Liberty

Liberty is a fascinating concept to me. I appreciate the ability to think for myself and to make my own decisions, and I hope all other human beings enjoy the same liberties.

It's funny how we act about our freedom. How some people believe the government has no right to tell them how to spend their money, but has every right to dictate their other personal choices. Or how the opposite is also true. Government should keep out of my personal business, but take money from people who have more than me to make my life better.

When I see this type of behavior I think it is hypocritical. It reminds me of the parent who says, "I don't mind what my child does, as long I approve."

It is easy to complain about the freedoms we feel that are being taken from us, and to immediately turn around and deny someone else the ability to do something because we think it is "wrong".

I think we all believe that we should be free, but we are uncomfortable with anything that is "different" from the norms or ideals we were raised with. Some things are obviously wrong. Theft, murder, etc are wrong in and of themselves. They are fundamentally wrong because they impede someone else's ability to act freely. But if there is a doubt as to whether people should have certain ability to chose, should we not err on the side of Liberty? If we were contemplating a tax hike, should we not consider people more able to choose for themselves how to spend that money? If we don't agree with someone's behaviour, should we not err on the side of their freedom as well?

Is it really freedom, if we are only free to do anything someone else says is ok?

Obama's Nobel Prize

A little while ago Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The immediate reaction of people asking what he has done to deserve it was understandable. I have waited for someone to explain it rationally, but as of yet no one has.

A few people have made mention of it being for what he will do more than what he has done. This seems a little silly to me. He has reversed our policy of "no dialogue", he has supported the two state Israel option, and has made the decision to finish the nation building going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am confused as to what he has "to do". Apparently opening up dialogue with Iran isn't "doing" anything. Does he have to actually make up facts and invade a country to have "done" anything?

The award is a little premature, in my opinion, but I don't think it is completely unmerited like people pretend. Nominating Obama 12 days into his presidency and awarding him in the first year, is obviously an attempt to influence his decisions. If I lived outside the US I would be a little nervous too. Apparently, we can invade anyone we want and get away with it.

Obama has some major decisions with Afghanistan coming up, and it is obvious the Nobel Committee is trying to influence his decision, just like everyone else.