Why do Liberals 'hate' FREEDOM so much?

[Libhater]

A Libertarian Think Tank founded and funded by the freedom loving benevolent and philanthropic Koch Brothers, released its latest snapshot of liberty in the U.S.A.

The enclosed link gives us charts of the 50 states ranking them according to their fiscal freedom; to their regulatory freedom; to their economic freedom; and to their personal freedoms.

You'll notice that our most populous blue or liberal states such as Massachusetts, New York, Illinois and California tend to sit at the bottom of these charts as those representing people (liberals) who hate freedom.

Btw, you'll need to scroll down a bit to get to the charts, but don't let that slight irritation prevent you from reading the rest of the insightful findings on why liberals hate freedom. Enjoy.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/50States_2011_Embargoed_Copy.pdf

[del]

7904

[GrassrootsConservative]

They think we would be better off enslaved to the government than making our own decisions.

[exotix]

Depends on what Hating Freedom is ... is ...

Say for instance the Tea *Party of Victims* ... simply write-up a manifesto on everything you hate about Liberty & Freedom ... grab an AR-15 ... and go out an massacre everybody causing you hate.

[nic34]

Why do liberals hate freedom?

On June 7, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian think tank founded and funded by the Koch brothers, (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer) released its latest snapshot of liberty in the U.S.A: “Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.” (http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/50States_2011_Embargoed_Copy.pdf)

As is usually the case in studies of this sort, (http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/03/02/chamber_of_commerce_war_against_the_blue_states/index.html) high-population blue states inevitably end up ranking last. The metrics used by the authors of the study penalize high taxes, regulations and, in general, just about anything that restricts the freedom of individuals and corporations to do as they please, from gun control laws and healthcare mandates to rules requiring seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Befitting libertarian sensibilities, the ideological biases in the Mercatus report do not purely jibe with conservative Republican priorities — states get points for decriminalizing marijuana and allowing same sex marriage or civil unions, for example — but nevertheless, the political gist is hard to ignore. Blue states cluster at the bottom, while red states are at the top.

But here’s the brutal truth, apart from the politics: Most Americans are not free. A telling example: In the Mercatus rankings the two states blessed by the highest freedom quotient boast a combined population of a little over 2 million — South Dakota and New Hampshire (the latter of which, admittedly, went for Obama in 2008). The bottom three states were New York, New Jersey and California, which have a combined population of over 65 million.

Sixty-five million Americans in just three states cower under a totalitarian shadow! That’s a little distressing!
I feel the authors’ pain. Once you have defined “freedom” according to a specific set of criteria it must be just a tad confounding to realize how many Americans live in a state of relative slavery. Note the snark: “Few residents of the Empire state” will be surprised at their lack of freedom. And yet: 19 million Americans still call themselves New Yorkers. Surely, this is a great bafflement.

Of course, we can also nitpick about what really constitutes true “freedom.” For the authors, a mandate to buy healthcare insurance is a dastardly imposition on individual rights. (The authors are working within a construct defined by the political philosopher Norman Barry, “[A] belief in the efficiency and morality of unhampered markets, the system of private property, and individual rights and a deep distrust of taxation, egalitarianism, compulsory welfare, and the power of the state.”)

But from my perspective, not having access to universal healthcare is an imposition on my freedom. The fact that for most Americans healthcare is tied to one’s employer is a dread shackle limiting the freedom of movement of every worker. How much more liberated would we all be if we could switch jobs or work for ourselves without the fear that at any moment we might be crippled by an exorbitantly expensive health emergency? Similarly, a state requirement that employers offer paid parental leave (another black mark against California) clearly frees me to be a better father to my newborn. I’d really love to see what would happen to internal migration patterns in the United States if all the big blue states had universal single-payer healthcare, while everyone else was left at the mercy of a completely unregulated private market. That civil war would end rather quickly, I suspect.

To their credit, the authors point to an essay written by Nick Gillespie in 2005 that gives some insight into the mystery of self-hating liberals: “Live Free or Die of Boredom: Is ‘economic freedom’ just another word for nothing left to do?” (http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/01/rant-live-free-and-die-of-bore)


http://www.salon.com/2011/06/15/why_do_liberals_hate_freedom/

[KC]

Funny how liberal Vermont and Oregon top the chart when it comes to personal freedom. Maybe there's a distinction to be made between personal and economic freedom.

Libertarians and anarchists are the only ones consistently in favor of freedom.

[Captain Obvious]

Funny how liberal Vermont and Oregon top the chart when it comes to personal freedom. Maybe there's a distinction to be made between personal and economic freedom.

Libertarians and anarchists are the only ones consistently in favor of freedom.

That's not very rhetorically respondent of you.

[Codename Section]

I hear the Nic's of the world who want the poor to have food and access to doctors. You are "free" without these things, but you are miserable as fuck and in seriously deep shit. I don't like conflating believing someone should have health care with freedom or liberty because it's confusing propaganda. It's not freedom or liberty to give someone free stuff or to tell someone they must hire someone they don't want to hire because you're arbitrarily choosing sides and taking the freedom from one to give to another.

Is it the right thing to do? That's arguable. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Since we have a government and I live under it where my money is forcibly robbed from me by the government whether I want it to or not, if I MUST choose where that money should go I would rather it go to programs like SNAP or healthcare than to arm the post office and bureau of land management.

[Mainecoons]

What's the difference? Every one of these programs is loaded with failure and theft.

[PolWatch]

Liberals hate freedom? hmm, libs are the ones who want to decide who people can love/marry? libs are the ones who want preachers/politicians to decide what goes on in a woman's womb? libs are the ones who suggested and passed the Patriot Act, so individuals lose what little privacy they had? libs are the ones who believe that anyone who doesn't say "Merry Christmas" is at war with them? guess libs north of the mason-dixon line are different from their southern brethern.

[Libhater]

Liberals hate freedom? hmm, libs are the ones who want to decide who people can love/marry?

Its the law that is of concern here. I guess a lib would be fine by creating a law that makes it legal or moral for a man to marry his pig or his sheep and still be able to collect any and all of the benefits that come from them being married.



libs are the ones who want preachers/politicians to decide what goes on in a woman's womb?

That's the problem, its the libs who feel its all right to have genocidal murder be a part of the insecure woman's agenda in getting rid of unwanted human life.


its the libs libs are the ones who suggested and passed the Patriot Act, so individuals lose what little privacy they had?

There hasn't been a single case in which individuals have lost any of their privacy due to the Patriot Act, and you can't name one.


libs are the ones who believe that anyone who doesn't say "Merry Christmas" is at war with them?

What kind of nonsense is that? Give me one example of a person who believes people are at war with them for them not saying Merry Christmas?


guess libs north of the mason-dixon line are different from their southern brethern.

Nope, libs are all the same regardless of where they live. They all hate freedom and or liberty.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Liberals hate freedom? hmm, libs are the ones who want to decide who people can love/marry?

That's right. You want government to have a say in marriage. You want government to legislate something that should be a private issue. If anything the states should be free to decide how to deal with the issue of Liberals wanting to marry gays and children and animals so the citizens would be free to live in a state with the same views on marriage that they have.


libs are the ones who want preachers/politicians to decide what goes on in a woman's womb?

Yep, again, you want government to legislate abortion instead of letting states be free to make their own decisions about how far they want to let the left push the genocide of black fetuses.


libs are the ones who suggested and passed the Patriot Act, so individuals lose what little privacy they had?

Not only that, but Libs are the ones who expanded government to the point where something like the Patriot Act sounds like a good idea to other idiot Libs. With the values this nation used to have, the ones Conservatism has, the people never would have let the big oppressive police state pass something like the Patriot Act.


libs are the ones who believe that anyone who doesn't say "Merry Christmas" is at war with them?

No, instead you believe it to be a crime to post "Merry Christmas" on one's own property.


guess libs north of the mason-dixon line are different from their southern brethern.


I would debate this as well, but I don't know what "brethern" is.

[PolWatch]

you seemed to have missed the point...freedom means people make their own choices...you seem to think it means deciding what laws are passed deciding what freedoms people can have..
BRETHREN--my goof...unnerstan now?

[GrassrootsConservative]

you seemed to have missed the point...freedom means people make their own choices...

Fetuses are people, too, even if they're black. Liberals don't want black babies to be free and be granted the inherent right to life.


you seem to think it means deciding what laws are passed deciding what freedoms people can have..

No, that's what LIBERALS think. I don't want government to have a say in my freedoms whatsoever. My freedoms are not for the government to decide.

I think it's disgusting that Liberals want government to have a dictatorship on my freedoms and inherent rights.

[PolWatch]

no violations of privacy?

• The FBI admitted in a recent report to the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board that it violated the law at least 800 times on national security letters, going well beyond even the loose safeguards in the original provision. According to the report the FBI “may have violated the law or government policy as many as 3,000 times” between 2003 and 2007, according to the Justice Department Inspector General (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-roadmap-justice-department-inspector-general-s-review-fbi-s-use-national-secu), while collecting bank, phone and credit card records using NSLs.
• As Adam Sewer of the American Prospect notes: “It's no secret that the FBI's use of NSLs - a surveillance tool that allows the FBI to gather reams of information on Americans from third-party entities (like your bank) without a warrant or without suspecting you of a crime - have resulted in widespread abuses. All that the FBI needs to demand your private information from a third-party entity is an assertion that such information is "relevant" to a national security investigation -- and the NSLs come with an accompanying gag order that's almost impossible to challenge in court.”
• NSLs were used by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to demand that libraries turn over the names of books that people had checked out. In fact, there were at least 545 libraries (http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=695) that received such demands in the year following passage of the Patriot Act alone.
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/eff-releases-report-detailing-fbi-intelligence) (EFF) uncovered "indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11." It said it could find no records of whether anyone was disciplined for the infractions.
• Under the Bush Administration, the FBI used the Patriot Act to target liberal groups, particularly anti-war, environment, and anti-globalization, during the years between 2001 and 2006 in particular.
• According to a recent report by the ACLU, there have been 111 incidents of illegal domestic political surveillance since 9/11 in 33 states and the District of Columbia. The report shows that law enforcement and federal officials work closely to monitor the political activity of individuals deemed suspicious, an activity common during the Cold War – including protests, religious activities and other rights protected by the first amendment. The report also noted how the FBI monitors peaceful protest groups and in some cases attempted to prevent protest activities.
• According to a July 2009 report (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SneakAndPeakReport.pdf) from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, only three of the 763 "sneak-and-peek" requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases. Sixty-five percent were drug related.

John Whitehead, author of "Renewing the Patriot Act While America Sleeps (http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=695)", described our post Patriot Act reality in appropriately stark terms, writing, “Suddenly, for the first time in American history, federal agents and police officers were authorized to conduct black bag “sneak-and-peak” searches of homes and offices and confiscate your personal property without first notifying you of their intent or their presence. The law also granted the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allowed the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; and allowed the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you’ve checked out in any public library and Internet sites you’ve visited.”
And now - according to the New York Times - new guidelines from the Justice Department will allow FBI agents to investigate people and organizations "proactively" without firm evidence for suspecting criminal activity. The new rules will free up agents to infiltrate organizations, search household trash, use surveillance teams, search databases, and conduct lie detector tests, even without suspicion of any wrongdoing.
In other words, the precedent set by the Patriot Act appears to be serving to accelerate the rapid disintegration of civil liberties in this country.
Of equal concern is what we still don’t know about how the government might be using the Act, highlighted by recent statements made by US Senators regarding what they termed “secret Patriot Act provisions”. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), an outspoken critic of the recent reauthorization, stated, "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act they will be stunned and they will be angry." As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Wyden is in a position to know, as he receives classified briefings from the executive branch.
In recent years, three other current and former members of the US Senate - Mark Udall (D-CO), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Russ Feingold (D-WI) - have provided similar warnings. We can't be sure what these senators are referring to (http://bigthink.com/ideas/38845), but the evidence suggests, and some assert (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/atlas-bugged-why-the-secret-law-of-the-patriot-act-is-probably-about-location-tracking/), that the current administration is using Section 215 of the Patriot Act - a provision that gives the government access to "business records" - as the legal basis for the large-scale collection of cell phone location records.
The fact that in 2009 Sprint disclosed that law enforcement made 8 million requests in 2008 alone for its customer’s cell phone GPS data for purposes of locational tracking should only add to these legitimate privacy concerns.

[PolWatch]

odd that you object to the subject of gay marriage...since you seem to advertise your belief in inter-species relationships by the picture you chose to represent you & your beliefs...go figure. BTW: freedom of choice should apply to all women...not just black women (as you seem to think according to your post).

[GrassrootsConservative]

odd that you object to the subject of gay marriage...since you seem to advertise your belief in inter-species relationships by the picture you chose to represent you & your beliefs...go figure.

Are you saying gays are a different species? Are you comparing intercourse between a donkey and an elephant to gay marriage?

And secondly are you admitting to the slippery slope idea that once the statist scum have legislated gay marriage, next will come marriage between animals and children?

[Chris]

I don't think liberals hate liberty, I think they just have a different view of it than libertarians do. The same could be said of conservatives.

To a libertarian liberty is a responsibility to, yes, pursue your own interests, pursue your own happiness, but you do so through cooperation with others within the existing social order, and in doing do, through an invisible hand, let us say, promote prosperity and justice for all, you make the world a little bit better place.

Liberals, and I include conservatives, see liberty differently, they see it as something society, more particularly government, provides them in not just protecting, not just promoting, but in providing what they value. It doesn't matter if it's economic matters, government is supposed to enact demand-side or supply-side policies to manage and make the market grow. It doesn't matter if it's personal matters, like abortion, marriage, whathaveyou, government is supposed to enforce the values you hold.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Liberals, and I include conservatives, see liberty differently, they see it as something society, more particularly government, provides them in not just protecting, not just promoting, but in providing what they value. It doesn't matter if it's economic matters, government is supposed to enact demand-side or supply-side policies to manage and make the market grow. It doesn't matter if it's personal matters, like abortion, marriage, whathaveyou, government is supposed to enforce the values you hold.

Chris, for the first time you say something I have to correct you on. None of this stuff is conservative. Conservative means wanting to conserve the way our nation was founded. The people you're alluding to are establishment Republican Liberals. Anyone who wants to grow government to satisfy their own personal needs doesn't respect the way America was founded.

[Common Sense]

Are you saying gays are a different species? Are you comparing intercourse between a donkey and an elephant to gay marriage?

And secondly are you admitting to the slippery slope idea that once the statist scum have legislated gay marriage, next will come marriage between animals and children?

Are animals consenting adults? Are children? Every time I hear this ridiculous argument I have to laugh. It's a really dumb argument.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Are animals consenting adults? Are children? Every time I hear this ridiculous argument I have to laugh. It's a really dumb argument.

Who said anything about consenting adults? Liberals only talk about gays. No mention of where they would draw the line or why we should think the line will stop there after it's already moved once. What about the other part of my post? That person was most certainly comparing gay relationships to inter-species relationships.

[exotix]

Chris, for the first time you say something I have to correct you on. None of this stuff is conservative. Conservative means wanting to conserve the way our nation was founded. The people you're alluding to are establishment Republican Liberals. Anyone who wants to grow government to satisfy their own personal needs doesn't respect the way America was founded.
Yes ?

Can we get you to explain what's *conservative* about this ?

http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

[Common Sense]

Who said anything about consenting adults? Liberals only talk about gays. No mention of where they would draw the line or why we should think the line will stop there after it's already moved once. What about the other part of my post? That person was most certainly comparing gay relationships to inter-species relationships.

The argument for gay marriage is over what two consenting adults choose to do (ie: get married). Comparing that to animals or children is ridiculous. It's about consent. Children and animals can't give consent.

He made a joke re: libhater's avatar. Do with it what you will.

[Chris]

Chris, for the first time you say something I have to correct you on. None of this stuff is conservative. Conservative means wanting to conserve the way our nation was founded. The people you're alluding to are establishment Republican Liberals. Anyone who wants to grow government to satisfy their own personal needs doesn't respect the way America was founded.

Well then we differ only in the words we use, not the intentions. Those who wish to conserve the classical liberal foundations of the nation see liberty as a responsibility. It is the later modern conservative establishment Republicans who adopt the modern liberal view.

Most of what I post could stand correction, my lord, that's only the first time! :shocked:

[Chris]

Yes ?

Can we get you to explain what's *conservative* about this ?...

Nothing, it's modern donkephant liberalism.

[exotix]

Nothing, it's modern donkephant liberalism.
In other words, conservatism doesn't represent the term conservatism at all.

[nic34]

Only when it's convenient, otherwise it means liberal.....:wink:

[Codename Section]

In other words, conservatism doesn't represent the term conservatism at all.

Have conservatives met a Lockheed plane they didn't like? You'd think we weren't in debt the way they want to spend money.

[Chris]

In other words, conservatism doesn't represent the term conservatism at all.

Not modern conservatism, not as a political movement. It began in the 1950s with ex-liberals, ex-socialists, ex-communists, ex-Trotskyites, then call New Conservatives. It's resurgence as neoconservatism was just a second wave of ex-liberals, ex-socialists, ex-communists, ex-Trotskyites.

Now as a general term, it means just what GrassrootsConservative said, to conserve.

[exotix]

Have conservatives met a Lockheed plane they didn't like? You'd think we weren't in debt the way they want to spend money.
Not modern conservatism, not as a political movement. It began in the 1950s with ex-liberals, ex-socialists, ex-communists, ex-Trotskyites, then call New Conservatives. It's resurgence as neoconservatism was just a second wave of ex-liberals, ex-socialists, ex-communists, ex-Trotskyites.

Now as a general term, it means just what GrassrootsConservative said, to conserve.
Yes but today conservatism means pay the debt down they exploded on the backs of podunks so we can preserve the wealthy ... and notice who's making the proclamation ...


http://i60.tinypic.com/dmw3d5.jpg

[Codename Section]

You're a little bit obsessed with that dude.

[exotix]

You're a little bit obsessed with that dude.
Well, when it's in your face ... well, it's in your face.

[Captain Obvious]

Well, when it's in your face ... well, it's in your face.

So what does George Zimmerman's taint smell like?

[Chris]

Yes but today conservatism means pay the debt down they exploded on the backs of podunks so we can preserve the wealthy ... and notice who's making the proclamation ...


The Republicans didn't propose to pay the debt down, Obama proposed in compromise to raise the debt ceiling, to reduce by a percent or so the rate of increased spending. It's like saying let's spend a little less than a whole lot more.

[donttread]

A Libertarian Think Tank founded and funded by the freedom loving benevolent and philanthropic Koch Brothers, released its latest snapshot of liberty in the U.S.A.

The enclosed link gives us charts of the 50 states ranking them according to their fiscal freedom; to their regulatory freedom; to their economic freedom; and to their personal freedoms.

You'll notice that our most populous blue or liberal states such as Massachusetts, New York, Illinois and California tend to sit at the bottom of these charts as those representing people (liberals) who hate freedom.

Btw, you'll need to scroll down a bit to get to the charts, but don't let that slight irritation prevent you from reading the rest of the insightful findings on why liberals hate freedom. Enjoy.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/50States_2011_Embargoed_Copy.pdf

They don't so much hate freedom as they fear people being responsible for themselves

[donttread]

7904

That bow is a beauty

[Chris]

They don't so much hate freedom as they fear people being responsible for themselves

Modern liberalism only works if everyone marches to the same drum.

[Common Sense]

You know what I hate? Freedom. I just hate it so much.

[del]

You know what I hate? Freedom. I just hate it so much.

you'd be crazy not to.

[Common Sense]

you'd be crazy not to.

Ugh...It's just so stupid and overrated. Fucking freedom.

[Chris]

You know what I hate? Freedom. I just hate it so much.


Would be good if you took the time to elaborate what you mean by the word.

[Common Sense]

Would be good if you took the time to elaborate what you mean by the word.

I was being sarcastic.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.













Again, sarcasm...

[Chris]

I was being sarcastic.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.


I realize that, but still wonder, even in your flippancy, you would define freedom. You don't have to answer.










Again, sarcasm...

[Common Sense]

It's sort of hard to define. Why is that up to me?

Flippant? I can be. Particularly when faced with retarded OP's like this one. I'm sorry, I don't take "libhater" seriously...:)

[Chris]

It's sort of hard to define. Why is that up to me?

Flippant? I can be. Particularly when faced with retarded OP's like this one. I'm sorry, I don't take "libhater" seriously...:)


Not up to you to define, true, up to society, but I was just curious how you, a liberal, would define it, what it means to you. It's just discussion.

[Libhater]

It's sort of hard to define. Why is that up to me?

Flippant? I can be. Particularly when faced with retarded OP's like this one. I'm sorry, I don't take "libhater" seriously...:)

No one expected you to take me or my posts seriously since you evidently don't take the mass destruction of this president's policies seriously. Now tell us of all the good vibes you've been getting from the past 5 1/2 years of this anti American/socialistic administration's policies. Go ahead, give us some of that good feelin you're getting from the left side of the fence.

[exotix]

No one expected you to take me or my posts seriously since you evidently don't take the mass destruction of this president's policies seriously. Now tell us of all the good vibes you've been getting from the past 5 1/2 years of this anti American/socialistic administration's policies. Go ahead, give us some of that good feelin you're getting from the left side of the fence.
I myself get tingles thinking about all the great things anything with an (R) before it has done for America ... mind-boggling why they've lost 5 of last 6 elections.

[Libhater]

I myself get tingles thinking about all the great things anything with an (R) before it has done for America ... mind-boggling why they've lost 5 of last 6 elections.

Since I don't think I'll get a run down on all those great leftist vibes from the like of a common sense, then perhaps you could give us some of Obama's more outstanding achievements during these last 5 1/2 years?

[exotix]

Since I don't think I'll get a run down on all those great leftist vibes from the like of a common sense, then perhaps you could give us some of Obama's more outstanding achievements during these last 5 1/2 years?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rkJEouQKN_w/TuZ0y3QM9hI/AAAAAAAAApo/WNm0JVHb5cM/s1600/Unemployment+Chart+-+Bush+v+Obama.jpg

[Chris]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rkJEouQKN_w/TuZ0y3QM9hI/AAAAAAAAApo/WNm0JVHb5cM/s1600/Unemployment+Chart+-+Bush+v+Obama.jpg


Great demonstration of how Bush (the rise in unemployment) took us into a recession and Obama is prolonging it (the flattening of the curve).

You're not considering types of jobs such as parttime.

[Mainecoons]

Seventy percent of the jobs added since Obama took office are part time. The employment numbers are largely false because they fail to account for the millions who have given up looking for work or the double counting of people holding two or more part time McJobs trying to survive the Obama economy.

Anyone who thinks that piling on taxes, regulations and ObamaCare hasn't affected the job market and the decline of the middle class is just plain stupid.

Elections and policies have consequences.

[lynn]

Liberals hate freedom? hmm, libs are the ones who want to decide who people can love/marry? libs are the ones who want preachers/politicians to decide what goes on in a woman's womb? libs are the ones who suggested and passed the Patriot Act, so individuals lose what little privacy they had? libs are the ones who believe that anyone who doesn't say "Merry Christmas" is at war with them? guess libs north of the mason-dixon line are different from their southern brethern.

Those people may claim they are liberals but your examples point to authoritarians as their correct label.

[Chris]

Those people may claim they are liberals but your examples point to authoritarians as their correct label.

Yes, the modern liberal dependence on government leads inevitably to authoritarianism.