The Journaling of Hinton 389

This quote is true for the world and also for our own lives. People often conjure up images of Stuart Smalley on Saturday Night Live and think affirmations are ridiculous or only for people in some recovery program. The truth is that affirmations are an extremely powerful tool that anyone can use to regain control of a very important thing - their thinking. Corporations, governments, religious institutions, even your friends spend a lot of money and time advertising to you to get you to modify your thoughts about them, their products, or their ideology because they know thoughts lead to behavior. They want to modify your behavior. Affirmations are a way of countering this outside noise with thoughts you choose yourself. It's kind of your own advertising campaign for you. My experience with affirmations began shortly after I recovered from a very serious hospitalization when I was 25. My doctors told me I should have died.

My electrolytes crashed and I was diagnosed with Addison's Disease. I was scared, depressed, unemployed, and forced to start all over again. I began using affirmations as a way to improve my mental attitude, but quickly realized they could help me improve my skills, my confidence, or just about any area of my life I was committed to improve. I was not the sit in front of the mirror Stuart Smalley kind of person. So, I began recording affirmation tapes with affirmations about nearly every area of my life. I wrote and recorded affirmations about health, finances, spirituality, relationships, personal growth, confidence, career, and many more. I played the tapes at night when I went to bed. Soon I began to see my life move forward and change in positive ways. I found that the negative thoughts that had me depressed were being countered in my internal self-talk by the positive words from the affirmations. The more I listened to the affirmations the more they became embedded in my thought processes and became the standing answers to counter negativity.

Affirmations, along with some other practices like meditation, made all the difference in my life. 18 years later I am blessed with a successful career, business, and a wonderful family life. Affirmations helped take me from down and out to dreams coming true. So you see, when I talk about affirmations and their power to change lives I'm not talking from theory, but from personal experience. Last year the time seemed right to begin sharing what I'd been doing all these years with others. That was the impetus for founding The Affirmation Spot. My goal is to create an easy, no hassle way to improve the lives of others. The site recently celebrated its one year anniversary and I am happy to say that people on four continents are now enjoying the benefits of their own personal ad campaigns. They are taking back their thoughts, changing their lives, and restoring lost hope. As year two begins for the website, I'm encouraged that many people are starting to recognize the benefits of quick, easy audio affirmations that can be played anywhere. I'm proud of the journey I've been on and look forward to contributing to the journeys of many other people.

The AAUP and several other associations drafted the 1967 Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students. It's worth looking back at that seminal document in light of contemporary concerns. The joint statement protects not only the free expression rights of students generally but also speaks specifically to student academic freedom in the classroom. The statement also addresses students’ rights outside the classroom. “Students bring to the campus a variety of interests previously acquired and develop many new interests as members of the academic community,” it declares. “They should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests.” The statement adds, “Students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. Of no small importance is the statement's recognition of the right of students to participate in institutional governance: “As constituents of the academic community, students should be free, individually and collectively, to express their views on issues of institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the student body. The extent of such participation was left unclear, however.

This article was done with Essay Writers.

Nonetheless, in Check it here on College and University Governance and its council did issue a Draft Statement on Student Participation in College and University Governance. The detailed provisions of the 1967 Statement, I would argue, suggest a more systematic and reasoned view of the current wave of student unrest than the kinds of near-hysterical reactions -- The Wall Street Journal, for instance, called Yale protesters “little Robespierres” -- that seem to characterize much recent commentary. It is certainly true that the rights defined by this statement surely would include the right of students to upset other students, perhaps by wearing offensive costumes on Halloween. But, in many ways, more important is the right of the offended students to express their distaste as forcefully as they can without undue disruption of the institution's mission. As Geoffrey Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, recently put it, “Toleration does not imply acceptance or agreement. In this light, despite all the hubbub, it is difficult to identify even a handful of instances where recent student protests have actually violated the rights and freedoms of anyone, including faculty members and other students.

Roughly ten years ago I obtained and installed my first copy of Red Hat Fedora Linux. It was during that same time-frame that I officially became a Libertarian. Since then I have read many opinion pieces comparing Linux to both Libertarianism and Communism. In a way, I think it is both. First lets consider the origins of Linux. Back in the early 1980s a long-time Unix programmer named Richard Stallman left MIT and began the GNU project and later the Free Software Foundation. He and his team began compiling (pun intended) the various software components of an operating system. The impetus behind their work was the belief that software source code should be freely available to all users so that they may make alterations to suit their specific needs. These changes would then be freely published so that others could benefit and possibly further refine the system. In freedom essay , a Finnish graduate student named Linus Torvalds decided that he wanted to program a Unix/Minix like operating system for his Intel based 386 IBM PC. Data was created by Essay Writers!

By this time, the aforementioned GNU project had assembled many of the components necessary, however, they were still lacking a working kernel. Torvalds set about this programing task. He plopped his kernel in the midst of the GNU components, and voila. Since then, both Stallman and Torvalds have remained active in the development community as many, many others have joined as well. Today, we have many different distributions (i.e. flavors) of Linux from which to choose. Distributions that run on everything from personal computers and servers, to cellphones, routers and just about everything in between. On top of Linux has sprouted hundreds of software projects aimed at providing applications to users that follow these same principles. FOSS, or Free & Open Source Software is the acronym used to describe this model of development and distribution. So what revelations regarding Libertarianism and Communism can be gleaned from the examination of the Linux community?

Before we can proceed with that analysis, there is one entrenched political teaching of which we must dispose. This is the notion that the political spectrum is a straight line with reactionary fascism on the right and radical communism on the left. Using this school of thought, there should be dramatic differences between the likes of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. However, I think most people would agree that the two were essentially totalitarian dictators that tended to have more in common than not. If the traditional left/right spectrum is a flawed, then what is a better representation? I think a circle is better suited to political analysis. The top of the circle being a state of highly decentralized government and the bottom being one of highly centralized government. The very top of the circle is the embodiment of what people like Thomas Jefferson envisioned for the United States. Like a circus elephant balancing itself on top of a giant ball, this approach takes great individual effort keep from losing ones balance and falling off, or in this case, sliding down to the bottom. The trip to the bottom of the circle is easy.

There will always be people looking to grab your rights and property in exchange for the security or service they are offering. It doesnt matter if these people are from the right or left or whether theyre Communist, Fascist or Socialist. The end result is always the same. Residence at the bottom of the circle under a highly centralized, oppressive totalitarian regime. Now as we consider the nature of Linux, I think it is fairly easy to see that it is a highly decentralized approach to a common goal. But how can it have communist tendencies at the same time? I found the answer in a statement made by Walter Block of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Dr. Block recalled meeting a young lady who proudly announced to him that she was a Socialist. He responded to her statement with a simple question. “Are you a coercive or voluntary socialist?

As the colony evolved so did the social structures of its people. Whether it was with women, Indians, indentured servants, slaves, puritans or property owners each class had their own distinct version of freedom. The backbone behind the growth of the American Colony was the labor force, which was necessary to harvest such rich and large farms and plantations. During the 17th century this labor force primarily composed of indentured servants and slaves. Many Englishmen came to the new world as indentured servants on seven-year deals where they worked to gain their place and freedom. While under contract they were treated similar to slaves of the time. Like slaves they could be acquired or sold as well as punished corporally. It wasn’t until the latter 17th century when laws were put into place to differentiate between indentured servants and slaves. These distinctions were largely based on race. Though slavery wasn’t nearly as widespread as the next two centuries it still had no bearing on a slave’s life.

Slaves of in North America lived with absolutely no freedom whatsoever. Indian and women were two of the other restricted classes within 17th century Indian society. learn more was absolutely catastrophic for Indians across the board. The introduction of disease by the European influx of settlers had an apocalyptic effect on the population of the Indians. Many tribes sustained losses as heavy as 90% of their populace. While most Indians have individual freedoms within their specific tribes, as a whole their lands were being stolen and their very survival was at stake. While women in the colony certainly did suffer as badly from disease, that doesn’t mean life was rosy either. Based on the English common law of coverture, women couldn’t even individually own property if married. Essentially anything women owned was actually owned by their husbands by right. Along with not having the right to property they also did not have a right to vote, and were expected to be obedient in a male driven society.

On the other end of the freedom spectrum from the aforementioned lie the Puritans and Landowners. While women in puritan society had a similar role as describe above, the men were closer to actual freedom. The men in good standing with their society could do what he practically wanted within the bounds of the puritan norm. However they rather took to persecution within the ranks. The most famous example being the Salem Witch Trials and the circumstances that led to one of the earliest women’s religious leaders Anne Hutchinson. Landowners, when it comes to freedom in the 17th century had the direct opposite experience of slaves. They could vote, earn, and own property at will. Many of our nations forefathers are descendants of these early landowners. Contrary to popular belief even the wealthy ones were more likely to be a hard worker with long hours than British gentlemen that most would imagine. The melting pot that is now modern North America had its roots sown in the 17th century. There were a great many classes of people seeking a new beginning either by choice or need. Whether they were indentured servants, slaves, women, Indians, puritans, or landowners each class had different grades of freedom in their life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. Before closing, lets go back to term limits one more time. It is any easy concept to grasp but when you start thinking about what this would actually look like, the permutations can make you crazy. Option A - Senators get a maximum of twelve years via two six year terms and House members get a maximum of twelve years via six two year terms. Presidents get a maximum of eight years via two four year terms. Option B - Senators get a maximum one six year term and House members get a maximum of six years via three two year terms. Presidents get a maximum of eight years via two four year terms. Option C - Senators get a maximum of one five year term and House members get a maximum of three years via one three year term. The President gets a maximum of six years via one six year term. For help with essay, please contact https://essayfreelancewriters.comversion.

Option D - term limits are not a good idea, no changes. It should be pointed out there is a huge benefit of Option C. It is my belief that much of the perversions of the political process occurs when incumbents sell their souls for votes and campaign donations, subjugating the best interest of the country for the best interests of their political careers. If a politician has no chance at re-election, a lot of this problem goes away and they are free to make the right decisions for the country and are not burdened with the need to raise re-election funds. To vote, please drop a short email with your choice of option A, B, C, or D as your preferred approach along with your home state to the email address listed in the Author's box below. The need to be subservient to the political class does not have to be. According to the original email, if each person reading this contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. I do not know if the math is right but the concept of reforming Congress is right.

Content has been generated with Essay Freelance Writersversion!

America was founded on the basis of freedom and opportunities. Diverse cultures sculpted America into the great country it is today. Short sentences like America is great! Freedom is a great thing! As an American , you have the right to voice your opinion, which is called the freedom of speech. Instead you can say As an American, you have the right to voice your opinon. This stated in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is known as Freedom of Speech. Third paragraph is full of examples which is great, but don't keep saying for example just state it like Halloween, one of our most popular holidays especially with children, was brought to America by the Druids. As more people came to America, they brought with them different fashions and food with them. Pizza was brought to America by Italians in the late 19th century. As you can see, there are many things (i dont like that word but i cant think of another) that make America what is today. Without our freedom, numerous opportunities, and cultures America would be a different place today. Content has been generated with https://essayfreelancewriters.com!

Obama Administration: Very simple analogy here, " the Patriot Act." Passed during the Bush Administrating and rubber stamped renewed under the Obama administration we are rapidly approaching this Orwellian world of surveillance. The scary thing is that Orwell probably did not imagine how many ways this quote could come true today. From getting access to our library records, tapping our phones, tracking our movements via our cell phone signal, monitoring our emails, observing our social network activity, watching us via thousands and thousands of public video cameras to easy to get warrants and wire taps, the pervasive intrusion into our lives by the political class is the Orwellian nightmare we face today, a reality not conducive to freedom at all. what makes america great essay examples : the best example of Obama Orwellian thinking under this quote is the failed economic stimulus plan that Obama and the Democrats passed. The original purpose of the stimulus plan was to create jobs.

Obama administration changed gears and stated the economic stimulus package was to both create AND save jobs. However, when not many jobs were created AND saved, the administration came up with the term like jobs "affected" or "touched" by the economic stimulus package. Thus, if the first definition does not work, try a second definition and a third definition, etc., anything to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. In this case, the pure wind is the utter failure of the stimulus package to create solid jobs. Obama Administration: The best example here is the whole problem of illegal immigration and the immigration law passed this summer by Arizona, a law that was patterned after the existing Federal law regarding illegal immigration. The Obama administration has gone to court in an attempt to overturn a law that a state wants to use to return illegal immigrants to their respective countries, hopefully improving the living conditions of the state's citizens.

At the same time, the Obama administration has been returning record numbers of illegal immigrants to their respective countries and has beefed up security along the Mexico/U.S. Sounds like Doublethink to me: from the Obama administrationn perspective, we will vilify the Arizona law for doing the same thing we are doing at the Federal level, i.e. returning illegal immigrants to their countries. Doing the same think but holding one effort as bad but the other effort as good. Obama Administration: This quote response is not just via the Obama administration but by the whole American political class.

SANTO DOMINGO - It has been 524 years since Christopher Columbus arrived at what for the Europeans were a new world very different from what the inhabitants of the other side of the Atlantic knew. This world, as we know from freedom in American history, after the subsequent colonization carried out by Spanish, French and Portuguese has been known since the nineteenth century as “Latin America” in reference to the mother tongue of the Romance languages spoken by these three colonizers and who are now the majority in the 20 republics that make up this region adorned by paradisiacal landscapes as well as cheerful people and culture. But sadly, in these five centuries of existence that began with the establishment of the colony in country, the Dominican Republic, our region has not been characterized as precisely the one with the greatest freedom. On the contrary, during most of that time we have been under the despotic yoke of the colonizers first and of the local authoritarianism in their military and civil versions later. This data was created with Essay Writers.

Despite the fact that the Latin American joint population is around 700 million people, which calls for inevitable differences, there is much that unites us and authoritarianism is part of it. According to the freedom in America essay, all our countries without exception have seen their destinies led by men or groups of men for whom democracy had very little value, to say nothing at all. For decades, the term “The Perfect Dictatorship” has been coined to refer to the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico and its particular control over Mexican politics that so many have wanted to replicate in their countries with doses of magical realism that look like characters in a novel. Although there have been undeniable advances in democracy, the words of Thomas Jefferson still resonate when he warned that the price of freedom is his eternal vigilance. Except for the exceptional case of the relic of the regime that remains in force in Cuba, classical totalitarianism has known how to adapt with the passage of time and what it feared in the past, elections, today used as an instrument of legitimacy.

Beyond the fact that these elections are often at the mercy of an officialdom that does not distinguish between the government and the governing party, that legitimacy that they boast of having won at the polls, they lose it day by day when their actions are constantly harassed political, economic and individual freedoms. It was the icon of nonviolent struggle, Mahatma Gandhi who said that “An error does not become true through propagation multiplied in the same way that truth does not become error when nobody sees it. The truth still stands even when there is no public support. The truth stands on its own. Those of freedom in American society who believe in freedom have had to face the reality that this is not always welcomed. It is extremely complicated to face a vast history of authoritarianism that undeniably affects the political culture. During years working with the International Foundation for Freedom (FIL), I have traveled several countries working with a wide network of people who have not given up despite all the attacks.

Our Argentine friends of the Freedom Foundation did not give up when we were greeted with stones at the 20th Anniversary of this organization in Rosario during the boom of Kirchnerism, and today we see how what only a year ago seemed impossible today is reality with a government that in a short time has shown to reject authoritarianism wherever it comes from. The Venezuelan friends of CEDICE, whom I had the honor of accompanying on their 30th anniversary in Caracas, did not surrender despite all the government harassment and today we see how the Democrats hold a qualified majority in Parliament and the exit is closer and closer. A new Latin American dawn is approaching and we should not give up. These changes should serve to fill us even more with energy to keep fighting. In Latin America, human rights have been invoked as the limit of what is allowed to minorities in power.

Despite this, regional thinking seems to coincide with the liberal counter majoritarian idea of fundamental rights, which promotes a particular vision of democracy, in which the scope of the political debate would be limited by rights. For many, this clearly reveals that classical liberalism does not approach democracy as a noble activity, but as the option of less bad government. To illustrate this argument, in line with freedom in America examples, the liberal view applied to freedom of expression, a right especially related to democracy, is questioned. It is argued that the liberal view, according to which freedom of expression is based on the protection of personal autonomy, does not notice that the exercise of the right can hinder the expression of others. Thus, https://essayfreelancewriters.com/blog/freedom-in-america-essay/ of expression itself can interfere in the establishment of an open and plural democracy. The option before the liberal position states that, to a large extent, the contours and content of rights should be subject to political debate, an idea that seems to clash with the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, which adopts a position extremely strict against the restrictions of freedom of expression.

In not raising generations of critical thinkers we do a disservice to the principles on which the United States of America was founded upon. The ability to think objectively, without bias and in a goal-directed manner supports the threads of freedom and liberty and is a service to our country, specifically to the ideals that our founding fathers championed and established. In not raising generations of children, men and women to think independently for themselves, we run the risk of creating like-minded spheres of political influence at risk of being overrun by singular political forces. Without independent critical thinkers who can recognize the powerful value to society in their practice of advocacy, we then become a nation of followers resting our minds while giving our hearts to a select ‘elite’ political class of individuals focused on achieving and sustaining power. It is in such ways that freedom dies not in battlefields of war where our soldiers gallantly serve on the frontline of protection to our society, but right on ‘Main Street’ in the heart of the American communities.

Post has been created with Essay Freelance Writersversion.

It is then common sense that to raise such advocating minds we begin to do so through the family-home environment first, and secondarily, our schools. Our parents then must be the first line of defense of the freedom and liberties we should be enjoying. The responsibility they have in creating simple discussion, asking questions without leading and prompting action from such conversations is in itself the exercise of awakening and strengthening young minds to be routinized in not backing down and accepting how things are and what truth is, but in actively questioning and formulating concerns and solutions aimed at addressing the sustainability of how and why society operates within the United States. Within the scholastic environment, it becomes fare more useful to thread the value of being objective, critical thinkers throughout academic subjects, in effect tying them together allowing students to practice the issues and challenges that beset us with a mind akin to approaching such challenges and societal concerns from multiple perspectives.

It is wholly true then that in treating the ability of critical thinking as a mere subject within the family environment or the academic curriculum, we become blind to that which is most pressing in raising the critical thinkers of ‘tomorrow.’ As it is, in our current condition within our country, we have a dearth of the practice of critical thinking that leads to individual action. To paraphrase Jean-Jaques Rousseau, it is difficult to be noble in taking relevant societal issues if we must work every day from sun up to sundown. Our physical bodies become tired and our minds need rest. So it becomes that those who can earn a living in speaking of, discussing and bringing forth solutions to the critical issues besetting America are the one’s who take the lead (outside of our Armed Forces) in seeing to the maintenance of our ‘American Quilt.’ These people are on established news channels and are called ‘pundits.’ That said, with the advent of social media platforms, the ability to reach a wide audience with a message is now literally at our finger tips.

This recharges the individual American citizen to be able to quickly and almost effortlessly challenge the political conversation, shift it, and even take the lead. Time, and this ability to think critically in a productive manner are the two luxuries, nay, the two prerequisites to be able to change and positively disrupt the ‘playing field’ of political discourse and the advent of social media creates an preliminary empowerment of the individual American citizen to advocate just about on the same level as an established, corporate news media entity at a fraction of the price. But we have a number of formidable threats that directly and negatively impact our individual ability to think critically, and this is immediately placing pressure on our freedoms and liberties. Not realizing it is just as harmful to this American quilt we are constantly threading and re-threading. 1. Not valuing the benefit of building, independent critical thinkers from infancy, but instead, looking to form new generations of Americans who mirror our political inclinations and cultural viewpoints.

2. Not addressing the the attacks on the human brain by unsafe vaccine ingredients, such as aluminum and carcinogenic ingredients used as vaccine preservatives which directly hinder the brains pineal gland categorized as the center of self-expression and individuality. A people who cannot critically express and advocate is a nation at immediate risk of losing its freedom and liberties. 3. check this list of a main stream news media that is heavily inclined toward a leftist political view, rather than bringing forth news in an objective and unbiased manner. In addition, the prevalence of this same leftist main stream news media conglomerate being funded by corporations involved in the very cultural battles which directly hinder our basic human rights. Namely, unsafe vaccine corporations which continue to create carcinogenic vaccines leading to a negative neurological continuum of mental deficits from attentional deficits to full-blown severe autism. Likewise, the continuance of these news media outlets, supposing to be bastions of freedom and liberty selling commercial air time to such controversial entities as Planned Parenthood, the preborn human extermination company.

Roughly ten years ago I obtained and installed my first copy of Red Hat Fedora Linux. It was during that same time-frame that I officially became a Libertarian. Since then I have read many opinion pieces comparing Linux to both Libertarianism and Communism. In a way, I think it is both. First lets consider the origins of Linux. Back in the early 1980s a long-time Unix programmer named Richard Stallman left MIT and began the GNU project and later the Free Software Foundation. He and his team began compiling (pun intended) the various software components of an operating system. The impetus behind their work was the belief that software source code should be freely available to all users so that they may make alterations to suit their specific needs. These changes would then be freely published so that others could benefit and possibly further refine the system. In the early 1990s, a Finnish graduate student named Linus Torvalds decided that he wanted to program a Unix/Minix like operating system for his Intel based 386 IBM PC. Data was created by Essay Writers!

By this time, the aforementioned GNU project had assembled many of the components necessary, however, they were still lacking a working kernel. Torvalds set about this programing task. He plopped his kernel in the midst of the GNU components, and voila. Since then, both Stallman and Torvalds have remained active in the development community as many, many others have joined as well. Today, we have many different distributions (i.e. flavors) of Linux from which to choose. Distributions that run on everything from personal computers and servers, to cellphones, routers and just about everything in between. On top of Linux has sprouted hundreds of software projects aimed at providing applications to users that follow these same principles. FOSS, or Free & Open Source Software is the acronym used to describe this model of development and distribution. So what revelations regarding Libertarianism and Communism can be gleaned from the examination of the Linux community?

Before we can proceed with that analysis, there is one entrenched political teaching of which we must dispose. This is the notion that the political spectrum is a straight line with reactionary fascism on the right and radical communism on the left. Using this school of thought, there should be dramatic differences between the likes of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. However, I think most people would agree that the two were essentially totalitarian dictators that tended to have more in common than not. If the traditional left/right spectrum is a flawed, then what is a better representation? I think a circle is better suited to political analysis. The top of the circle being a state of highly decentralized government and the bottom being one of highly centralized government. The very top of the circle is the embodiment of what people like Thomas Jefferson envisioned for the United States. Like a circus elephant balancing itself on top of a giant ball, this approach takes great individual effort keep from losing ones balance and falling off, or in this case, sliding down to the bottom. The trip to the bottom of the circle is easy.

There will always be people looking to grab your rights and property in exchange for the security or service they are offering. It doesnt matter if these people are from the right or left or whether theyre Communist, Fascist or Socialist. visit here is always the same. Residence at the bottom of the circle under a highly centralized, oppressive totalitarian regime. Now as we consider the nature of Linux, I think it is fairly easy to see that it is a highly decentralized approach to a common goal. But how can it have communist tendencies at the same time? I found the answer in a statement made by Walter Block of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Dr. Block recalled meeting a young lady who proudly announced to him that she was a Socialist. He responded to her statement with a simple question. “Are you a coercive or voluntary socialist?

Freedom is a constant theme throughout American history. The country was founded on this theme and continues to define the ideas of freedom today. The American government is based off this theme. It was a debate and issue of conflict among the settlers, Colonies, slaves, and within the Union. However, many early Americans did not share the same vision of freedom. African slaves had a different vision of freedom that was literal. They sought relief from the life of bondage. The Europeans that settled and colonized in America defined freedom much differently. Their concept of freedom included religious freedom, economic freedom, and independence. Although their ideas differ, early Americans defined the new world constructed on their concept of freedom. When Columbus began his journey, he wanted to explore the world to bring Christianity to foreign lands and cultures. This can be observed in his biography when describing his challenge to find a financial investor.

However, this can also be observed in the writings of his diary when he landed on the shores of the Caribbean and thought he found India. When he meets the indigenous people of the island he calls them, “good servants and ready Christians”, (Columbus 1492). Columbus wanted to introduce Christianity to a free world. Although he did not land in America, his journey made a significant impact on what would become known as the United States of America. Columbus “discovery” helped to find a new nation based on freedom and liberty. check here joined the Colonies to avoid religious persecution. This can be observed in the Puritans of New England. Puritans were former members of the Anglican Church of England. However, when groups wanted to separate from the Church, the English sought to imprison them. As a result, many joined the Colonies. Other separate groups include the Quakers. The Puritans were the first religious sect to join the colonies besides Anglicans. They came to the Colonies to avoid religious persecution therefore their vision of freedom was based on religious freedom.

This post has been written with Essay Freelance Writersversion.

The Puritans and others sought freedom to practice their religion. This can be observed in the ordinances of the Mayflower Compact of 1620. “Having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern parts of Virginia”, (Mayflower Compact, 1620). As a result, many earlier settles found themselves in the New World for the freedom of religion. A century later, the concept of freedom changed for some Americans. Their concept of freedom was based off ideas of independence. During the 1700’s there were tensions Colonialist and King Georgia III. The British monarchy was in debt from war and trade and began to tax the Colonist. While some Colonist thought the tax unfair, others pushed for democracy by representation in the English Parliament. These disagreements changed the concept of freedom for Colonist. They associated the New World with independence and freedom.

Many left England for America to remove themselves from the rule of the English government. Colonists were independent. They developed trade, commerce, and a new society. They followed the rules of law established within their Colony and not the English government. This relationship between freedom and independence can be observed in the events of the Boston Tea Party and in the words of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine authored the political pamphlet “Common Sense”. The article was popular throughout the Colonies and in England that expressed the concepts of freedom and independence. Paine declares himself independent from English rule promoting sovereignty and a balanced government. Before the turn of the 19th century, America exercised their freedom and officially established the United States. The relationship between independence and freedom can be observed in government documents including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution states government is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity”, (US Constitution, 1788). This directly express government concerns with individual freedom and the liberty to self-govern. The Declaration of Independence states that Americans have “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

When you hear the beautiful word America what do you think of? Well I no what I think of the freedom to choose. Today we can choose pretty much whatever we want I think that’s one of the many great things about America. One choice I being able to choose my occupation. Another choice I have is the freedom of voting. Both to me major things in are life’s. There are thousands of different occupations in America if you want to be an astronaut, you can be. If you want to be a gas station attendant, you can be. That’s just one of the great things I love about America. Another thing I love about America is that if you don’t enjoy that job you can change professions. freedom essay can also start making a living for your self at any age your ready. You can also work for whoever you want too. The freedom to vote I think is one of the greatest things about America. I also think voting is very important to your community and country. You choose who runs the government local and in are country. I will first be able to participate in a presidential election in 2012 and I am counting down the days till then. Data was created by https://essayfreelancewriters.com.

Why should American conservatives care about the moral character of the culture? What does it matter if Americans are becoming less attached to religion, family, and community? Conservatism is a political movement, and it might not be immediately clear that these cultural trends are of political interest. American conservatism takes its bearings from the principles of the American founding, the cornerstone of which is the idea of natural rights. Governments are instituted, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, to protect the rights of individuals to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The freedom of the individual would therefore appear to be the aim of the American project. From this point of view, it might seem that conservatives should not concern themselves with the moral character of American culture. After all, the Declaration of Independence does not say that it is a primary task of government to foster a particular kind of culture. Rather, the government should guarantee the security of individual rights and individual liberty, the exercise of which presumably will generate whatever kind of culture is consistent with the desires of most Americans.

It might appear that from the standpoint of the founding, by which conservatives are supposed to be guided, the moral character of our culture is not a political concern. This view, though perhaps understandable, is nevertheless mistaken. Both the Founders and the most insightful analysts of the kind of government the Founders created have understood well that the preservation of the regime of individual rights requires a healthy moral culture. Religion, the family, and the spirit of private, voluntary association are essential to fostering the virtues of character that alone can sustain a free government dedicated to the protection of the rights of individuals. The Founders were firm believers in individual rights and individual freedom, but they were not naively optimistic about human nature. They knew that human beings are very much prone to violate each other’s rights. They believed — following John Locke, the great English philosopher of natural rights — that this is why governments were established in the first place. The Founders, in other words, did not believe that the spontaneous exercise of man’s freedom would necessarily lead to good outcomes. The invisible hand may govern markets, but it does not oversee the political community. This data has been created with the help of Essay Writers!

Some discipline is required, and governments are instituted to provide that discipline so that the exercise of each person’s freedom is compatible with the rights of others. Government alone, however, is not a sufficient solution to this problem. If selfish individuals in the absence of government will use their individual power to violate the rights of others, it is also quite possible that selfish individuals within civil society will use the power of government to commit the same violations. What is needed in addition, therefore, is a strong moral culture that teaches each citizen the importance of the dignity and rights of his fellow citizens. Religion, the Founders believed, was a key support for such a moral culture. In this, again, they followed Locke, who treated religion not as a matter of indifference to the regime of natural rights but instead as an essential support for it. Locke taught in his famous Second Treatise of Civil Government that the very idea of natural rights depended on the understanding that each human being is created by God.

Accordingly, the leading American Founders emphasized the importance of religion as a support for the natural rights regime. Similarly, in his Farewell Address, George Washington instructed his fellow citizens that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to “political prosperity.” Like Jefferson, Washington linked the religiosity of the citizens to the ability of the government to protect the rights of all: “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? The Founders also believed that the family was essential to sustaining the regime that protects our rights. Thus, James Wilson — one of the greatest legal minds among the Founders — wrote in his Lectures on Law that “reason,” “history,” and “holy writ” all teach that “marriage” is “the true origin of society.” Marriage, he continued, was, more than any other institution, the source of the “peace and harmony” that mankind has enjoyed.

Freedom is an extremely important aspect of American culture, history, and identity. The European settlers that sailed to what would later become the United States of America, came for key reasons, one of which was freedom of religion. The concept of freedom was in one way very important to the people of the United States. Certainly, the concept of freedom in America is fraught with conflict, tension, and paradox. It is common knowledge that the freedoms of one particular group of Americans was increased with the elimination of the freedoms of other groups in the United States. While white males enjoyed the most freedoms, and declared to have build a country heavily predicated on guaranteed freedoms, the freedoms of women, enslaved Africans, and the indigenous tribes of natives who lived in the country for thousands of years did not have many freedoms relative to theirs. As American history persisted, a great deal of the most significant moments stem from the struggle of certain groups for certain freedoms. Though all groups of Americans were not granted or guaranteed rights and freedoms, many Americans have participated in the struggle for freedoms. Content has been created with Essay Writers!

Thus, if freedom in society essay who consider themselves Americans do not have the same rights as other Americans, what all Americans have in common is the freedom to fight for additional freedoms that they feel they justifiably need and deserve. The paper will consider how the idea of freedom in America has changed over the course of American history. There is something fundamentally debatable about the concept of freedom as such. What people consider necessary freedoms change over time in some cases. The contexts within which people struggle for and deny freedoms are just as important as the freedoms themselves. Freedom is a complex topic, so complex that it serves as a good example of what philosophers call an essentially contested concept. Particularly because freedom is something we value so highly, there is constant debate over exactly what the word means. These disputes are often politically charged, and they are not likely ever to be completely resolved.

Nor is it possible to ignore the political and historical context in which ideas of freedom developed. 0: Democracy Web -- Comparative Studies in Freedom. 2012. The Idea of Freedom. Freedom is not a new idea and neither is the debate over what it means as well as who gets it. Freedom in America is often associated with politics. Americans enjoy debating their politics as much as they enjoy their freedoms. To threaten the freedom of an American is a very serious gesture, as freedom is directly associated with democracy, and America proclaims to be the greatest example of democracy in existence. When we speak of freedom, we speak of restrictions and limitations indirectly. Thus, since freedom is such a significant topic in American culture, the inequities in areas such as class, education, and ethnicity are implied in the examination in the changes in the idea of American freedom. Democracy Web mentions other topics that are essential to freedom such as constitutionalism, knowing that the United States Constitution is one of the most important documents in United States history which details and specifically outlines the rights and freedoms of American citizens.

Freedom, or more accurately, liberty is an idea that has become inextricably linked to any discussion of American ideas. However, the idea of liberty as a political end in and of itself is a byproduct of the European Enlightenment. When Thomas Jefferson referred to the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness laid out so breathtakingly in the Declaration of Independence, he was embellishing on the philosophy of Englishman John Locke. The very foundations of America are intensely connected to freedom, specifically with regards to freedom of choice, freedom of ownership, and freedom for self-defense. 1: XND Magazine. 2012. American Freedom -- the idea. Early Americans desired the freedom to own property, whether it was land, people, animals, objects, or otherwise. Early Americans additionally valued the freedom to bear arms, which in the 21st century is a highly contested issue. This is what the paper referred to earlier with respect to the definition of freedom and the context in which freedom is fought for or denied.