Delusions of Absolute Liberty


You got to hand it to the anti-reproductive health fanatics. From ridiculous assumptions such as the Reproductive Health Bill legalizing abortion, immediate population depletion to out of vogue assumptions that population development programs are not important, absurdities, logic cartwheels and random religious invocations are gifts that just keep on giving.

The latest addition to their arsenal of slippery slope arguments, appeal to emotion, selective observation, red herrings, appeal to motive, wishful thinking (this one is a winner)… is “liberty.” Yes, folks. They took Papa Oreilly’s lessons to heart and are now rebranding “liberty.”

What do full capitalism and full communism have in common? They collapse under reality.

The few Ayn Rand purists on “common good” – that common good should be left to the private institutions and not to the government – are opposing the RH Bill because it’s a tax-funded, state-driven program. They are opposing the Reproductive Health Bill because they don’t like government meddling. They should just promote the fabled Laissez-Faire; no more of this pretentious anti RHB drama.

A snapshot of reality should tell you our current oligarchs have no problems in raising prices of basic services, averting regularization of employees and paying less taxes than the middle class citizens. The little glimpses of “common good” can be seen from their charities , hardly a dent in their big pockets. Sometimes you get decent employment, but anyway…

Our “democratic” government encourages the wealthiest to acquire government positions. Your average LGU official is a tad wealthier than his constituents and our last five presidents belong to the wealthiest sector – any overflowing “common good” you’ve seen lately?


As if the asinine “don’t blame babies” and “sperm is holy” poetry failures aren’t enough, the less sophisticated religious bats have expressed their opposition (you’re infringing on my liberty!) with inane statements like:

Opposing the reproductive health bill in terms of “liberty (justice and freedom the Catholic way)” is forgetting you have an informal contract with society. Making a conscious decision to live with people, in an organic society with a government authority is trading some of your individual liberty to the social group or team you belong to in order to pursue a “common good.”

Democracy does not afford you 100% individual liberty. Democracy, ideally is the rule of the many who agree to a common decision. It is not the rule of all.

I don’t buy you your toothpaste, your deodorant, your antibiotics or your underwear, but you and I buy our safety standards for your toothpaste, deodorant, antibiotics and underwear. We buy our roads, our hospitals, our clean air, our water supply, our group safety from diseases and crime and our public education which will bring about the next intellectual force. You and I buy and invest in our next generation, but for some reasons you have – which are not supported by evidence but only your own wilful ignorance – you balk at the way you have been living.


There are laws and bills that potentially compromise your individual liberties to a dangerous degree and you are well within your rights and wits to oppose them. In the case of a reproductive health bill that aims to implement a state-funded program (the private sector is only good for monied people), why fight a bill that allows more families to exercise their reproductive freedom?

It’s not because your reproductive freedom is restricted.

It’s because you don’t want others to practice reproductive freedom although you share similar social contracts to the same government authority.

The hypocrisy never ends.

19 thoughts on “Delusions of Absolute Liberty

  1. //why fight a bill that allows more families to exercise their reproductive freedom?//

    Here lies my beef. Freedom here, freedom there, as if Freedom is the end all and be all of this life. The great people in this life – Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the saints – they are exalted not necessarily because of their freedom. They are exalted because they used their freedom to do what is good and what is just. People who have done evil, on the other hand, have freedom too.

    Let us not focus too much on the freedom as we should do what is right. I for one will not subject my wife, or sister, or someone dear to me, something artificial that may cause adverse side effects later on.

    I don’t know if I understood you correctly, but I do think we have reproductive freedom nowadays. Everyone is free to purchase a condom or a pill, and even with the ordinance asking for prescription in force, no one gets imprisoned for that. However, if the RH bill gets passed, do we who say nay still have the freedom to do so without fear of fines or imprisonment? Do we still have the freedom to deny RH services that are against our conscience?

    That’s an ironic freedom that RH provides. It is selective – very selective.

    • [Cat’s Cradle] You may have reproductive freedom. A person with no education and financial resources to control his or her reproduction does not have reproductive freedom.

      If you’re worried about “side effects”, get an appointment with your family doctor instead of speculating.

  2. //[Cat’s Cradle] Unfortunately for your camp, repeated public surveys show the “many” want RHB. Aww. Widdle Catholic accusing others of his own hypocrisy.//

    You can be a billion and still get it wrong. Numbers don’t guarantee that you are right. Majority decisions do not necessarily reflect what is right – it just reflects what the majority think.

  3. “We buy our roads, our hospitals, our clean air, our water supply, our group safety from diseases and crime and our public education which will bring about the next intellectual force.”

    Hmmm… Good idea, let the government then buy every poor their pavements, pay their hospital bills, a Tagaytay highlands estate for good clean fresh air, a steady supply of clean purified water, a gas chamber, a personal bodyguard, and a scholarship grant in UP. Honestly, it is such a bad comparison…

    So for the benefit of your readers let us share the link from where those screencaps came from. http://www.facebook.com/ANCalerts/posts/10150108078218791

    Please don’t delete! Wee-wee…

    • Best comment so far. Since you’re such a fan of Rand, pack up your bags because you don’t buy all that socialist crap that made us survive thus far. I heard the United States and the Netherlands are great places to live. It’s too bad their reproductive health programs and medical systems are driven by taxes. He he he.

    • I don’t have to delete your useless comments – ploys to get others to visit your idiotic site. I simply have to Unapprove it. Enjoy while your comments are displayed. The next admin who logs in may not be as generous.

      • Sir, chillax. The next time he posts that link on this site, I’ll delete it. =)

    • I went to the link hoping to learn more and see hard evidence why we should not have RH. No surprise that it only contains the same jump to conclusion that RH will eventually lead to population control and basically character assassination of those supporting the bill with emphasis of the Filipino Free thinkers.

      During the 1960’s the Pope created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control, other sources call it Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. Now, can the Vatican be more direct in its use of words in naming this commission? The commission’s only purpose is to study if the church can change its position on RH without harming the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

      Yes folks, throw away all those stats, the emotions of protecting the unborn, family, the youth, etc. All of these noise coming from the anti-RH camp most particularly from the Church hierarchy is nothing more than a cover to protect the Pope’s authority at all cost.

      http://churchandstate.org.uk/2010/06/why-the-church-cant-change/

  4. Pingback: Delusion of an Anti-Absolute Liberty Statist « THE VINCENTON POST

  5. Curious Pandesal strongly believes that government can provide service without any malice to the public. AND HE FEARS ONE THING.

    He fears that when private enterprise will do the business, the consumers will be abused by monopoly in prices.

    BUT I think that fear was unfounded. Why?

    1st. The abuse cannot go on forever. There must be someone, somewhere, in any given time of the day, getting pissed off of the abuse. The question should be: Can anyone be allowed to compete to destroy the alleged monopoly?

    2nd. While he fears private businesses, which is basically a group of traders, he is complacent that govt, which also a group of people, the writer never recognizes that the people in the govt are NOT traders but in fact regulators, bureaucrats, politicians whose minds are limited on enacting laws for more fees from the same trades he fears so much.

    3rd. The writer lacks knowledge that the evolution of society begun from individual settlers, then community and market. He never knew that the group called GOVERNMENT was introduced last on the list later on when some incompetent men tried to grab limelight from the competent and efficient men.

    4th. Standards in quality are not set by governments. But must be by competitions of producers. I think what is wrong with Pandesal is that he honestly believes in government. LET HIM. IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING ANYWAY.

  6. Here’s my critique on the article:

    “A snapshot of reality should tell you our current oligarchs have no problems in raising prices of basic services, averting regularization of employees and paying less taxes than the middle class citizens. The little glimpses of “common good” can be seen from their charities , hardly a dent in their big pockets. Sometimes you get decent employment, but anyway…”

    –Here’s one of the major prejudices of capitalism – that’s because the government are not regulating the economy, then the oligarchs have the opportunity to control the society. In a laissez-faire capitalist society, oligarchs won’t exist; Filipino oligarchs like the Cojuangcos, Zubiris, Ayalas and Lopesez exists because of government intervention. They (government) are proposing higher taxes and regulations (such as the 60/40 ownership of corporations) so that other competitors, especially the foreign ones, cannot meddle with the competition. Without competition, the oligarchs can simply hold the prices of the commodities, give unreasonable wages to their employees and do other unscrupulous acts to the society.

    “Our “democratic” government encourages the wealthiest to acquire government positions. Your average LGU official is a tad wealthier than his constituents and our last five presidents belong to the wealthiest sector – any overflowing “common good” you’ve seen lately?”
    — It happens because the oligarchs and government officials are colluding to one another. Remove the powerful hand of the government on the economy so that oligarchs are forced to compete with one another. If a specific oligarch cannot match up with the competition, s/he cannot expect help from the government to help him/her; thus s/he will be weed out. Survival of the fittest at its best.

    “Opposing the reproductive health bill in terms of “liberty (justice and freedom the Catholic way)” is forgetting you have an informal contract with society. Making a conscious decision to live with people, in an organic society with a government authority is trading some of your individual liberty to the social group or team you belong to in order to pursue a “common good.”
    — Then it’s like presuming that “I am my brother’s keeper.” That’s not true. A man is living for himself, not because he’s the means for the sake of others.

    “Democracy does not afford you 100% individual liberty. Democracy, ideally is the rule of the many who agree to a common decision. It is not the rule of all.”
    — Then this just shows that the author of the article admits that true and absolute liberty doesn’t exists on this country. On the current political set-up, we are a democracy masquerading as a constitutional republic; that is, the laws exists but the people still have the final decision. If the majority of the people in the country are cannibals and they voted that you should be sacrificed for their lunch, then you have no choice but to obey and get eaten. The government cannot intervene in anyways necessary. And that’s why our country today is on clusterfuck. Militant groups are demanding a lot of welfare from the government (public education, healthcare, social security etc.) so that they can thrive; without recognizing that other people are been SACRIFICIED just to pay for these demands.

    “There are laws and bills that potentially compromise your individual liberties to a dangerous degree and you are well within your rights and wits to oppose them. In the case of a reproductive health bill that aims to implement a state-funded program (the private sector is only good for monied people), why fight a bill that allows more families to exercise their reproductive freedom?”
    — Freedom is absolute; means everyone can exercise this freedom with every possible way (yes, even suicide) but it only ends if someone violates the freedom of others. Thus, in order to protect everyone from violating each other’s freedom, the Founding Fathers of the US conceived the concept of individual rights and formulate the government and the US constitution to protect these rights. In simple terms, rights is freedom, freedom is a right. And exercising these rights and freedom are always free. Ex: education. The statement “the right to educate oneself” is a proper because the word “right” is used to denote passive action. But if we used the word “right” as a noun, let’s say “right to education”, then that violates the proper definition of rights; because education is not free and the educational system is not an action, but a concept; and a material one.

    Here in the Philippines, many of the pro RH’s are stating that one of the rights of the individual is to receive welfare programs from the government. Example of these are the battle cries of the leftists groups who are stating that education is a right as well as healthcare. But come to think of it, is welfare freedom? I mean, how come an individual became entitled to have the wealth of others?

Penny for your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s