When is Free Choice actually an option?

It’s in the news and all around us – and has been for some time. It’s permeated every facet of society until we’ve surrendered to the system and accepted its presence. What is “it?” “It,” is the series of “laws,” that are somehow brought into our political regime, against all principals of freedom, that take away the most important value in a so-called, ‘free’ society. That value is, free choice. Free choice comes in many forms and under many guises. It is easily exercised, easily abandoned, and easily abused. The real problem boils down to drawing that fine line between what is and is not acceptable in the free choice theater. However, there may be a solution that’s as simple as ensuring free choice for everyone!

Should gay marriage be permitted? Should abortions be allowed? Should we be forced to wear seat belts? Should people be allowed to – murder?

Those are all difficult questions, or are they? Some people want to say yes to some in order to protect the civil liberties of the populous, but no to others, taking away those liberties in favor of protecting lives. For this discussion, let’s focus on the abortion topic (because, as it’s election time, that will definitely be a hot topic). If you believe in “pro-life,” you want to take away the right to abortion, equally taking away the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. If you believe in “pro-choice,” you want to make abortions an option for every woman, accepting that, in certain stages of pregnancy, it is murder. Of course, if asked whether or not people should be allowed to murder and carry weapons to protect themselves from murder – the answers will typically weigh heavy against murder and the split down the middle against carrying weapons.

But which one is right? Murdering an unborn child, or murdering a born human being? Or, is neither one acceptable?

Scales of Justice

Now we have a small window in which to see some of the complications that have helped tear our politics in this country in twine, pitted people against one another, and helped make a mockery of justice. The real question: is there a solution?

Surprisingly, there may very well be an answer – but we have to examine the variables.

The first factor that we have to take into consideration is, who has a right to speak out on this issue? In the case of abortion, it’s somewhat complex. Women who want to have free choice with their bodies should be the ones speaking out for their side. Sadly, the unborn can’t speak for themselves. Rather than involve a bunch of people who then don’t have a stake in the matter – the unfortunate resolution may be that, with it being a 1-sided representation, the unspoken don’t get a voice. But, that doesn’t mean that the side with representation necessarily gets a voice, either. Confused? Try this:

What if it were possible to retract every law, court decision, and argument about abortion and completely take it off the table? After all, when is free choice actually an option vs. when is it okay to create laws that demolish that most fundamental, freedom? What right does a political party that calls itself ‘free’, have in taking away the freedom of people? Isn’t that a dictatorship? So, what would happen if abortion was removed from the legal records of America?

Would women suddenly start running out and have abortions? The answer, most likely, is, no. You see, once you pull abortion off the books, you also no longer fund it in free clinics. Once taxpayers don’t cover that cost – the option to abort won’t be as readily available. Ever wonder why some doctors offer the service? I’m willing to guess that for a majority of them, it’s not because they support it. It’s because they know that the alternative is women disfiguring themselves, cutting into themselves, slamming their stomachs, and doing other terrible acts to self abort. And, although it may be a difficult choice to accept – are we really doing them a favor by empowering the behavior? If we asked a doctor if they would buy a falling down drunk as much alcohol as they wanted, the doctor would probably say “no,” because they know that they would be empowering a self-destructive behavior. So – along with not funding abortions through the government – we could offer better education and alternative services for both women and doctors, more responsibly utilizing taxpayer dollars.

Will there be a fallout? Oh yes – most definitely. The immediate turn of events would be horrifying because there are just some people in the world who’ve lost touch with reality and will take the unborn life in terrible ways (although – that already happens). On the other hand, educated doctors who offer regular birth clinics, that are supported by normal healthcare, would be giving birth to living children who could be adopted. It may not be the right answer – but it may be the right direction to start.

That brings us back to another, very difficult question – when is giving people free choice, no longer acceptable, or is it? Next, let’s examine the argument of murder (extreme … I know – but interesting!!). Allowing people to murder others would eventually result in the murderer being shot by someone, but only after a lot of suffering. This would be the “law of the land,” by the people. But, the populous doesn’t want that. Nobody wants to wait until after a large number of deaths before justice could be done. But, justice is rarely – justice (these days, anyways). So, we have to examine whether or not we’re taking away the free choice of people to murder by making murder illegal.

Simply put – no.

Is murder acceptable? Of course, not, but why? Those people who commit murders are taking away the free choice of others, to live.

gavelThis is the point where we leave justification and excuse making behind and focus on the real deal: free choice for everyone. Murderers must be given free choice to murder, and those who are living must be given free choice to live. If one takes away the right of the other, then they have impeded on freedom. Sounds silly, right (or at least extreme)? If you think about it – it’s actually the simplest and easiest method to ensure a free country without government involvement in “everyday” life, while still having law enforcement..

So – be a murderer – but you don’t get to murder – ever (because no one wants to be murdered … or at least … we’ll avoid that extension of the argument for now). Be a rapist – but you don’t get to rape anyone – ever (again – no one wants it for real …). Sucky? For the deviant minds that want to do it – maybe. On the bright side, nobody’s going to shed a tear over their loss. But, they can be what they want to be just as long as they don’t take away the free choice of others to be what they want. Let’s look at this another way: Theft.

Why is theft, wrong?

The principal is: those who steal take away the right of possessory interest from those who owned (or possessed) the object in question. In other words, stealing, is not wrong, but depriving somebody else of their free will right of possession, is. Am I depriving the thief of his free will right to steal if I prevent him from stealing? Yes – but the goal is to not prevent him from stealing. He can steal all he wants – as long as he doesn’t interfere in the free will right of possessory interest of anyone else. Complicated? Maybe a little. Fundamentally sound – absolutely.

Now, everyone is free. You can do and say whatever you want – as long as you don’t take away the right of another person to do or say what they want. The result? A stalemate. No stealing. No thieving. But, actions like abortions – up to the individual – except that the individual doesn’t get to take advantage of taxpayers and burden the public, taking away the public’s free will right to have their taxpayer dollars support the masses – not the few. We educate doctors and suddenly, there are no doctors offering abortions (well – there will always be a few – but it’s their free choice. On the other hand, if we offer education to women and take good care of them, they won’t go to those doctors and voila – a stalemate that results in a win for everyone!).

This isn’t an “answer,” by any means. Nor is any of this a clarification of which side of political issues to stand on. After all, these issues are massive and have built up over a long time, so they’ll take a long time to resolve. What this is, is an examination of what it would be if we were to step back to the beginning days of this country when our fore fathers had to examine these very, difficult issues. It’s a step back to the days when the government worked for the masses and did not intrude into the everyday lives of people.

Unfortunately, it’s very idealistic to think that anyone would ever change the books. But, we don’t need to. America was founded on the very principal of granting freedom of choice to everyone. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, as recorded in the Declaration of Independence, are three inalienable rights which are given to all beings by their creator and are to be protected by the government. Think about it- the right to gay marriage – without government intrusion, would have been in place since day 1. Equally, the right of a priest not to marry a couple would be equally in place. Government intrusion into religious matters, such as marriage, is already an aberration from the founding principals of a separate Church and State. And, without its intrusion, the matter would have been left to the States, or the people (as per the 10th Amendment of the Constitution).

Just remember – this discussion does not take sides on any of these topics. This discussion takes only one side – the side of freedom and of the people. The problems of America were not created overnight, and therefore, they shall not be solved overnight. However, the direction we’re headed in is not the direction of a solution. Think carefully – what have all of these arguments been about? The right to gay marriage? The right to abortion? The right to drive without a seat belt? And so on, and so on. They are all about free choice. They are all about the right to act as our conscience dictates.

The important thing to remember is, that everyone, equally, should have the right to act as their conscience dictates. But, some freedoms – are personal and must be dealt with slightly differently. The right to read a book – should never be in the laws – ever. Book banning is a fundamental anti-freedom. Why? Because, just like ALL of these other rights that have been presented:

Rights = Responsibility.

The right to choose to read (and to act upon it), demands that the reader accept responsibility for what they’ve chosen to read. Others can dislike the book and refuse to read it – and that’s their “right.” Some, may want others to not read the book – and there’s the catch. It’s their “right” to want that. But, if people want to read the book, those who want it banned cannot act and ban the book without simultaneously taking away the rights of those who want to read. So – a stalemate and an easy delineation that is enforceable by law.

A world of equalities …

It’s fun to dream …


2 thoughts on “When is Free Choice actually an option?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s