The funny thing is that when presented with a choice between enacting something that benefits everyone and paying twice as much for the same outcome many choose some abstract notion of freedom over concrete benifits [sic].That defines the opposition, folks. He honestly believes that it is better to choose government provided benefits over freedom, and that our freedom is nothing but an abstract notion.
That amazes me. I keep reading that statement, and I am still stunned that he believes that, when given the option of concrete benefits provided by government, we should choose to forego that "abstract notion of freedom" in order to receive the government's redistributed benevolence. Moreover, he seems to have no problem that those of us to would like to abstain from such government largess will be forced into the program; forced into giving up more of our freedom to an overreaching government.
As President Ford said nearly 36 years ago, "[A] government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Those on the Left should think about that quote, and they should realize that they will not be in the majority forever. If there is once again a Republican majority, does the Left truly want to lose the right to choose "some abstract notion of freedom" over the concrete benefits provided by a Republican run government? I'm quite certain that my acquaintance's view of freedom would change quite dramatically were the political tables turned.
As for me, regardless of the political label following the majority of the politician's names, and no matter how concrete the benefits offered by an overreaching government may be, I will choose freedom instead.
USMC 9971 OUT