People really do not know what freedom is and they really don't want it. What they want is "security" and "safety" and "guarantees." But freedom is risky, and it means being personally responsible for one's own security, failing or succeeding on one's own effort, merit, and ability.

In the article, "Obama's Recent Nomination Puts Families At Risk, Undermines Law," Marlo Diaz (a lawyer) wrote:

"Are we to believe he will protect children when he worked so hard against the Children?s Internet Protection Act (United States v. American Library Association), which sought to protect children from obscene materials in public libraries, and the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act (American Library Association v. Thornburgh), which required producers of pornography to personally verify that models were not minors?"

Diaz was writing about the nomination of David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General, the second highest position at the U.S. Department of Justice. That nomination certainly is troubling, even frightening, on many levels. Ogden has spent his career defending pornographers, homosexuals, believes in a liberal interpretation of the Constitution (that is, that it means whatever any liberal judge decides it means), and makes totally irrational and contradictory judgements based on "social science," (that is, his "feelings").

As an example of the kinds of contradictions this non-principled method of making judgements leads to, consider that he decided "a 17-year-old lacks the intellectual and moral development to be liable for the death penalty," but, "a 14-year-old has the intellectual and moral development to decide on her own whether or not to have an abortion without parental notification." Whatever your view of the particular issues, the contradiction is apparent to anyone who can reason, which apparently Ogden cannot.

While I have no use for any of the trash produced by pornographers, and do not personally care if the government makes it tough for them, I do not care to have the government protecting me from that which is not a threat to me. I have no use the pornographer's product and consider them low lifes for making money pandering to people's weaknesses (or excesses), but freedom means that people are free to produce or use whatever they choose, no matter how self-destructive it is, so long is they do not harm anyone else. That is what freedom of choice is all about. Government protection in these areas restricts the liberty of both the individuals who choose to produce or use self-destructive materials, and worse, those of us who no longer have the option of choosing for ourselves to reject what is clearly bad and harmful. Government protection removes from the moral that sense of moral integrity that comes from making right moral choices.

Those of us who truly love individual freedom, do not need a government to protect us from self-harmful things. As evil as David Ogden and as dangerous as he is to our freedom, government "protection" is worse.

Here's what's wrong with wanting the government to protect children, for example. It assumes the wrong principle that it is government's business to protect our children from things we deem dangerous or harmful. "We," is anyone who can get enough people to agree with them about what is harmful. The problem with this is, you no longer have an argument when the majority of the people decide that your religion, or philosophy, or anything else you like, and any literature or programs that teach your religion, etc., are dangerous to children. Once you compromise a principle, the argument becomes one of degrees and how it will be violated is determined by whoever has the biggest gang. It's called "democracy."

Our children ought to be protected, but it is not your business to protect mine, nor my or anyone else's business to protect yours. If you want your children protected, you protect them. There is no moral basis for requiring other people to protect your children. Even if you could get someone else to protect your children, the last agency you want doing it is government. If you think government is not dangerous to your children, just keep sending them to "public" school.