- Apr 4, 2011
This position is predicated on one buying into the philosophy of "freedom isn't free." This is the idea that freedoms are earned/won by service men and women and then granted to civilians out of the goodness of the hearts of said service people.jacobbanks said:If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.
I myself believe that freedom of speech is a natural right. It's something exists in and of itself. That freedom is suppressed by tyrants. Righteous governments create laws and policy to preserve and protect natural rights. From this perspective, freedom isn't earned and then granted by those who serve in the armed forces. On the contrary, servicemen and women have the honor of preserving and protecting something that exists on its own.
Which of these two perspectives do you think is more "American"?
Well, the founders of the U.S.A. overwhelmingly subscribed to the latter one. The American experiment was based on the philosophies of John Locke, who argued for natural rights; he argued that governments (and by extension, the military that they create) don't create and distribute freedom. On the contrary, he argued that freedom is the natural state of humanity and that governments (and military) are created to keep tyranny at bay.
The whole "freedom isn't free" mentality wasn't a normal thing in American culture until the Cold War, and then spurred back into the popular psyche in a post-9/11 world.
To top it all off, no matter which view one subscribe's to, the freedom of speech includes the right to criticize one's government, and all military actions are government actions, so that includes criticism of military actions. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Thomas Jefferson)