Regarding Sarri Gilman’s July 4 column, “A big lie our grandparents told us”:
I’m confused!
From everything I’ve ever read, the intended meaning of “individual liberty” was implied, if not actually stated, as that which requires the individual to take responsibility for both his/her decisions and actions, as well as being as self-sufficient as possible.
The column is essentially a mixed hodgepodge of metaphorical anecdotes.
On one hand, people are quoted who describe the essence of what being free really means and the attendant responsibilities incumbent upon those who desire to be as free as possible.
On the other hand, the writer twists the thought of working for a living as somehow working against the idea of being free to make one’s own choices in life.
You don’t have to work, and you don’t really have to do anything. Actually, you are free to become a bum, a tramp, a hobo, whatever. You are also free to starve to death, because it is, after all, your choice.
But, if you want to obtain items of your interest, then you trade your intellectual and physical wealth for compensation. How simple can it get? Very big clue: Being as self-sufficient as possible, obviates (or should) the idea that big government must tend to your daily needs – all at the cost of your individual liberty.
When you ask government to define your needs, it will at some point determine that some of what you say you need is not needed, and much of what you don’t want will become mandatory.
If you are completely self-sufficient, then government is totally unnecessary.
So, the closer you can get to that “ideal,” the better off you will be.
Ergo, taking responsibility for your own life – including every decision and action – implies directly that you are in essence free.
Edward J. Totty
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
