I have always seen my freedom as directly correlated to my ability to live my life anonymously.
So I have a question; what has happened to our freedom?
It seems to me we are creating a world where only those willing to give up all of their privacy and throw out to the world every last detail of their existence can operate easily. Anybody who doesn’t want the world looking at them and what they buy and where they go and who they know and when they do all of these things are suspected of… something.

It’s my opinion that we are losing control of our private lives and thus our freedom. We have willingly given up our ability to truly be free for the convenience of credit cards and tracking cookies. We have volunteered to have our personal information made available to everyone via Facebook and public tax records. (But, by golly, we guard our social security number…) Now we seem excited about doing the same thing with our medical records… we ignore Echelon and Carnivore… we see the Patriot Act as triumph of bipartisanship…  when does it end?

It’s one thing for Google to collect all of your movements around the web… and Apple tracking your actual movements through your phone… it’s another to have government officials demanding that information, and getting it.  We have forgotten that the supercomputers are crunching every e-mail and phone call we make.  I don’t mean to make anybody paranoid… just aware.  I think we are watching each other more than those who watch us.

It’s my view that the people we have given the power of force should get our greatest attention and are the only ones who should sacrifice their privacy.  I expect them to resist as we see when police arrest citizens for video taping them, or our Attorney General of the U.S. refusing to release documents about our program arming Mexican drug cartels.  Their behavior is no surprise, it is our complacency that is shocking.

The founders knew this would always be a problem the citizenry would have to be equipped to deal with.  The intent of the second amendment was to keep the government, at all levels, honest and on track. It is effective only because those in power never know where or who those they might oppress are at any given moment.  It works on the principle of your invisibility.  It is an amendment designed to instill fear into those who might wish to conduct themselves in an unsavory/illegal manner.  It really is that simple.  (I can sense the fits the Leftists are throwing right now.  “He said FEAR… ahhahhh!!!!!”  The Left’s idea that the second amendment is about duck hunting simply illustrates their ignorance.  But this is understandable because Socialism relies on the population fearing the government, not the other way around.)  A citizens lack of invisibility negates this much-needed and very positive influence over our leaders.
As I see it, we are charging towards the edge of the cliff and cheering…  while vlogging on YouTube about how the journey affects us spiritually.
I think we should stop, take a step back, and pay a little more attention to the direction we’re headed.

About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

3 responses to “Invisible

  • Rattlesnake

    I have a slightly different interpretation of the second amendment. While I think you’re right, I think another purpose of the second amendment is to protect the right that people have to defend themselves. Not only from the government, but also from anyone who would threaten their life, safety, property, et cetera. The government can’t always be there to protect you (obviously). If that is not what the Founding Fathers intended, it is a nice extra benefit.


    • Mike

      While it is true that personal defense from things other than government is an ancillary benefit… it was defense from government that caused the founders to enshrine it in the constitution. Had it not been experienced that governments become tyrannical the founders would not have found it necessary to Amend. Remember, the U.S. Constitution is written to limit the government’s ability to infringe on our rights, not bestow rights upon the citizenry. Nature provides us our individual rights.


      • Rattlesnake

        Right. To be honest, I find it difficult to contemplate any situation in which defense from the government would be justified nowadays (by which I mean the government systemically crossing the line to the point where it would be necessary), although I realize it would have been important in the 1700’s to mention. Perhaps I am just not imaginitive enough.

        However, with the left’s hijacking of the constitution to fit their ideology, I would argue that it has taken on an additional significance. If, for any reason, a leftist bureaucrat would deny a citizen of the United States the ability for forcefully defend themselves (in a justified manner) (which they have, in Washington D.C., for example), they have a line of defense to fall back on. It should be self-evident that they have that right, but the left apparently does not agree with the concept of “natural rights” and so the only rights people have (from the government and its inane rules) are those that are specifically mentioned in the constitution. It is unfortunate that that is the case, but I think it is a good thing that it is there.

        I really wish the Canadian constitution mentioned a right to bear arms, as, while Canadians (and everyone else) does have the right the defend themselves with deadly force if necessary, it is not mentioned in the constitution and is therefore repressed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: