Secfree: A Biggest Lie

I have found it most curious to observe the nearly universal acceptance of one of the most poisonous of the tacit assumptions upon which humans operate.  It is that of the false dichotomy of security and freedom.  I will henceforth refer to this as the "Secfree" fallacy, an ultimate lie that says one must choose between freedom and security.  Secfree has enabled tyrants of every stripe to cow vast populations into accepting their caprice.  Continuing as standard practice even today, few if any of the other tools in the tyrant's bag of tricks can boast of what appears to be a nearly perfect record of success, playing on the mid-brain fear of the individual that if they do not waive just a "smidge" of their freedoms, the boogieman is going to get them and do terrible, unspeakable things.

Secfree may in fact be the ultimate zero-sum belief.

However, as with so many other fallacies and outright lies, once exposed to the withering light of anything better than the most carelessly casual examination, the true nature of Secfree comes into sharp focus.

One of the bases upon which Secfree's success is founded is the deeply tacit assumption that there exists such a thing as a guaranty of security.  As with so many other things in life, security is a purely statistical creature, which is to say that it is a game of numbers; of probabilities; likelihoods that some event will happen, or not.  Anyone coming to another with smiles, offered handshakes, and promises of safety is either dangerously ignorant of the fundamental nature of life, psychotic as a pineapple, or is selling a bill of goods.  Most often, my vote is for the latter.

Because of this nature, security can only be offered as a probability measure.  A great and all-powerful "state" can do nothing to protect you when a twenty-mile long asteroid is bearing down upon one's head at ten miles per second.  In such a circumstance, you and likely everyone you know is doomed.  The same is true of far more mundane threats such as the sick and desperate junkie who is going to have your wallet, no matter what.  Hellbent and deciding he will brook no resistance, such a man poses a threat against which no "state" or agent thereof may offer guaranty.

The old saw that says "feces happens" is perennially true.  Nobody is able to guarantee anyone security, and yet there are those who are always willing to make the promise in any case.  It should be borne in mind that regardless of the conscious reasons for making such promises, fair or foul, at the unconscious level there is always to be found the nut for he who does the promising: power over his fellows, willingly given.

Once the trick that is the exchange of freedom for a vaporous lie is discovered, recognized, accepted as real, and its nature understood, it quickly becomes clear that the one thing all Secfree peddlers seek, whether they are aware or will otherwise admit,  is the power that the exchange brings to their pockets.  It is human relations played as a strict zero-sum where "heads I win; tails you lose."

The other end of the exchange is easily understood for what it is: people want what they want, and are most often willing to sell their souls in order to have it no matter how absurd, self-defeating, and destructive the choice to procure may prove, even prima facie, often raining those results down upon those around them as well.  The average man, what we may call the "Meaner", is sufficiently corrupted with fear and avarice that he will readily find a way to rationalize the destruction of his fellows for the sake of getting what he wants, in this case his hallowed security.  The list of excuses people offer themselves to justify and excuse the ghastly things they allow to be done in their names is depressingly long, shameful, and utterly devoid of validity.   The Meaner will often go so far as to decide that those who suffered for his choices probably deserved it anyway.  Some humans.

Secfree results in the willful handing over of one's sacred birthright in exchange for the privilege of being able to lie to oneself that they are now safe.  It is perhaps the most hideous absurdity of them all, no different in effect to taking one's life-savings in cash and setting to it gasoline and a lit match.

The deep irony there is this: freedom is the condition of human existence that offers the best numbers in the game of chance that we call "security".  It may seem counter intuitive to a great many people, but once again the most meager effort to honestly dope out the logic chain demonstrates how it is true.  A single, simple example, should provide most with enough on which to go such that they are able to continue asking the right questions.

For the sake of "security", the Secfree peddlers constantly spew the bait that we must eliminate guns because no civil society needs or wants them, and that if you give up your firearms, you will become safe.  This, of course, is a bald-faced lie of pure brass.  History has proven without any wiggle room for argument that no matter how strictly anything may be prohibited, no matter how draconian the punishments for non-compliance, there will always be those who can and will violate the prohibition, sometimes with nefarious intent.  Subscribers to Secfree most often come to the defense of gun prohibition with the absurdly false argument that we don't need guns because police will see to our defense.  In ever increasing measure, it is police who pose the greatest and most ubiquitous threats to our safety.  Such irony.

Imagine the mugger, knife in hand, threatens your life if you do not give him the wallet.  Sure, you could hand it over and count on his promise that he won't kill the only witness to his high crime, but do you really want to place the trust of your life, your First Property, into the hands of one willing to rob you in this manner?  Will covertly dialing the police via E911 result in your deliverance from danger and back into the bosom of your beloved safety?  As an old saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."  On average, the best guarantor of one's safety is himself because third party defenders rarely appear out of thin-air and, when push comes to shove, may decide not to fight on your behalf because they, too, want to go home to their families at night.

Now consider the free society where men are at their leisure to arm themselves in anticipation of the unanticipated.  When the mugger announces himself, you are free to hand it over if that is what you wish, perhaps even trusting your assailant will leave you in peace in your belief that a wallet and its contents are not worth killing someone.  Or you may produce your weapon, leaving you the options of holding the criminal at bay either until police arrive, or you can affect your escape.  Finally, in the case where Mr. Mugger decides to go for broke, you have at least the outside chance of shooting him down pursuant to the preservation of the life to which you hold just and valid title.  It is clear that your menu of choice is far and away better when you are free, versus being subjugated under the rubric of Secfree.

Freedom provides a far greater options to everyone, with the recognition that in life nothing is guaranteed, most especially safety from harm.  But reasonable assurances can be validly made in that respect, once again with freedom providing the greatest allowances for choice such that each individual may provide for himself as his abilities and valid means may enable him, and his predilections enjoin.  One man chooses the gun, while another may decide upon a bodyguard, while others are free to remain content to ignore such issues altogether, confident that no evil shall ever befall them.

Freedom is not the mutually exclusive antagonist of security: it is security's greatest hope for realization.

It is my hope that people will consider what I have written here with an open mind, suspending both disbelief and hard feelings, as well as any apprehensions they may experience at the thought of being responsible for their own safety and security in what I believe we can all agree is a world where "authorities" are powerless to render aid to those in need.  Do yourselves a great favor and take the plunge in a place of comfort such that you feel able to venture beyond your deeply held assumptions about such matters, and take a walk on the wild side.

My promise to you is that you can only benefit from this, regardless of outcome.  And if perchance you feel the uncomfortable tingling that new truths often bring to the fringes of one's awareness, be brave and press onward, and deeply into it.  Explore it as fully as you are able, no matter how scary or otherwise objectionable you may find it because I further promise that if you do this, you may come to a life altering moment because the more deeply and stridently one feels that objection, the more likely it becomes that the truth engendered there is important, the change to which most often results in healthy transformation.  Always consider the possibility that in the end you may become a better and greater human being for it.  At worst, you have confirmed your presently held beliefs and may at least then speak on such matters with better authority.

As always, please accept my best wishes.