Give Me Liberty! (But, uh, Not Today ‘Cuz I Can’t Handle It…) Is Freedom Old-Fashioned?

Is freedom an old-fashioned concept? Out-of-date, from the era of tie-dye, headbands, and Woodstock? Must we set aside “peace and love” as old ideas that involve touching others and, therefore, potentially contracting viruses? If we were to stop and think about the many bacteria that crawl all over us (and inside of us!) on a daily basis, touching another human being could seem repulsive — which is why we don’t typically stop to think about that. Or at least we didn’t. Until now.

You see, there was a time, long ago, when freedom was a tightly-held value. Why was freedom so important that people were willing to die for it? Could it be that during times past when there was less freedom that people appreciated freedom even more? When people saw their heroes persecuted and jailed for speaking out, did they value freedom of speech even more? When people watched aghast as their Japanese neighbors were removed from their homes and forced into camps, did they become wary of allowing government officials to come to their homes and remove them at the whims of the federal government?

Could it be that many of us haven’t experienced enough social injustice to realize how dangerous it is to allow our government, or any person in power, to have too much authority over us and our personal health? We allowed our government the right to spy on us with no judicial oversight when we allowed the Patriot Act to be passed after 9/11. Why did we do this?

That law is a direct violation of our 4th Amendment right to privacy. But more important is the reason for that Constitutional amendment. Tyrannical governments have always spied on dissidents. The 4th Amendment was supposed to protect us from a method that has been used all throughout history to shut down dissent — spying on people who have views the government doesn’t like so that the government can find a way to destroy their lives, or at least find an excuse to arrest and imprison them. The British government accused writer Thomas Paine of seditious libel, for example. And we all know about CointelPro and the red squads, right? Historically, our government hasn’t been friendly to dissenting views. Should we believe that anything has changed?

People around the world fear their governments. Should we?

But perhaps all this talk of freedom, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to control one’s own destiny is old-fashioned? Have we given up on those ideals?

It’s been nearly 250 years since Patrick Henry famously announced, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

The state of New Hampshire’s motto, “Live free or die!” is also old. General John Stark said this back in 1809.

According to Joe Bills’ article in New England Today, Stark extolled the virtues of freedom when he wrote this in a letter to veterans of the Battle of Bennington.

“Live free or die! Death is not the greatest of evils.”

To live the undignified life of a slave, of being ordered and controlled by another, was an indignity early Americans sought to escape. In fact, many Americans died so that we could have this freedom we so cavalierly take for granted. (Yes, I’m aware of the hypocrisy, that many of those same Americans held unwilling Africans as slaves. But we got past that, didn’t we?) Did we?

Or perhaps our current aim is to enslave everyone — regardless of skin color?

Should New Hampshire change its motto to, “Don’t live free; you might die!”? Do we all now agree that freedom is just too much of a hassle? After all, we don’t even need to think anymore. All we need to do is type a question into our computer or smartphone and Siri’s programmer will make sure “she” gives us an answer. Or we can just type our question and send it out into the Internet. What does Wikipedia say? Who owns Google? Whoever they are, they know the answers. Clearly, we do not, so…

Why think? It’s too much work, takes too much time. What’s on TV?

If the original founders of this country could see us now they’d die a second death. They aren’t turning over in their graves. Right now, they’re shaking in their graves — shaking their ghostly fists at us because some of them died so we could be free, and now it may very well be that they died for nothing. In fact, I’d love to visit Benjamin Franklin’s grave to see if I could pick up on any negative vibes that might be emanating from it. Let’s just go ahead and throw that pesky Constitution and its silly, old B of R down the toilet, shall we? (And puleez, do not forget the courtesy flush!)

May as well do that now, while we still have running water. If the powers-that-be have their way, we won’t be living in a first-world country for much longer. We already have people living in third-world conditions and contracting third-world diseases right here in the USA. But we don’t care about that. We care about what the media tells us to care about. The corporate-controlled, mass hypnotizing media has everyone focused on the beer virus. (And apparently, the Corona beer company’s sales have suffered. Welcome to the idiocracy!)

By the way, Benjamin Franklin initially protested against the Constitution because it wasn’t democratic enough. It gave too much authority to a centralized government. An authoritarian government was what the colonists had sought to avoid. That’s why the first ten amendments, a.k.a., the “Bill of Rights” were added to it. The Bill of Rights gave powers to the people, limiting the rights of the government and democratizing our newborn country. Sadly, they were inadequate.

Franklin warned the founders of this country at the time that by not creating a democracy they risked an eventual rebellion on the part of the people.

What? Not a democracy? Nope, we were set up to be a republic. A republic is a sort of watered-down democracy. In a democracy, the people are in charge; the people are the government since they have a direct voice in how things are run. In a republic, the people elect officials to make decisions on their behalf and after listening to the people’s demands (theoretically. Well, that’s how it’s supposed to work…) In a republic, the people still have a voice, but it’s filtered out through those elected officials, who are supposed to be held accountable to the people.

Ehem. (Clears throat, checks temperature, realizes that she’s Corona-free and, therefore, still has the legal right to keep typing… For now…)

However, what a lot of people don’t realize is that not all of the founders of this country believed in democracy. Many of them did not. The notion that the wealthy should wield power and that the poor should just do what they’re told has always existed, and it existed at that time too. Alexander Hamilton, who, ironically, came from a poor family, believed that rich, white men should be running things. They were successful because they were better people, he rationalized, so we should put them in charge. Yep, he was a man who’d come from a poor family who disliked the poor. Go figure.

Benjamin Franklin disagreed. (That’s why his grave is now shaking the most.)

When asked what type of government the erstwhile colonists were setting up, he famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” That’s because a republic is a type of democracy, and democracies have a rather sketchy historical reputation. Democracies tend to not last very long. They’re very difficult to maintain for a number of reasons. First, it takes a lot of work, time, effort and thought to keep it going. Because there are so many people with diverse opinions, needs, and ideals, a democratic society requires a lot of negotiation, knowledge of human nature, excellent managerial skills and, ideally, an understanding of such diverse topics as history, psychology, economics and political science. In order to participate in our government, we, the people, also need to be intelligent, well-educated, and have a sense of unity and a concern for the greater good over our individual interests.

In a sense, a democratic republic is like a marriage between the people and their government. Ideally, the two can talk to each other and both are free to express their grievances — uncensored! Both should genuinely care about each other and want what is best for the other. And yes, if our government is a good partner, it will respect our independent voice and our privacy.

Of course, a good marriage stays alive when both parties want it to succeed. Do we want our country to remain a democratic republic? Does our government want to listen to the people? Do our people want to participate in running their government? Maybe it’s easier to sit back and just let them tell us what to do?

The rest of General Stark’s quote is even more intriguing. Of his troops, he wrote:

“They were men who had not learned the art of submission, nor had they been trained to the art of war. But our astonishing success taught the enemies of liberty that undisciplined freemen are superior to veteran slaves.”

Undisciplined freemen? Men who were free to think for themselves were better soldiers? Is that what he was suggesting? Apparently so…

(Wow, that Stark dude sure was radical… If he made a YouTube video, he’d be censored in an instant!)

In other words, Stark believed, as most Americans used to believe, that free people can do a much better job than those who are compelled against their will. This was a train of thought, a belief system that we once shared as a nation, so long ago. In fact, it was probably the only ideal that united this diverse nation. We believed that freedom — with all its flaws, was the best way to go, that we, the people, could make better decisions as to how to manage our lives than any government. Given the freedom to choose for ourselves, we would make better choices. Enslaved, compelled, forced to live our lives in a certain way — no matter how good the intentions of the enforcer — we would not become the best we could be. A free people are not only a happy people but a better quality people.

Sadly, this ideal has escaped us in so many ways. Our employers seek to spy on us, to micromanage us, and most corporate offices are micro-surveillance states. Free employees may produce better quality products, may even work harder and show more company loyalty, but none of that matters. You see, increasingly, our employers are large corporations run by extraordinarily wealthy people who are, to be perfectly blunt, bored. They don’t need money. They have plenty of that. Now, they seek power, control over people. Making money, for them, is easy. Keeping everyone around them under control is the real challenge. Suffice it to say, they do not believe in democracy.

Bored out of their minds due to extreme affluence (Affluenza?), they must seek out challenges. (Most of us seek to end life’s given challenges, so we have trouble understanding this.) Their thought process is very different from ours. Deprived of the struggles we all endure and overcome, they must create their own struggles. They know very well that micromanaging their employees causes a lot of stress and that their employees won’t perform as well, won’t produce the best products or services, but they don’t care. It’s not money but power they seek.

Now, they’ve taken over our government. We cannot elect them out of office. We never voted for them in the first place. But they donate huge amounts of money, not only to our politicians, but to our schools, and our media sources, so they influence every source of information we find. Most of us think we’re intelligent people capable of thinking independently, but we’ve unknowingly adopted the belief that big business knows best because we get our information from corporate-controlled sources. The Google-controlled Internet is no longer a place for alternative voices. Trained to seek information from “experts” who tell us what to think, we acquiesce. Nobody rebels anymore. Not really.

With representatives of the pharmaceutical industry dominating the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, it is no wonder we seriously believe we are paying attention to “science” by demanding a vaccine for a corona virus when it is a known fact (among scientists, that is) that corona viruses aren’t best prevented with vaccinations because corona viruses mutate too frequently. That’s where the old saying, “There’s no cure for the common cold” comes from.

Somehow in the heavily censored discussion we’ve also forgotten what a vaccination is — you’re given a little bit of the sickness so that your body will react to it and form its own antibodies. A novel Corona virus vaccine will expose you to the Corona virus in a small dose with the expectation that your body will fight the invader and develop immunity. Trouble is, that virus will most likely mutate after the fact, making your vaccination useless.

However, the good news is that this virus is not deadly for most of us. In fact, many of us have already contracted the virus unknowingly. We may already have “herd immunity.” Unfortunately, we don’t know whether this is true as mass testing has not been available. For the elderly, those with weakened immune systems or certain pre-existing conditions, the Corona virus can be deadly. We should do what we can to protect those folks, but by quarantining and frightening everyone we aren’t able to focus on those who do need to be concerned.

If we were a democratic nation, as we used to be, we would be listening to advice coming from all of the medical experts — not just the ones who are bought and paid for by pharmaceutical and technology industries that are benefiting — yes, benefiting from this pandemic. We could also do what we’d done in the past, urge those who are vulnerable to stay home, to strengthen their immune systems, to get tested and see a doctor immediately if they feel sick. We could try out some new ideas, like providing paid sick leave for all employees, encouraging those with symptoms or who are immuno-compromised to stay home.

Instead, we have politicians threatening to knock on people’s doors, force test them and remove them from their homes if they test positive. This is surprising since we know that the test kits are not 100% accurate. Do we really want to repeat what we did to Japanese-Americans back in the 1940s? I’m sure that was “for our own good” too. Not only are proposals such as this unconstitutional and undemocratic, but they won’t stop the spread of the virus. Frightening people, causing people to mistrust or even become hostile toward their government is not an effective way to halt the spread of a disease. Laws like HR6666 (no, I’m not making that up) would make actions like this legal. While HR6666 claims to abide by current privacy laws, the Patriot Act eliminated most of those privacy rights, so that law gives our government a lot of leeway. Do we really want the government to make those kinds of decisions over us?

Did China really stop the spread of the virus because their undemocratic methods were more effective than our (relatively) democratic methods could ever be? Do ruthless, authoritarian measures keep people healthy? Can we believe anything China tells us about itself when censorship is practiced widely over there? Since the Chinese don’t have freedom of speech, they can’t tell us the truth about anything. So why are we listening to them? Why are we trusting them? Because someone on TV (or perhaps on YouTube) tells us we should?

Of course, I am biased. I believe in democracy. I believe that the best way to manage this or any crisis is to be honest, upfront and forthright with the people and, yes, to let the people decide.

If we stopped censoring alternative voices, we might learn that vaccines can contain contaminants that can cause illnesses or even death in some people. It’s not easy to produce a safe vaccine. That can take many years of careful testing. We might also think twice before asking for a vaccine for a Corona virus, since the virus mutates and so a vaccine isn’t practical since it wouldn’t be effective for very long. Since the virus is not deadly for most people and most of us, once exposed to the virus, will acquire “herd immunity” anyhow, there is no need for a vaccine, though a cure or treatment may exist somewhere in the future (if we allow scientists to continue their work without being censored by big businesses seeking to make money off of our pain, that is.)

Yes, I know, our favorite talking heads and corporate gurus insist we should be afraid, very afraid on a daily basis. We can’t avoid the constant reminder that we’re supposed to be frightened of a virus that will not harm most of us because the installation of fear repeats itself all day long, on our TV, the Internet, our smart phones, etc. Okay, I get it. You want us scared. All the time. Land of the unfree and the frightened. That’s us now and possibly always will be.

Look, I believed it too. I was one of the first people to purchase an n95 mask, and I wrote to politicians urging them to shut everything down so we could stop the spread of this virus. What I didn’t know was that the fear mongering would increase and that the corporate carriers of information would start to contradict each other. It’s hard to keep up a good lie and remain consistent, even when you’re a professional!

So far, I have heard that this new Corona virus is 5 times deadlier, 10 times deadlier and even 20 times deadlier than the flu. (All of this contradictory information came from reliable sources!) I’ve heard that most children won’t get sick but that they often carry and spread the virus. Then I heard that kids can get the virus, that any of us can get it and, once again, we should all be very, very afraid.

Sure, any of us can get it. In fact, most of us have probably already gotten this virus without even knowing it. So why the continued fear mongering? And why do we keep listening to it? Haven’t we had enough?

By now, I think most of us have woken up to the fact that there are very few courageous truth-tellers among us. Even some “alternative” media sources are coughing up the same vomit — it’s a virus of fake news that’s infected all sources of information. Seems everyone wants that big money — the money pharmaceutical and technology companies can pour into their media platform.

The only way out, it seems, is to trust in ourselves, to think critically and carefully, to ask ourselves, does quarantining a healthy population make sense? Is that what I would do if I ran a country? Wouldn’t it make better sense to quarantine the vulnerable and to make sure to provide adequate healthcare and paid sick leave for them rather than to shut down an entire country causing our entire economy to crash and ushering in another Great Depression?

Outside of this, I’m listening to those who’ve been censored. Clearly, they speak a truth they can defend. The powers that be are afraid of what they have to say and can’t rebut it. They cannot defend their “truth.” That’s why they censor opposing views. Hint: if you want to get taken seriously, stop censoring your opponents. Present facts and figures to dispute their claims. If you can’t do that, then you are the one presenting “fake news,” not them.

But what do I know? I’m no talking head. I’m neither rich nor famous. And, last I checked, I’m certainly no celebrity… Notorious? Yes! Famous? No…