UPDATED and BUMPED (from 10/16/2012): Chris Pappas, now running for Congress instead of NH Exec. Council back then, hates our “Live Free or Die” motto – said so himself. He’s all about putting the “Common Good” above your Freedom. You need to send him a message of “no, it isn’t”:
“…it is clear that the idea of Freedom necessarily is subservient to what he believes to be the constant Progressive Ideal: “the Common Good”.
(H/T: Tom for reminding me I wrote this back then)
**********************
Got a tip from a loyal reader of an article that appeared on FaceBook – one that shows that one Democrat Progressive Chris Pappas would be self-righteously fine with New Hampshire getting rid of our State Motto, “Live Free or Die”. He said so himself in a Hippo Press article back in Dec 15, 2005. True, a long time ago both in real time and political epochs. But when you read what he wrote, you may take the attitude of “Humpf, this is an ‘tude not easy to ditch or change” (at least what my takeaway is). That article is after the jump.
Now, at some sundry times, do make a wee joke about that New Hampshire’s beloved icon [The Old Man In The Mountain] lays in rubble at the bottom, but the motto is not just a phrase or a marketing blurb. It is not just a motto – it is a philosophical statement. Sure, it was a toast uttered by General John Stark, but it is one of the most succinct and pithy summaries of what Freedom is all about. It is a truism from one that was willing to lay down his life for Freedom – the complete and all encompassing meaning of the word “Live Free or die – death is not the worst of all evils”. Would you be willing to compromise your life, nay, lay it down, for a faux version of it?
Apparently, Chris Pappas would. Read that article – it is clear that his idea of Freedom necessarily is subservient to what he believes to be the constant Progressive Ideal: “the Common Good”. The article was written around the time that smoking was banned in many public spaces here in NH – especially restaurants.
He confuses what he perceives to be the tyranny of a few taking away a Right of the many (a few smokers, a lot of people “forced” to endure their “freedom”. He, and the others that passed the law, truly believe that their “seeing the future benefit for all” was sufficient to take away just one more Liberty from those that do something with which they disagree and take away just one more aspect of owning, well, what used to be Private Property (you know, the ability of restaurant owners to actually set their own policies. He also believes that the well-to-do should have to give up more of their Private Property (er, their money, which when you get to the blunt point, time from their lives) simply because they are “privileged” (and he has better ways to spend it than they do).
What concerns me the most, being a candidate for the NH Executive Council, is that he will continue this errant philosophy – that the Common Good always should trump Individual Freedoms, and that Private Property, when needed by the Common Good, is subject to the will of the Common Good.
Which doesn’t make it all that Free, nor all that Private, does it?
