Arg, I hate that phrase. It may cost you something to protect your freedom from those who would take it, but the freedom itself does not have any inherent cost. Secondly, I hear that phrase being used to justify all sorts of things that I consider to be impinging on my freedom rather than increasing it, such as using my tax dollars to wage wars against countries that are not actually threatening my freedom at all.
I believe everyone has taken my comment the wrong way. When I say Freedom isn't free I absolutely do not mean we have to give up our rights to remain free. I mean we have to fight for our right to remain free!
I was just today thinking about how so many sayings, like a few bad apples, reverse their meaning in a generation or few. References don't survive and witticisms are taken out of context.
It may cost you something to protect your freedom from
those who would take it, but the freedom itself does not
have any inherent cost.
Since there are always those that would take it, that is an inherent cost.
Secondly, I hear that phrase being used
How the phrase is being used is independent of how your parent intends it. Let's be positive and assume he meant exactly what your first point implies: that even independent from international politics, you have to invest time and money to retain your freedoms.
