Freedom is a Double-Edged Sword - Philosophy of Liberal Nanny-Statism

 A free child is a strong child... They also learn this new thing called "Consequences".

A free child is a strong child... They also learn this new thing called "Consequences".

Freedom: it's the thing that unites all those on the conservative arm of politics, despite their other differences.

Freedom as a political concept only needs minor restrictions.  You don't get the freedom to impede other people's freedom.  Therefore you can't do shit that interferes with, or hurts, others.  Other than that, freedom does not need to be, & should not be, restricted.

Liberals, lefties, & nanny-state lovers of all political leanings, all share a distrust & often hatred of freedom.  This comes out of fear of the back-edge of freedom: the freedom for bad shit to happen.  This can be seen in #Coddle-culture, something related to "Helicopter Parenting", something you could call the result of the modern middle class's lack of having anything better to do with their time, & the transfer of this energy, time & preoccupation to their precious children.  (Who must be built up, but most importantly, must be safe.)

This mindset has transferred to our politicians (because they are often also parents).  They want to 'Nerf' the world.  There are some out there who would support banning outside playtime for children, because a study found that they are much safer inside with iPads, no skin cancer risk either! & so "common sense should prevail" & it would be so.  Next it'll be mandatory motorbike style helmets for kids on bicycles, because they're statistically safer, & since no politician wants to be seen as "not caring about the children!" freedoms get eroded for the sake of their reputations, that simply.

Society is getting safer everyday.  Eventually this "Safety First My Child Is So Precious" mindset must cease, & give up.  It has to.  Progressiveness is not realistic here.  We have to give up the notion of progress when it comes to the safety of our community & children at a certain point.

Otherwise?  Otherwise the social scientists can make a case to our Oh So Concerned politicians that if only every child wore a full fire-proof, impact-proof suit, then serious & fatal accidents will reach zero.  In other words, if we don't give up the notion of an ever increasingly safe society, then we will restrict freedom so much you will barely be able to walk down the street without being regulated.

Is this what progressives want?  Have they thought about the philosophy of their idiotic mindset?  Thought the consequences through?

Do they want a padded-cell society where NO-ONE is ever hurt?  Do they want a police state where everyone is under such scrutiny & control that no crime is ever committed? A society like that would be unlivable, 'safe' as it may be.

So... Moral is:  Freedom is a double-edged sword.  It comes at a price.  It comes at risk to safety.  But without it, all human progress, creativity, and potential is stifled.  Kids who are allowed to skin their knees & fall out of trees, turn out smarter & tougher than those who are never allowed to get dirty, let alone hurt.  And societies that are allowed to offend, be dirty, make mistakes, will be more interesting, more true, & ultimately more humane than those that are not allowed their right to freedom of expression.

Remind yourself, your friends, your family, your politicians: that freedom IS worth the costs, & that the costs of not having it are FAR worse.