Thread by @mhbx

@tommy_pane I would define liberty as the freedom to do what you want to, associate w whom you want to in the constraints of laws & principles that describe the boudaries of society. Ie, you don't have liberty to kill, or steal, even if you are powerful.
In practical terms, and somewhat

@tommy_pane "utopia" terms, this would mean, as I think it was Jefferson, perhaps Madison, "That government governs best that governs least.".
I take that, & yours to imply, the gov has little to say about directing what we have to do, and more defining the boundaries. All in the context

@tommy_pane 3/ of "The authority of the Government is derived from the Consent of the Governed". That is, the citizen.

In practice this doesn’t get perfectly implemented of course. But in America it has its high points & those high points have enabled some rather remarkable accomplishments

@tommy_pane 4/ I am thinking of the principle of "Free Speech" and "Free Association". Even imperfectly implemented there is enough of a balance between the "conservative" pressures to "keep things the way they are" and the creative, more "liberal" "hey, lets try this..." tensions.

@tommy_pane 5/ As for the gun component of this debate... what seems to me the most obvious miss is
a) in a civilized progressive growing society violence must be in the domain of the state. It is part of the burden of the state to take on the violence of power. this is complex..to work out)

@tommy_pane 6) The problem w gun ownership is the majority who are not violent (ie, murderous) are affected by those who are. Thus the need for rules & regulations concerning this powerful tool. Just like we do w cars and other things less fraught w fear & security. (another complex line)

@tommy_pane 7/ in this context (very lightly presented) I agree w your assessment of liberty in the transactional sense as well. But that level I say is predicated upon the other...IMO.
There is a bit of Maslows pyramid here...that we need the security of being safe in order to prosper.

@tommy_pane 8/ Anyway this threatens to become an essay. The point is there are systems & rules that describe the rights & responsibilities of the citizen. It is the responsibility part, esp re guns, that seems to get lost in a welter of emotional anger/anquish.
In part this seems to be

@tommy_pane 9/ due to the understandable fear of the government coming in and taking over. There is an authoritarian bent in any system of governance. What is fascinating, IMO, is that the fear of, say Obama was wildly misplaced while these same people have no problem watching the

@tommy_pane 10/ system of America be shredded before their eyes and seem not to notice.

You may have seen where I engaged the notion that "if citizens have guns they can resist the government".
Which I think is absurd.
If it happens that the gov wants to take over and the restraints

@tommy_pane 11/ of custom as well as law have been so eradicated that, as Trump recently threatened "I have the police, the military on my side. My people won't stay nice forever"... To the degree this is true, & they are unleashed on any one, however armed, it will not be a long battle.

@tommy_pane 13/ So I disagree, in part, with your POV. Not that it is wrong, only that it is not deep enough. What protects us are the principles of understanding power, tyranny, and liberty as ensconced in the Constitution - and explicated throughout our history.

@tommy_pane 14/ It has not always been pretty, but, quoting MLK, the long arc of history bends towards liberty & justice. Hopefully that is true & we will weather this admin,& the major corruptions rife through our politics & public square.
& the home grown terrorism that is beeningunleashed

@tommy_pane 15/ Last post: Re justice: It is implied in your comment. But to have a gov do justice, it has to be 'blind' and it has to be based on rule of law.
Other wise it is based on caprice. Of which there is far too much, & of which I consider is one of the chief causes of our decline.

@tommy_pane 16/ Well.. that was too long... sorry...
it was also unedited of course, so it probably needs some work to be properly clarified and grammatically correct. Hopefully the basic point is made and is a useful response to yours.