Live Free or Die More Relevant Now than Ever
This I wrote in response to an Oppinion in the Union Leader (local newspaper) Cut for friend pages
I feel I must respectfully disagree with most of the points put forward by Mr. Polidoro in his opinion essay “Scrap NH’s Irrelevant and Destructive State Motto Already.” I cannot find fault in the one factual item in the essay. The quote, if given fully, is as he stated it; “Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.” What he fails in is his interpretation of that quote and all things that he feels are derivative of a faith in the basic tenets of the New Hampshire motto.
The motto of New Hampshire, a shortened form of the quotation above (probably to be snappy and more easily placed on signs and license plates), is the essence of the meaning behind the quote. Freedom is much more important than any fleeting feeling of security or happiness or anything. Even life is less important if it does not also come with liberty. That is the essence of what General Stark said to his compatriots who also knew this and fought for this alongside him so many years ago.
In these days of more and more government meddling in the personal lives of the common man, the hope is that this motto may call more ‘to arms’ in resistance to this encroachment. Yes, despite what some would wish, this call is properly used against so called “sensible” legislation like seatbelts or smoking. Whether these things, like seatbelt use, would be better for those so legislated against is not at issue. The issue is whether free adults have the choice to be risky with their own lives or not. I attest that any law that protects a person against himself is not in any way a proper use of government.
More and more often I hear the assertion that the job of the state is to protect us. That cannot be further from the truth. The sole job of the state is to protect our rights, no more and no less. The three most basic rights, from which all true rights stem, are Life, Liberty and Property. (The last of which was later bastardized to ‘pursuit of happiness’) To protect these rights, the state must keep other citizens from infringing on these rights. It does not, however, need to protect us from our own actions towards our own rights. We catch murderers as they deprive others of their right to life. We prosecute thieves as they deprive others to their rightfully gained property. We hopefully strike down seatbelt laws as they infringe on the right of liberty.
It is not that we feel we have seceded from the union when we refuse to do as all the other states have done. Contrariwise we have instead stood on our rights as a sovereign state to lead our internal affairs in the way we wish to, as is our right under the Constitution. The federal government and federal law hold no sway over the actions of a state within its boundary. Arrogant we may be, but who is more qualified to determine what is best for us beside ourselves. Neither ‘going along with the crowd’ nor embarrassment are a proper basis for legislation. Reasoned debate and forethought are much better reasons to institute legislation, but above all the rights of the citizens must be foremost.
Of course, with any talk of rights and the constitution comes the straw man argument that the musket is all that was protected under the second amendment to the constitution. The musket was the standard military arm in the days of the revolution. The proper generalization to make is not that a new weapon type is not covered. Instead, it should be realized that the framers intended the common citizen to not be restricted from bearing the common military arm of current military technology whatever that level of technology may be; today, that would mean the M 16 and other equivalent weapons. Real assault weapons with automatic fire capability and not the semi-automatic knock offs that were banned not so long ago. The framers of the constitution did not know where future military technology would evolve to, but they did know that evolve it does. To be free people, you need weapons to defend yourself from enemies both foreign and domestic. That is why it is a specially recognized right in the constitution. Not granted by, or given by, but constitutionally recognized as a birth-right.
I feel I must respectfully disagree with most of the points put forward by Mr. Polidoro in his opinion essay “Scrap NH’s Irrelevant and Destructive State Motto Already.” I cannot find fault in the one factual item in the essay. The quote, if given fully, is as he stated it; “Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.” What he fails in is his interpretation of that quote and all things that he feels are derivative of a faith in the basic tenets of the New Hampshire motto.
The motto of New Hampshire, a shortened form of the quotation above (probably to be snappy and more easily placed on signs and license plates), is the essence of the meaning behind the quote. Freedom is much more important than any fleeting feeling of security or happiness or anything. Even life is less important if it does not also come with liberty. That is the essence of what General Stark said to his compatriots who also knew this and fought for this alongside him so many years ago.
In these days of more and more government meddling in the personal lives of the common man, the hope is that this motto may call more ‘to arms’ in resistance to this encroachment. Yes, despite what some would wish, this call is properly used against so called “sensible” legislation like seatbelts or smoking. Whether these things, like seatbelt use, would be better for those so legislated against is not at issue. The issue is whether free adults have the choice to be risky with their own lives or not. I attest that any law that protects a person against himself is not in any way a proper use of government.
More and more often I hear the assertion that the job of the state is to protect us. That cannot be further from the truth. The sole job of the state is to protect our rights, no more and no less. The three most basic rights, from which all true rights stem, are Life, Liberty and Property. (The last of which was later bastardized to ‘pursuit of happiness’) To protect these rights, the state must keep other citizens from infringing on these rights. It does not, however, need to protect us from our own actions towards our own rights. We catch murderers as they deprive others of their right to life. We prosecute thieves as they deprive others to their rightfully gained property. We hopefully strike down seatbelt laws as they infringe on the right of liberty.
It is not that we feel we have seceded from the union when we refuse to do as all the other states have done. Contrariwise we have instead stood on our rights as a sovereign state to lead our internal affairs in the way we wish to, as is our right under the Constitution. The federal government and federal law hold no sway over the actions of a state within its boundary. Arrogant we may be, but who is more qualified to determine what is best for us beside ourselves. Neither ‘going along with the crowd’ nor embarrassment are a proper basis for legislation. Reasoned debate and forethought are much better reasons to institute legislation, but above all the rights of the citizens must be foremost.
Of course, with any talk of rights and the constitution comes the straw man argument that the musket is all that was protected under the second amendment to the constitution. The musket was the standard military arm in the days of the revolution. The proper generalization to make is not that a new weapon type is not covered. Instead, it should be realized that the framers intended the common citizen to not be restricted from bearing the common military arm of current military technology whatever that level of technology may be; today, that would mean the M 16 and other equivalent weapons. Real assault weapons with automatic fire capability and not the semi-automatic knock offs that were banned not so long ago. The framers of the constitution did not know where future military technology would evolve to, but they did know that evolve it does. To be free people, you need weapons to defend yourself from enemies both foreign and domestic. That is why it is a specially recognized right in the constitution. Not granted by, or given by, but constitutionally recognized as a birth-right.