Our soldiers are not fighting for our freedom. They are not fighting for anyone’s freedom. I don’t know why they are fighting, but we are told that the US Military is fighting terrorism. More specifically, we are fighting terrorism inspired by Islam.
I know Islam is a violent religion, and many of its adherents want to spread sharia around the world. I agree that those who wish to impose sharia in the United States should be opposed. Those who wage violent jihad (terrorism; use of violence to advance one’s ideology) should be arrested and/or shot.
My question for my fellow Americans is this: If we want to keep sharia out of the USA, why are we fighting the Muslims?
Local and state laws dictate when and where I may purchase/consume alcohol. I am restricted as to where (outside city limits) I can watch naked ladies dance, and even then the amount of nudity is restricted. The government has roadblocks to check for sobriety, insurance papers, and seatbelt usage. They monitor our Internet and scan our computers to see what we download. They tell us what we may and may not smoke. Incidentally, we have the highest percentage of our people in jail than any other country in the world.
We have restrictions around the nation on gambling, prostitution, smoking, drinking, pornography, nudity… We don’t have to worry about jihadists imposing sharia from Mecca; the enemies are in our local city halls.
I think your thesis rests on a false premise, specifically a false dichotomy. The reality is more of a continuum. There is probably no society with complete freedom for what is called “victimless crimes;” it is a matter of degree. Things are a lot looser here than in the tyrannical theocracies.
Some of Margaret Meade’s writings made it sound like Samoa and other islands in that area had almost no restrictions on sexual morality, for exampe. She was thoroughly debunked by, I think, Derek Kennedy.
Yes, freedom is a matter of degree. I think most of the United States is still too close to the “tyrannical theocracy” level of restrictions, and I would prefer that we move towards the libertarian side.
Perhaps Margaret Meade was influenced by the clothing of people in the islands.
http://flyoverlibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/05/spot-difference-part-2.html
Meade was criticized by Derek Freeman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman
There is a telling account of Kennedy’s deconstruction of Meade in E. Michael Jones’s _Degenerate Moderns_. After reading it, I have the opinion that Meade was basically a fraud, telling people what they wanted to hear about Rousseau’s equally fraudulent “noble savage,” where most problems are the result of restrictions deriving from civilization. The “occupy” movements probably think that.