Watching the news it becomes obvious that the subject of inclusiveness has become a political football; different factions vying for the right to define it.
Both major political parties are competing for the title of being the most inclusive.
Unfortunately for my fellow citizens, and depending on whether you see a glass as half-empty or half-full, both parties are either doing a fine job of achieving the politically correct form of the term, or failing with equal excellence if one actually understands English and the proper meaning of inclusiveness.
Definition of Inclusiveness
Dictionary.com defines the term as, “including the stated limit; including everything concerned.”
The definition includes a limit; everything within and everything concerned. Being inclusive requires boundaries or it is a useless concept.
Related Searches
The miracle of search engines offers these major searches common to the term ‘inclusiveness’ on Dictionary.com:
- Diversity – synonymous with ‘miscellaneous’
- Liberalism – synonymous with ‘indulgent or broad’
- Integrity – synonymous with ‘unity’
That a significant number of our citizens believe these three concepts to be synonymous with ‘inclusiveness’ is a problem. Here are the definitions for each; you be the judge.
- Diversity: the state or fact of being different; unlikeness
- Liberalism: philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual
- Integrity: adherence to principles; state of being whole or undimished
Only one of these terms actually lends itself well when you consider the definition of inclusiveness, and that is ‘integrity’. Diversity concentrates on what is different, inclusiveness on what is alike. Limitless liberalism is closer to anarchy than connectedness.
My freedom ends…
From an early age my mother taught me that, “My freedom ends where yours begins.” This is a lesson in getting along with each other. Taken to its extreme, one who has total liberal freedom may murder at random thus taking away all freedom of even life itself from his or her victims. Any expansion of one individual’s freedom will cause an equal contraction of the freedom of another.
The concept of society is that of distinguishing where the margins of my freedom and yours intersect. A nation of laws then establishes statutes so each citizen enjoys the greatest possible individual freedom while protecting the freedoms of his neighbor. The topic of freedom of speech also requires societies to determine where the margins of personal freedom should be.
Tolerance or Hypocrisy?
Tolerance is similar to inclusiveness in that it requires establishing limits in order to be meaningful. Inclusive of what? Tolerant of what? To include everything or tolerate everything defines anarchy. There is no order, no guaranteed freedoms, and no society.
Being tolerant only to the extent that you require others to allow you to exercise your freedom without limits is hardly an example of being tolerant; it is an illustration of hypocrisy. Taking away my freedom so that you may enjoy yours is not tolerance. Margins and limits must be established.
Labels and Faces
Quit looking at the labels and faces of social and political debate; they lie. *** Instead look at the impact on freedoms. Our government is charged with providing for the common good. Not everyone will agree on what the common good is, but recognize the consequences of social and legislative changes before you stand up for them.
Action and Reaction
In physics we learn that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The same is true of freedom.
Imagine a bucket filled to the brim of water. The bucket represents freedom. If you want more freedom you add more water. By adding more of your water you cause other water to flow out over the top of the bucket where it will be lost.
Inclusiveness isn’t limitless. Freedom isn’t limitless. It is not possible to provide everything to everybody. This isn’t a political opinion, it’s just a simple fact.
Limit Freedom?
Only by establishing limits on freedom will we retain the freedoms we presently enjoy. It doesn’t matter to me which political party you affiliate with, I’m just trying to help folks visualize the issues we face realistically.
I’m a horse trainer. One of my jobs is to help horse owners understand how horses think so they can be more effective in creating great relationships with them. If an owner thinks a horse should be other than what it is they will always be in conflict with their horse. A horse will always be a horse.
Societies of humans have already experimented with every possible ideology. Search history, including the Bible, and you will discover that just as horses have not changed, neither has mankind.
Every freedom you enjoy will by both practice and definition limit the freedom of someone else. Choose your representatives wisely and remember to look at how each proposed change will affect all our freedoms.
*** This is a blackberry, not a rose.

















-LYNN'S NEW BOOK: CLICK FOR INFO, READ EXCERPTS, ORDER ONLINE!
Click for information