John Balentine fixates on the “F-word” – not that one, but “freedom.” (“Do you still desire freedom?”, July 2).
As a Republican, he believes freedom is bestowed only upon individuals, rather than a “collective right” shared by all citizens. In “The Social Contract,” Rousseau writes “… a society by means of a contract among themselves.” Balentine strangely alludes to this citizens’ compact, noting the Declaration of Independence signers were willing to give “… our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor,” not my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.
Balentine’s concept of individual freedom parallels his opinion that America is “… the greatest country ever known to man.” Ideally, yes. However, America ranks in the top 10 countries with the highest wealth inequality, ranks 14th in education and 37th in health care. Why?
Many Republicans, also fixated on individual freedom, only appear to support legislation which benefits the individual, rather than all of society. Indeed, Balentine believes “… The American government … exists to keep the individual free, not to rule over them.” Really? The signers’ original concept of democracy was always defined “… by means of a contract among” all members, not with individuals, of a society.
G. B. Shaw observed: “Youth is wasted on the young.” After perusing Balentine’s opinion piece, Shaw could write: Selfishness, lack of empathy and absence of thought are not wasted on Mr. Balentine.
Why? How many lives were saved from COVID-19 by government officials who honored the true meaning of collective (not individual) freedom by implementing lockdowns and mandating social distancing protocols to protect all citizens.
On lockdowns, Balentine states “… how easily we’re willing to give up our freedoms for a false sense of security.” False sense of security – really? Mr. Balentine, how many lives were saved by implementing said lockdown(s)? Still obsessed with individual freedom?
John M. Mishler
Harpswell
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less