Right now, in a time when we are seeing a resurgence of socialism in the Democrat party., I have to ask the question, is it in human nature to want to be free?

Sigmund Freud, said "Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility."

The Old Testament would appear to bear this out. When God Himself freed the Israelites from generations of slavery, "...the Israelites themselves began moaning, "We don't have any meat! In Egypt we could eat all the fish we wanted, and there were cucumbers, melons, onions, and garlic. But we're starving out here, and the only food we have is this manna."

We see the attitude once again from the currently front running Democrat candidate for the POTUS:

Bernie Sanders:

1. "People are not truly free when they can't afford health care, prescription drugs, or a place to live. People are not free when they cannot retire with dignity or feed their families."

2. "Are you truly free if you graduate hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt? Are you free if you cannot pursue your dream because you don't make enough to cover your student loan payments?"

3. "Are you free if you can't afford to see a doctor? Are you free if you must work 80 hours a week to buy food? Are you free if you can't pay for insulin you need to survive? There is no freedom without economic freedom"

Freud was a perv. From what I have read of him, he was probably just projecting his own fears onto others. But there are a certain percentage of folks who do want someone else to take the responsibility so they are free to criticize them when hardships happen.

I do think people want to be free to do as they like but that we are also not smart enough to run our lives properly. We need some guidance and for me that is where the teachings of Jesus and Christian morality come into play.

A lot of our recent immigration has come from countries that favor socialism so it should be no surprise that they seek out those characteristics. Ironically, it was usually those same characteristics which are why they had to come to America in the first place because of the destruction it did in their home country.

Cognitive dissonance on the left is pretty bad. I read a comment today from a leftist who said Utah was a beautiful place and how it would be great if they had more progressive values. She did not realize that Utah is a beautiful place specifically because it does not have progressive values. It is also worth pointing out that lefties always seem to want to move to beautiful conservative states and abandon their wonderful, progressive utopias. Sadly, most of them seem to bring those failing progressive values with them.

I don't agree with the comparison with the Isrealites.

People are throwing around socialism when it really isn't. Certainly Bernie falls under that Nordic socialist level, but most people just want to pay a price that is fair. Many industries are consolidating in America, and are a few steps away from a monopoly.

Colleges are too expensive. End of story. Students want to pay the amount that their parents paid for school back in the day (adjusted for inflation). And that is not an unreasonable request.

Healthcare has been out of reach for many people for over 20 years. People want to pay a proportionate amount of money for their healthcare that the rest of the developed world does. Currently, that isn't happening, and people are understandably bothered by this. America is getting ripped off royally.

Prescriptions drugs and healthcare are not priced in a way that is truly capitalist. Companies that make these medicines are blocking out competition by minimally changing patents on drugs that can be made generically for pennies, thus locking up the patent again and driving up the price. Insulin, a patent sold for $1 originally, now is provided by 2 companies that identically match their prices increases each year selling now around $300+ per month. Are cartels legal now?

As long as I'm talking about trending monopolies, Americans are grossly overpaying for their home internet, cable television, cell phone service and health insurance. And another side note, only American mobile phones are locked by their original service provider. That practice doesn't fly any where else in the world.

I left the US a decade ago, and through my experiences, I noticed the drastic disparity in prices immediately. It's a shame that most Americans don't even realize they're getting ripped off.

Gladly I'm paying a fraction of what I used to for all those services listed. I'm much better off financially for it.

None of those markets I've listed are truly free markets, so yes it does have an effect on if you feel free or not. The US has some wonderful freedoms, but there are many other ways we are not free. That's a whole other topic though.

So, your assessment is things are expensive so socialism. And because things are expensive, so socialism, then wanting free stuff does equal freedom. You are saying Freud is correct and people are justified in not wanting freedom because things cost more money than you happen to want to pay.

I'm afraid you are answering my question in a way you didn't intend to, but in a way that demonstrates very clearly that many people don't want to be free.

Bearitto said:

---

So, your assessment is things are expensive so socialism. And because things are expensive, so socialism, then wanting free stuff does equal freedom. You are saying Freud is correct and people are justified in not wanting freedom because things cost more money than you happen to want to pay.

I'm afraid you are answering my question in a way you didn't intend to, but in a way that demonstrates very clearly that many people don't want to be free.

---

Not at all my assessment. My assessment is that our capitalist system is broken and maybe needing a Teddy Roosevelt figure again soon. I didn't say anything about free or socialism in my response. Things cost more because there are flaws in our capitalist system, and flaws in the way government has addressed them.

Buddha Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

So, your assessment is things are expensive so socialism. And because things are expensive, so socialism, then wanting free stuff does equal freedom. You are saying Freud is correct and people are justified in not wanting freedom because things cost more money than you happen to want to pay.

I'm afraid you are answering my question in a way you didn't intend to, but in a way that demonstrates very clearly that many people don't want to be free.

---

Not at all my assessment. My assessment is that our capitalist system is broken and maybe needing a Teddy Roosevelt figure again soon. I didn't say anything about free or socialism in my response. Things cost more because there are flaws in our capitalist system, and flaws in the way government has addressed them.

---

I find I seldom agree with you, but have to agree with much of your assessment re current conditions. Just so tired of so-called "elites" of both the left and right more or less having their way with those of us in between. Of course, resorting to broad brush hyperbole here, but it seems the 1% would be content to offshore everything and open borders to everyone, while most Dems want someone else to do the lifting (and paying) because "rights" and "fair" (while opening borders to everyone). Gee, wonder how Trump won in 2016?

Education and health care need to be subjected to greater market forces, IMHO. No guaranteed student loans and required price publishing for health services and goods for starters.

IMHO, most people would trade security for freedom. Whether we sell it to reduce our fears of terrorism or we sell it for more goodies, most would rather be secure than free.

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

Bearitto said:

---

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

---

What is an acceptable amount of military funding then? $700 billion per year? $2 trillion per year? $200 billion?

That is the issue to me. We don't know what we need to keep our country safe. Our web of military control and foreign gov't intervention has wasted more money than Joe Nobody getting his monthly SNAP card assistance of $300 per month.

History has proven time and time again that bloated military budgets and unnecessary foreign intervention eventually halts a country's growth at some point. Those countries retract eventually, and then implode, reverting back to a shell of its former self.

I don't t trust our government to run the military effectively any more than you trust government safety nets. The past 19 years of war and intervention have proven my point.

Bearitto said:

---

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

---

I don't get a benefit from killing a guy in Yemen or putting a guy in jail for having a joint.

Or is it "freedom" when a small town police department confiscates cash from an out of towner without proof that they committed a crime.

What it is is legal power. It's the man doing what the man do.

I don't support medicare for all. I don't support endless war in the Middle East. Neither makes me less or more free.

tommie said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

---

I don't get a benefit from killing a guy in Yemen or putting a guy in jail for having a joint.

Or is it "freedom" when a small town police department confiscates cash from an out of towner without proof that they committed a crime.

What it is is legal power. It's the man doing what the man do.

I don't support medicare for all. I don't support endless war in the Middle East. Neither makes me less or more free.

---

You are DaMan and my friend! I agree with you.

tommie said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

---

I don't get a benefit from killing a guy in Yemen or putting a guy in jail for having a joint.

Or is it "freedom" when a small town police department confiscates cash from an out of towner without proof that they committed a crime.

What it is is legal power. It's the man doing what the man do.

I don't support medicare for all. I don't support endless war in the Middle East. Neither makes me less or more free.

---

You do get a benefit from killing terrorists in Yemen.
Citing a single bad law no rational person agrees with doesn't obviate they value and necessity of the Legal system.

Buddha Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

---

What is an acceptable amount of military funding then? $700 billion per year? $2 trillion per year? $200 billion?

That is the issue to me. We don't know what we need to keep our country safe. Our web of military control and foreign gov't intervention has wasted more money than Joe Nobody getting his monthly SNAP card assistance of $300 per month.

History has proven time and time again that bloated military budgets and unnecessary foreign intervention eventually halts a country's growth at some point. Those countries retract eventually, and then implode, reverting back to a shell of its former self.

I don't t trust our government to run the military effectively any more than you trust government safety nets. The past 19 years of war and intervention have proven my point.

---

We all get a benefit from military spending. A dollar spent toward a missile gives us all the protection of that missile. We don't all get a benefit from a politician taking money from one man to give it to another. A dollar spent toward Adam's cheeseburger gives the rest of us absolutely nothing. Only Adam benefits and we all pay.

Bearitto said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

---

What is an acceptable amount of military funding then? $700 billion per year? $2 trillion per year? $200 billion?

That is the issue to me. We don't know what we need to keep our country safe. Our web of military control and foreign gov't intervention has wasted more money than Joe Nobody getting his monthly SNAP card assistance of $300 per month.

History has proven time and time again that bloated military budgets and unnecessary foreign intervention eventually halts a country's growth at some point. Those countries retract eventually, and then implode, reverting back to a shell of its former self.

I don't t trust our government to run the military effectively any more than you trust government safety nets. The past 19 years of war and intervention have proven my point.

---

We all get a benefit from military spending. A dollar spent toward a missile gives us all the protection of that missile. We don't all get a benefit from a politician taking money from one man to give it to another. A dollar spent toward Adam's cheeseburger gives the rest of us absolutely nothing. Only Adam benefits and we all pay.

---

All nations benefit to an extent from military spending. Are we proportionally safer with $700 billion in spending vs $500 billion? No.

Buddha Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

tommie said:

---

How is it freedom when you take my money and give it to Lockheed Martin to build a bomb to kill a guy in the Middle East but "not freedom" if you take my money and give it to a guy 3 miles from me so he can get diabetes medication?

What seems worse to me is when you take my money to build jails then give it to a private company to run for profit. You then guarantee 90% occupancy.

---

One is a tax we all pay (well most of us) for a good we all get a benefit from. The justice system or military or the like. One is a transfer of money from taxes we all pay to a guy for only his benefit alone. Do you see the difference? The first case is necessary for things a nation collapses without. The second is an excellent example of charity.

---

What is an acceptable amount of military funding then? $700 billion per year? $2 trillion per year? $200 billion?

That is the issue to me. We don't know what we need to keep our country safe. Our web of military control and foreign gov't intervention has wasted more money than Joe Nobody getting his monthly SNAP card assistance of $300 per month.

History has proven time and time again that bloated military budgets and unnecessary foreign intervention eventually halts a country's growth at some point. Those countries retract eventually, and then implode, reverting back to a shell of its former self.

I don't t trust our government to run the military effectively any more than you trust government safety nets. The past 19 years of war and intervention have proven my point.

---

We all get a benefit from military spending. A dollar spent toward a missile gives us all the protection of that missile. We don't all get a benefit from a politician taking money from one man to give it to another. A dollar spent toward Adam's cheeseburger gives the rest of us absolutely nothing. Only Adam benefits and we all pay.

---

All nations benefit to an extent from military spending. Are we proportionally safer with $700 billion in spending vs $500 billion? No.

---

Yes. We are. Indeed, all of Europe is, which is why they spend so much less than we do. They rely on us. The question is, would you prefer to be a Chinese or Russian citizen or would you prefer to be forced to pray five times a day. Our spending keeps us free. I suspect you'll disagree, but there you are.

I disagree. We are not the world police, nor should we try to be.

Buddha Bear said:

---

I disagree. We are not the world police, nor should we try to be.

---

Unfortunately if we, who take only enough land to bury our dead, are not, other nations who take entire nations will be. How do you write your name in mandarin ?

Bearitto said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

I disagree. We are not the world police, nor should we try to be.

---

Unfortunately if we, who take only enough land to bury our dead, are not, other nations who take entire nations will be. How do you write your name in mandarin ?

---

Having been to China roughly 40 times, I can can write yours for you if you like. If we are worried about China's dominance I suggest we find other countries to make our products then. Apply economic sanctions and lower the military budget. It's already 5 times their budget. I'm sure there's room to trim the fat. If China takes over the world, it's because we economically empowered them to do so.

Edit: Kidding about mandarin of course. But I do know Chinese and Asian politics better than the avg Joe.