are worse off than
those whose property cannot be. That is until, perhaps, they cannot
travel easily from their property to some other point because the state
could not build a road. The way that the Mercatus Center looks at this
problem, people would be better off to own their land and build their
own roads. That is a brilliant approach until it becomes clear that it
is impractical. People may be better off without regulations for how
their children should be educated, but these same people may not have
the background to home school their children. They have freedom, but one
which may cause their offspring to be poorly educated.
24/7 considered the ten states that the report lists as “most free”
and those ten that are “least free.” We have used Mercatus Center
analysis and definitions for what makes people free. Here is a list of
the most and least free states, according to the Mercatus Center.
The Ten States That Restrict Personal Freedom (And Those That Protect
It) - 24/7 Wall St.
NOTE: THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PROGRAMS AND COACHES WHICH DEEM TO
HELP PEOPLE ACHIEVE PERSONAL FREEDOM: RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL,
PERSONAL, LIBERALISM, FREEDOM FROM THINGS LIKE SMOKING, DRUGS, VACCINES,
ETC. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU NEED TO BE COACHED INTO FIGURING
OUT IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL FREEDOM, YOU ARE ONLY BEING COERCED INTO BEING
WHAT SOMEONE ELSE WANTS YOU TO BE, INSTEAD OF DECIDING FOR YOURSELF WHAT
YOU WANT TO BE.
THAT SAID, I FOUND THIS SERIES OF LISTS INTERESTING AFTER A LONG SEARCH
THAT SEEMED INTRIGUING. I HAVE NOT READ THE WHOLE THIING, BECAUSE
IT LOOKS LIKE WORK, AND PERSONAL FREEDOM SHOULDN'T BE WORK - THATS JUST
ANOTHER JOB THAT SOMEBODY ELSE THOUGHT OF, BUT SINCE ITS INTRIGUING,
HERE GOES: AND GOOD LUCK WITH IT.
you ready to clean up your life?
The Clean Sweep
Program is a checklist of 100 items which, when completed, give one
complete personal freedom. These 100 items are grouped in 4 areas of
life with 25 in each group: Physical Environment, Well-being, Money and
Relationships. These 4 areas are the cornerstone for a strong and
healthy life and the program helps a person to clean up, restore and
polish virtually every aspect of his/her life. The program takes between
6 - 24 months to complete.
The participant's goal is to get a score of 100 out of 100. The
objective of the program is for the participant to get complete about
100 possible incompletions in their life. Incompletions are those
physical, emotional or mental items, which are in some way not resolved
in the current moment. Incompletions of any kind drain energy. That is,
they require energy to live with, given it takes
work to keep us whole when there is something in the space. To have
full integrity (like a complete circle) is normal; the program gives one
a way to get there in a natural way.
The Clean Sweep Program promises three things will happen as you
increase your scores:
- You will have
more energy and vitality. There is nothing like a clean space, full
communication and self-responsibility to give one more energy.
- You will
increase your scores just by being in the program. Once you go over
the list of the 100 items, you'll find yourself handling some of
these without even trying. Others take more work, but you will
complete your way toward the score of 100.
- You will gain
perspective on who you are, where you are and where you are going.
When incompletions are handled, one can see what is and has been
around them, including one's self. You will see situations as they
really are, you'll discern what is going on with you and around you
and you'll react less and choose more in your daily life. This
higher perspective is essential in the process of designing one's
life and it starts with the Clean Sweep Program.
4 steps to completing the Clean Sweep™ Program.
- Answer each
question. If true, check the box. Be rigorous; be a hard grader. If
the statement is sometimes or usually true please DO NOT check the
box until the statement is virtually always true for you. (No
"credit" until it is really true!) If the statement does not
apply to you, check the box. If the statement will never be true
for you, check the box. (You get "credit" for it because it does not
apply or will never happen.) And, you may change any statement to
fit your situation better.
- The number of
True boxes for each of the 4 sections will be totaled automatically
for you as you complete each of the 4 sections. Write down these
totals on a separate sheet of paper and then add them up. You know
where your baseline or starting point lies.
- Keep playing
until all boxes are filled in. You can do it! This process may take
30 or 360 days, but you can achieve a Clean Sweep! Use your coach or
a friend to assist you. And check back once a year for maintenance.
totals from the four sections. Initial scores for the first-time
participant range, on average, between 30 - 70 points out of the 100
points possible. Most people who are "using" the program increase their
scores between 2 and 6 points per month. Points are added more quickly
at first, slowing down significantly after one has added 20 or so
points. Major plateau areas are at 70-75, 85-90 and 95-100. Those last 5
or 10 are the ones which are most worth taking care of, given our egos
are well entrenched among these incompletions. You want to take this
program on with the intention of getting a 100.
- This program
is part of establishing a Strong Personal Foundation. With this
strong base, one can build a vibrant and attractive future. But it
requires an investment.
- This program
is a backdoor approach to personal growth, business success and
happiness. Rather than chase goals or try to figure out one's life
purpose, better to get the stuff out of the way so you can get the
perspective you need to make better decisions and attract what you
- One of the
goals is to stop having problems, handle the incompletions you have
currently and maintain a clean space, forever, so you can create as
you were designed to. The Clean Sweep Program is the first step in
CleanSweep Program (tm) (c) 1998
Coach U Inc. All rights reserved. May be freely duplicated by Coach
U students and licensed users. All other users submit a $25 per use
shareware fee to the Coach U Inc.