>They who give up essential liberty for the illusion of security end up with and deserve neither liberty nor security.

You should realize the original quote was given by a statist, Benjamin Franklin, acting on behalf of the state, in defense of the value of state power[0].

>We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

From the inaugural address of FDR[1], also a statist, who would go on to limit personal liberty and expand government power and authority in many ways.

[0]https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_only_thing_we_have_to_fear...

Which is one of the reasons I don't quote Ben Franklin, who had some points despite his Statist faith.

Let's not get caught up with logical fallacies. Points stand on their own merit, despite how some misuse them.

Freedom must always be balanced by responsibility. If you are free to own a weapon you must be responsible for its use/misuse. If you are free to drive a car, you are responsible for the consequences of hurting someone or damaging their property with it.

Freedom is for those who are brave enough to act in a responsible manner and deal with the consequences of their actions. It is not for criminals, the intentionally ignorant, the negligent, or the corrupt.

That is correct. Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated.

Enforcement of responsibility is practically counter to the concepts of absolute freedoms. "There is no freedom lunch".

There is no need for more "enforcement" of responsibility than what is. Ostracism, and/or starving, freezing, being shot, to death, etc., is sufficient.

Government is the disease posing as the cure.

Government doesn't "enforce" responsibility. Despite what they're selling, TANSTAAFL.

Freedom and responsibility can not be separated, and there is no need or want for artificially added, or subtracted, responsibility.

For those in the US who disagree, they should be thankful that they're still free to leave, and go anywhere else that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. It is inappropriate to stay in the US, or worse come to the US, and try to violate the rights of the individual because you're too afraid of freedom, or the inherent responsibility.

There is always some form of governance occurring, depending on who thinks they are in charge, even if it's not a state. You seem to be advocating for vigilante justice as an enforcement method, which definitely has downsides, just like everything else. Pure freedom is not beautifully perfect and without flaw.

Utopia is not an option, don't fall for the fallacy. Americans believe that freedom is the best option we have.

Vigilante justice is the only possible justice. Again, the universe has it's own "enforcement method". Anyone who claims anything doesn't have "downsides" is selling something.

Whether you agree or not, objectively, the United States is for people who value freedom above everything else. Those too afraid to live freely should live anywhere else.

I'm libertarian. The way I see it, the shutdown orders are in the same camp as helmet laws for motorcycles - they shouldn't be necessary, because everybody should be choosing to act sensibly out of their own self interest. Alas people make rash decisions, especially when egged on by a treasonous leader who seems hell bent on causing as much destruction as possible.

Also from a libertarian perspective, the shutdown orders have actually increased freedom in a sense. You can't claim to care about liberty while ignoring the debt treadmill forcing the majority to continuously work rather than being able to ever gain economic bargaining power. Liberty only produces prosperity when everybody is allowed to build wealth - freedom to choose within an extractionary economic system just makes for a race to the bottom.