The "State"

Today's entry shall focus upon “the state”.  But as has been the habit thus far, let us first consult the dictionary for the relevant definitions of the term.  These from a contemporary online source:  

            state: - noun

1.  a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

2.  (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.

3.  the body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church).

And perhaps more significantly, from the Samuel Johnson dictionary of 1785:

8. Civil power, not ecclesiastical

9. A republick ; a government not monarchical.

"They feared nothing from a state so narrow in compass of land, and so weak, that the strength of their armies has ever been made up of foreign troops.C

16. The principal persons in the government

17. Joined with another word, it signifies publick.

a."I am no courtier, nor versed in state affairs: my life hath rather been contemplative than active" - Bacon

b."Council! What’s that?  A pack of bearded slaves, the scavengers that sweep state nuisances and are the greatest."

c."I am accused of reflecting upon great states-folks." - Swift

For completeness sake, let us include definitions of “republick” and “publick” from the same 1785 dictionary:

Republick - noun

1.      Commonwealth.  State in which the power is lodged in more than one.

2.      Common interest; the publick.

Publick – noun

1.The general body of mankind or of a state or nation; the people.

Notice that in every definition the term “state” refers to either an abstract concept or to individual people.  In not a single case does “state” refer to anything that stands on its own or with a reality apart from that of individual human beings.  As we shall see, this point holds a singular and central significance regarding the truth about “the state” and should be understood and borne in mind by all people interested in freedom and individual liberty.

Given the preceding definitions, it shall be the goal to demonstrate that current notions of “the state,” as commonly held by people and employed by those wielding political power, is a pure, yet very dangerous fiction that has been foisted upon the people and has served mainly to diminish individual freedom and the prosperity of the individual, his communities, and the nation as a whole.  No doubt some readers will already be looking askance at the very notion of labeling “the state” in such a manner, but as Voltaire once observed:

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

It may have served better to use the term “the ignorant” in place of “fools”, but delicacy was not always Voltaire's strong suit,.  In any event, if one is to accept a condition of existence imposed upon them by others whose moral authority to do so is questionable or absent, it should at least be done with a proper recognition of that which is being accepted, why, what the results are, and by whom or what it is being asked, or more likely, imposed.

There is also the quote attributed to Frederic Bastiat, who keenly observed:

            “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”

Such sage observations, once substantially common opinion, have largely fallen away from the awareness of the great body of those we call “the people”.  We shall come to see why in short order.

Freedom and servitude are not the same things; they are in fact diametric opposites and should never be confused.  This is where Voltaire's acerbically couched observation reveals one of the saddest truths about human behavior: people will often accept a “dog” as a “fish” and deadly poison as vital sustenance at the command of any perceived authority for the sake of fooling themselves into believing something which, were they not to accept it, would by reason dictate their refusal.  Rebellion against even the most absurd demands of “the state” is generally regarded as too frightening or inconvenient to undertake.  The attendant conflict of conscience is usually too much for individuals to tolerate, causing them to respond by receding into various states of self imposed deception, which serve as lubricants and cushions, enabling them to accept that which would otherwise be clearly unacceptable, were truth and reason allowed to run their course.

Cowardice and lassitude are not, however, the sole causes for accepting a situation that might otherwise be resisted.  Good old fashioned ignorance, often instituted through the instrument of misinformation and miseducation, is perhaps the most common basis.  It can hardly be claimed that the American people are mainly cowards or lazy.  Quite the contrary, they are on the whole very courageous and industrious people, as well as warm, kind, friendly, and generous; all these almost to a fault in many cases.  And yet, most Americans live in a state of servile bondage imposed upon them by “the state”.  Not only do these people accept such artificially imposed circumstance, many of them revere it, to use Voltaire's characterization, and would defend those who have imposed it upon them even unto their own destruction to preserve that to which they have acceded and to which huge emotional and psychological investments have often been made.

When considered from a distance, such seemingly absurd behavior quickly leads one to ask, “why?”  Why would an individual or population, any individual or population, accept conditions imposed upon them that were in any way detrimental to their own welfare, happiness, and general quality of life by their peers?  One answer, as noted in the previous paragraph, is cowardice and lassitude, but as stated above, the more common cause is ignorance or miseducation, often the product of intentional acts of deception by those in whose interest it stands to ensure a compliant populace.  If one does not know that their water is laced with poison, what reason do they have not to drink it down eagerly when they thirst?

This leads the honest man to the need for a close and careful examination of the causes of such misapprehensions of truth, which are great in number and would require many large volumes to address sufficiently.  The purpose here, however, is to focus on one of the centrally significant instruments of misinformation used by the culprits who would ultimately see to the subjugation of every human being on the planet while labeling it far less unattractively.

In order to set the scene properly, we must first make explicit a tidbit of truth that many people sense only tacitly:

The interests of those exercising political power are most often in conflict with those over whom the power is exercised.

Such conflicts are not always diametric.  The interests in question, in fact, most often lay at some minimally opposing angle to each other such that the collision between them is perceived by the governed as insufficiently significant to warrant exerting effort against it save, perhaps, some initial complaining, after which the point is usually ceded to the governors.  This is most carefully orchestrated so as not to arouse the strong and possibly violent dissent of the governed.  At the very least, in America it is arranged and executed in order to best guarantee reelection to office for as many cycles as possible.

Equally significant, such action is not necessarily the product of deep, dark conspiracies where the explicit intention is to subjugate and destroy.  Rather, it is most likely the product of those well-intentioned people who are so steadfast in their certainty that what they know is best for all, that they are therefore morally authorized to force their designs of universal salvation, order, and progress upon the people, usually exempting themselves at the same time.  Furthermore, they do so with the material ability at their disposal, as well as the willingness to destroy those who pose credible opposition to them.

Bearing in mind this conflict of interest between those governing and the governed, the demand and expectation that people do as the rulers command, no matter how absurd, comes under some scrutiny particularly when labels such as “governor” and “governed” are used, which connote no inherent differences between the classes, save arbitrarily defined relative positioning that connotes no inherent authority of the one over the other.  Even relatively uninterested people understand that “governors” are human beings just as they are, sensing no inherent station of superior moral authority.  Average people understand that there is no well-reasoned basis for one standing above another with regard to the authority to command people, especially where violations of the latter's civil rights are in question.  This truth poses very real practical problems to those who wish to rule without the inconveniences of notions such as equality, civil rights, due process, and limitations on their power.  Such problems require eminently practical solutions and the ruling elite have devised one that, as we shall soon see, works fabulously well for them.

In ages past, the solution to the highly inconvenient notion of individual “equality” (a staple concept in tribal life, by the way) was to sell the masses on the notion of a “divine” ruler.  The notion of the divinity of a human as separate and superior to all others incorporates as part of its very fabric the idea that such an individual is inherently superior to the others and thereby entitled to what practically amounts to unlimited authority.  Such individuals were magically endowed with characteristics above and beyond that of all other men so as to confer to themselves superior rights, and thereby the absolute and unquestionable authority to command and dispose.

This concept worked well enough for thousands of years whereby the lives of countless individuals were corralled and most often delivered into the hands of misery and destruction in accord with the whims of a select few.  History abundantly illustrates that the stewardship of the interests of the governed has most often been carried forward in eminently questionable fashion, judging by the overwhelming body of examples of the caprice and crimes of small numbers of people whose tenures as “divine” rulers produced, as a rule, endless bloodshed, poverty, suffering, and general misery for those over whom they exercised power.

A major hitch for the ruling classes came with the Renaissance, which may be argued to have inevitably led to the “discovery” of the scientific method, which in turn paved the way for technological advances in thought, method, and material, which further began to expose the “divine right of kings” for the utter fraud that it is.  Later, the “Enlightenment” saw quantum advances in human thought, further exposing the fraud of divine rule under which countless people had suffered and ignominiously perished for thousands of years.

Initially, rulers attempted to retain their deep investment in the institutions of divine rule through threats and applications of force in the face of the ironclad results of proper science, but in time it became clear that the tide was turning away from their favor and the futility of their efforts became apparent.  The rulers slowly began to realize that another approach was required if their hegemony was to be preserved.  To what better solution could they have arrived than to co-opt the very science that threatened their positions, and make it work for them, rather than against?  This is precisely what was done and one of the single greatest advances in despotic rule came as the result of this adaptive shift: the concept of “the state”.

Though morally neutral in character, the notion of “the state” lends itself at least equally well to the establishment and maintenance of tyranny, as it does to free living.  The neutrality of the concept, having been altered in a subtle and fundamental way, enabled it to be used so as to most fully serve the purposes of despotic rule.  This key shift came when the concept was (largely tacitly) imbued with the characteristic of a material reality of its own.  One may have to think about that awhile and with some care before its significance becomes apparent.  The truth about “the state” is that it exists in one place and manner only, as a concept within the confines of the human brain.  That is it.  There is absolutely no other reality to its existence. 

One may be tempted to protest, pointing to a city such as Washington DC and proclaim that “the state” holds abundant material reality.  Yet those people would be sadly and gravely mistaken in that they misidentify buildings, equipment, badges, titles, and words written on paper, etc. as “the state” rather than as nothing more than a collection of material items, ideas, and agreements gathered together and employed as instruments for the purposes of discharging certain functions of governance.

“What is the difference?” one may ask.  The difference is fundamental because in accepting an implicit, unsubstantiated assertion of the material reality of “the state”, one then positions themselves only a tiny fraction of a step away from accepting other equally false and even more absurd and dangerous characteristics as part and parcel of it.  For example, people speak of “states' rights” as if “the state” were an individual imbued by birth with civil rights.  “States” are ideas with no inherent material reality.  How can an idea have rights?  It would be sooner acceptable that one's kitchen sink had rights, for at least one can reach out and touch it.  Yet people have been taught to accept the insubstantial reality of “the state”, albeit tacitly, as a living entity possessing not only a material existence separate and apart from the people, but also opinions, feelings, interests, plans, possessions, and most significantly, rights just as do individual human beings.  But who can touch “the state”?  Upon what can a man lay his hands and say “this is the state” and not be in absolute, wholesale error?

To anyone in disagreement, the challenge may be made: demonstrate the absolute material reality of “the state” such that it is placed before the world for all behold and lay hands upon.  Demonstrate the existence of “the state” as separate and apart from the people whose very existences convey that of “the state” to succeeding generations.  Demonstrate the seat of the so-called “interests, desires, and the rights of “the state”.  Demonstrate where “the state” exists unto itself apart from the existence of the very individuals who make up “the people”.  Is it not the apex of irony that those whose very existence lends “the state” its only claim to exist are the ones against whom its power and authority are turned to the erosion and destruction of their rights, freedoms, prosperity and even their lives?  Anyone demonstrating a separate and standalone reality of “the state” will be the first to have done so in the history of humankind.                                                                                              

If reason and truth have thus far failed to convince, then try a thought experiment where one waves his magic wand and for some period of time, perhaps 1day, every human being on the planet, save the waver, disappears as if they had never existed.  Where, then, shall he find “the state”?  Nowhere.  Why?  Because “the state” never existed in the first place, save as an idea that provided the conceptual framework upon which a set of behavioral conventions was hung, and according to which people would comport themselves pursuant to notions deemed beneficial to each and every individual living under its duly constituted authority.  And be clear that such granted power and authority can only be considered as “duly constituted” whenever it serves every individual citizen equally and only while fully respecting and demurring to their inherent rights.

In a free society, the set of conventions we call “the state” is granted but the smallest handful of narrowly specified powers pursuant to the legitimate roles they are to fulfill in service to all the citizens.  Those roles of universal benefit to the people include the guarantee and enforcement of respect for individual civil rights[i] the administration of justice, the promotion of the general welfare[ii], the common defense, and the enforcement of contracts.  Beyond this small set there is precious little else that could be offered in the way of “services” that would in fact serve every citizen or to which anyone could reasonably claim entitlement.  Therefore, one is by virtue of their inborn rights and the attendant status as an equal with their fellow citizens, entitled to have their rights guaranteed and protected by one means or another.  We have chosen law and a duly constituted authority of “the state” to so guarantee and protect those rights.  One is not, however, entitled to having “the state” provide them with a yacht, should the citizen desire one.  The citizen is, however, entitled to acquire that yacht as the legitimate application of his talents and abilities will allow, without interference from any third party.  Our nation is rife with interference by “the state” in the private affairs of the citizens and it must be stopped if our freedoms mean anything to us.

Let it be understood that nearly all “state” enforcement power ultimately boils down to the ability to take the lives of citizens with impunity.  This fact cannot be overstated and it should be considered carefully until it is fully understood.  For those not seeing it, consider any trivial situation where an individual wholly refuses to cooperate with the state.  The example of a parking ticket may prove illuminating.  A citizen is issued a parking ticket, which he refuses to pay for some reason.  Eventually a bench warrant is issued and he is arrested during a traffic stop.  The citizen’s continued refusal to “cooperate” will ultimately result in the application of physical force.  Further refusal will see an escalation in violence that, if continued, ultimately results in the death of the citizen.  Death for a parking ticket?  That is the universal logical conclusion underlying the position of the authority of “the state”, and in no case will that citizen's death have been about the parking ticket, which is an incidental triviality.  The citizen will have been murdered by a "government" goon squad under the imprimatur of "the state" because he refused to obey even the most trivial command.  The message there is clear: thou shalt not disobey the state lest thy destruction be visited upon thee.

In the 1936 science fiction classic “Things To Come”, the character known as “The Boss” openly reveals the fraudulent, corrupt, and violent sham-nature of “the state” as commonly practiced around the world.  When pressing Dr. Harding after his refusal to cooperate in the manufacture of fuel and poison gas for the “air force”, The Boss lays it out on the table most unequivocally when he says:

        “The Combatant State is your father and your mother, your only protector, the totality of your interests. No discipline can be stern enough for the man who denies that by word or deed.”

Later in the same scene he declares:

        “You are conscripted. You are under my orders now and under no others in the world. I am the master here! I am the State.”

--> In another exchange, this time with the protagonist, John Cabal, The Boss asks:

“What Government are you under?”

To which  Cabal responds:

“Common sense. Call us Airmen if you like. We just run ourselves.”

That last bit about “just run[ing] ourselves” is the single greatest affront and outrage any man could commit in the eyes of “the state”, for it suggests the position of central importance they occupy may be something less than people believe it to be.  That, of course, cannot be tolerated in any way or measure, necessitating that the notion and all others even remotely like it be eliminated from the thoughts of the people such that in their minds they constitute cardinal sacrilege and heresy.  The one thing above all others of which the state must convince everyone is that without it, they are lost.

And so we see the truth about “the state” as commonly practiced - the grandest shell game ever contrived and set into motion - that it is nothing more than an individual or mob acting under the charade of a mere word, whose purported authority renders them immune from accountability for their actions regardless of whether they are moral or corrupt, and whose envelope of powers is almost universally expandable to allow for the wholesale violation of human rights.  The only reason this turns out to be the case is because enough people buy into the lie of the material “state”, possessing morally superior authority over its very creators.  Those who give life to “the state”on the presumption that it will serve their best interests at all times consent to its operation even when it involves their own destruction, that of their progeny, and of posterity in general.   There is absolutely no reasoned justification that any “state” should be empowered to rob, beat, imprison, persecute, murder, or otherwise violate the rights of “its” citizens.  There is no rational basis for the agents of such crimes not to be held accountable as criminals, whether those who issued the orders, or those who participated in their execution.

Yet, so many people either believe that the crimes of “the state” are morally acceptable and  necessary expedients to some “greater good”, or simply unavoidable.  Such belief can only be characterized as the apex of folly and insanity, as well as intellectual dishonesty and lassitude, particularly for those people who claim to believe in the concept of equality among people.  For them, it is so much more the flight from truth and reason; so much more violent a contradiction in, and a nonsequitur of, logic and justice to claim the belief, while idly accepting the crimes of a select few who flash the imprimatur of “the state” as they lift the peoples’ wallets, cut their throats, or throw them into prison cells.  If we are all equal, then on what morally valid and properly reasoned basis does one arbitrarily-constituted group of individuals come together and impose restrictions and mandates that violate the rights of others, employing violence to force compliance?  Equality and the violation of natural rights cannot coexist in even the smallest measure.  Something has to give, and most often it is human rights that do so.

Another example of how the concept of “the state” is falsely bestowed with human characteristics may be drawn from legislative bodies, the courts, and prosecutors' offices who so often speak of the “interests”, and most absurdly the “dignity” and “rights”(!) of “the state” as if it worked in an office and went home at night to its wife and children.  Preposterous!  The only material reality even remotely related to “the state” is the collection commonly called “the people”.  If anything materially existing could be called “the state”, it is each and every individual, just as we are “the government”, another entity whose material reality has been falsely forwarded by those in power and accepted by an electorate largely ignorant on, or otherwise disinterested in the point.  We are the closest thing to material reality that “the state” shall ever possess and “we” do not exist as a mono-bloc, sentient entity, but only as a collection of individuals who have come freely together to act in common in certain narrowly defined and strictly limited ways while always retaining our rights to dissolve those associations and covenants with equal freedom.  Not a single one of us may claim the moral right to violate the rights of our fellows, yet that is precisely what we do when we allow "the state" to act as such an instrument of violation and denial.  Consider carefully, then, where that leaves the guilt laying.

As long as one believes that “the state” actually exists separately and in material reality, possessing human, or rather superhuman characteristics entitling it to govern at its pleasure rather than our own and most often according to whim rather than within the limits of powers granted it by individual human beings and pursuant to respect for the natural law, there is little possibility of being able to limit “the state”, much less fundamentally alter its conceptual structure, far less still to dissolve it.  That group of people claiming to represent “the state” will always respond with chicanery and violence to protect, maintain, and if possible expand their powers to rule.

What we have demonstrated here is that “the state” is in no way real beyond its status as a concept.  References by individuals to “the state”, specifically its human-like or even superhuman qualities, characteristics, and most ridiculously its “rights” as cited by those in positions of power and others to justify the violation and denial of individual rights, are without exception made in grave error.  We now see that as a concept, “the state” provides nothing more than a framework within which people go about their daily lives.  This framework is important to free living, but it is not materially real and therefore carries with it no moral authority to deny or disparage the natural rights of men.  The framework and its trappings, in order to be just and morally legitimate, must fully respect and defer to the rights of the individual in all ways and cases; anything other than this is corrupt by definition.  The conventions of “the state” are supposed to provide us with behavioral guidelines pursuant to the ostensible goal of coexistence while remaining free to live our individual lives according to the dictates of our consciences, even when our choices are potentially self-destructive and stupid.

In other words, the purpose of accepting and complying with these conventions is to serve the individual citizen and not to rule him, especially in violation and denial of his rights as a freeman.  “The state” derives its limited powers from the consent of the individuals that comprise the body of “the people” and as such cannot legitimately exercise powers beyond those limits.  Yet “the state” routinely assumes and exercises power far beyond its grant.  “The state” continually trespasses upon the private property of the inalienable rights of the individual with ever greater claims of entitlement to act.  People, in the main, sit idly by and allow ever deepening incursions onto the property of their individual civil rights, effectively ceding those rights to those who have no authority to trespass upon them.  This is due in large part to the misguided acceptance of the bald-faced and wholly absurd lie that “the state” is an actual entity possessing superhuman characteristics including rights that entitle it to engage in all manner of arbitrary and immoral acts.

It will better serve the people of the United States if they acquire truthful knowledge about “the state” as we have begun uncovering it here.  Develop and cultivate the mental habit of always bearing the truth in mind and never accepting or otherwise falling for the implied assertion that “the state” possesses a separate reality that stands on its own, apart from humanity; apart from you.

It will further help the cause of individual freedom to openly challenge all the tacitly assumed characteristics of “the state”, especially those that imply sentient qualities such as “dignity”, “interests”, and especially “rights”.  Challenge law makers, administrators, and so-called “enforcers” at every level and opportunity and apply your own power of force to compel them to explain themselves when you see their actions to be unjust and in violation of rights and of reason.  Force them to demonstrate how law and their actions comport themselves in full and uncompromising compliance with the natural rights of men and, secondarily, the Constitution, accepting no “double-speak” responses.

Cultivate your own powers of reason and hone them with others of a similar mind, developing your views and arguments such that the opinions, arguments, and justifications of those who would and do violate inborn rights embarrassingly dissipate before the world’s eyes when placed under the withering lights of truth and reason.  Be upon them relentlessly until either such time as they comply with what is morally correct, resign their offices, or unwisely go on the offensive against you; but never allow them even the slightest quarter to avoid you, ignore you, or serve up to you anything but well reasoned whole-truth in their responses to your rightful demands, for it is you whom they serve and not the other way around.

As dangerous as coming under the ire of “the state” may seem, there is safety in numbers and no matter how hubris-filled a given agency or agent may be or how willing they may be to bring you to harm, they will by no means be able to harm large bodies of citizens without incurring a significant risk of harm to themselves.  People must learn and cultivate new habits to actively, smartly, courageously, fiercely, and tirelessly hold all government personnel and their agents fully and strictly accountable for their actions and opinions in discharging their duties of service to “the people”.  Such actions and opinions must fully accord with, respect, defer, and demur to the Natural Rights of men, which is the centrally prime element of validity to which any individual donning the mantle of government may lay claim to legitimacy in their discharge of office.

Make their offensive behavior a risk-laden proposition for them, fraught with danger and high cost.  If they are willing to apply unjust and possibly even lethal force in the violation of your, or your neighbor’s inborn rights, you must be ready to respond accordingly and without hesitation, equivocation, quarter, or mercy, for such people commit or threaten acts of war against the rights of man, and this must never be tolerated in the least measure.

Raise up the interests of your neighbors’ rights equally with your own, because to idly suffer the violation of one man’s natural rights and liberties is to give tacit assent to have one's own violated.  You need not agree with what your neighbor does, but you should be very interested in his right to do it.  S. G. Tallentyre summed up Voltaire’s attitude on this very point:

            “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Voltaire well understood that where rights are concerned, your fellows’ interests are indeed your own and yours, theirs.  Bear in mind that the violation of any right for any reason is always arbitrary no matter how the targets are chosen and justified, and no matter how “reasonable” they may seem on the surface.  Given this, when one accepts the violation of anyone’s rights for any reason whatsoever, he opens the door for the destruction of his own.  This is a truth that cannot be escaped, and it will be wise for all people to carefully consider it.

Call all government personnel to account for their actions and reject all justifications that assert “the state” and “the law” empower them to act criminally in violation of human rights.  Corner them such that they are unable to retreat into those false defenses, and force the light of truth and reason upon them before the eyes of the widest community possible, exposing their crimes for all to witness.  Demand this accountability of all government employees from the local dog catcher all the way up the ladder to the President of the United States.  Demand it with the authority of the employer over the employee, the citizen over the civil servant, and be prepared to take necessary material action against those who evade, avoid, or ignore the moral and lawful mandate of Natural Law.

Finally, be aware that the lies about “the state” as being materially real and possessing the attributes of a living and sentient being are similarly posited with respect to other conceptual entities including “government”, “the law”, and “society”.  For example, how often does one hear “society has the right to…”?  Like “the state”, “society” possesses no rights whatsoever, nor does “government”, nor “the law”.  “Society” is nothing more than a word labeling a collection of individual human beings living in some proximity to each other and perhaps holding some agreed-upon association with each other.  It has no rights, fears, desires, interests, plans, possessions, mind, opinions, soul, or authority as such.  It only has its members, and those only by the consent of each individual.

Until the day comes that people disabuse themselves of these brazenly asserted and dangerously false notions, they will continue to accept the ever mounting assaults upon their rights.  Unless this circumstance changes, the day will come when one's ability to exercise his in-born rights shall have been extinguished from the earth in favor of the assumed and arbitrary powers of a small group of other, merely mortal human beings as they disparage the rest, all the while hiding like the Great Oz behind the curtain of that fiction we call “the state”.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

---

[i] The only kind there are.

[ii]  Not provision of

Principles of Tyranny

An essay by Jon Roland on tyranny. I had planned just such an essay, but since Mr. Roland has already carried out the deed, and to good effect, it is posted here for your information. One point he makes that I have made to people again and again over the years and which bears constant repetition, is that tyranny does not always bear a menacing face. It does, in fact, more often take on the countenance of the benefactor - the kindly and loving father figure who seeks to act only after the better interests of all.

Huge proportions of the population have, through various means, been conditioned to recognize the tyrant only when bearing a very narrowly specific set of outward characteristics. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world may be readily recognizable (then again, they may not), but those who come to us smiling and promising are the most dangerous sorts and the most difficult to see for what they really are. This is why a strong and complete grasp of principles is so vitally important. If one holds sufficient possession of the principles of liberty, knowing when the smiling face is so much as approaching a line will enable them to be alert to it. Without them, the people sleep soundly as the thieves rob them.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Principles of Tyranny
by Jon Roland

Definition of Tyranny

Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy -- an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched.

The Psychology of Tyranny

Perhaps one of the things that most distinguishes those with a fascist mentality from most other persons is how they react in situations that engender feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. Both kinds of people will tend to seek to increase their power, that is, their control over the
outcome of events, but those with a fascist mindset tend to overestimate the amount of influence over outcomes that it is possible to attain. This leads to behavior that often brings them to positions of leadership or authority, especially if most other persons in their society tend to underestimate the influence over outcomes they can attain, and are inclined to yield to those
who project confidence in what they can do and promise more than anyone can deliver.

This process is aided by a common susceptibility which might be called the rooster syndrome, from the old saying, "They give credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun." It arises from the tendency of people guided more by hope or fear than intelligence to overestimate the power of their leaders and attribute to them outcomes, either good or bad, to which the leaders contributed little if anything, and perhaps even acted to prevent or reduce. This comes from the inability of most persons to understand complex dynamic systems and their long-term behavior, which leads people to attribute effects to proximate preceding events instead of actual
long-term causes.

The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with challenges to a group, develops into general feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume the role of "father" to the others, who willingly submit to becoming dependent "children" of such
persons if only they are reassured that a more favorable outcome will be realized. This pattern of co-dependency is pathological, and generally results in decision making of poor quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the co-dependents repeat their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of the group and the worst of the available outcomes.

In psychiatry, this syndrome is often discussed as an "authoritarian personality disorder". In common parlance, as being a "control freak".

The Logic of Tyranny

In Orwell's classic fable, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the protagonist Winston Smith makes a key statement:

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

Following the trial of the surviving Branch Davidians in San Antonio, Texas, in March, 1994, in which a misinstructed jury acquitted all the defendants of the main crimes with which they were charged, but convicted them of the enhancements of using firearms in the commission of a crime, the federal judge, Walter F. Smith, first dismissed the charges, correctly, on the grounds that it is logically impossible to be guilty of an enhancement if one is innocent of the crime. However, under apparent political pressure, he subsequently reversed his own ruling and sentenced the defendants to maximum terms as though they had been convicted of the main crimes, offering the comment, "The law doesn't have to be logical."

No. The law does have to be logical. Otherwise it is not law. It is arbitrary rule by force.

Now by "logical" what is meant is two-valued logic, which is sometimes also called Boolean, Aristotelian or Euclidean logic. In other words, a system of propositions within which a statement and its negation cannot both be true or valid. One of the two must be false or invalid. The two possible values are true and false, and every meaningful proposition can be assigned one or
the other value.

A system of law is a body of prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive, propositions, that support the making of decisions, and therefore its logic must be two-valued. It is a fundamental principle of law that like cases must be decided alike, and this means according to propositions that exclude their contradictions.

It is also a fundamental principle of logic that any system of propositions that accepts both a statement and its negation as valid, that is, which accepts a contradiction, accepts all contradictions, and provides no basis for deciding among them. If decisions are made, they are not made on the basis of the propositions, but are arbitrary, and that is the definition of the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law.

So what Winston Smith is saying is that freedom means being able to distinguish between a true proposition and a false one, and what his nemesis O'Brien therefore does to crush him is make him accept that "2 + 2 = 5", which cannot be true if the logic is Aristotelian. O'Brien represents the logic of arbitrary power, a "logic" we might call Orwellian, although Orwell, whose real name was Eric Blair, was strongly opposed to it.

The Methodology of Tyranny

The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.

Control of public information and opinion
It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call
it "public information" or "marketing".

Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers
It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

Undue official influence on trials and juries
Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand
jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

Usurpation of undelegated powers
This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force
The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

Militarization of law enforcement
Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform
Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers
When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into
active tyranny.

Use of the law for competition suppression
It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

Subversion of internal checks and balances
This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

Creation of a class of officials who are above the law
This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders".

Increasing dependency of the people on government
The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back
again.

Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them
When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

Use of staged events to produce popular support
Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a
Reichstag plot.

Conversion of rights into privileges
Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

Political correctness
Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

Avoiding Tyranny

The first step is always to detect tendencies toward tyranny and suppress them before they go too far or become too firmly established. The people must never acquiesce in any violation of the Constitution. Failure to take corrective action early will only mean that more severe measures will have to be taken later, perhaps with the loss of life and the disruption of the society in ways from which recovery may take centuries.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Language And Freedom

Language and Freedom

Numerous personalities of note have made the connection between freedom and education. Specifically, it has been observed that a well-educated populace is a most basic and necessary condition for maintaining a state of freedom. Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

In a related, though broader sense, Thomas Paine wrote:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

From these two quotes, we derive two of the important prerequisites in order for freedom to survive the attacks that it invariably must endure: a well-educated people and the determination to keep them that way.

What, one may ask, does this have to do with language?

 In a word, everything.

Without language, we would have no thoughts beyond those of the base instinctual variety. Without language, our thoughts would be wholly unarticulated. Language is the instrument by which humans beings conceptualize the world. Were we unable to draw and understand concepts, our capabilities as intellects would be somewhere at the level of chickens. Nearly everything we know as human beings exists in our minds as concepts. Therefore, language serves as the means by which we know and make sense of virtually every aspect of the world around us. Language is the very basis of our understandings of just about everything we know and ever will know. Equally importantly, language serves as the basis for the ways in which we know those things. Without language, we would be incapable of doing much more than eat, sleep, eliminate, engage in sex, and run away from danger. One’s thoughts form their reality, and the basis of all thought existing above the level of midbrain impulse is language. For all practical purposes, without language, there are no thoughts such as we commonly know them today.

Consider what human life would be like without language. What, for example, would people be able to do when they became hungry? At best, they would mill about in search of food in a haphazard fashion, unable to convey ideas to others because there would be no ideas. The instruments of language and the framework they provide for allowing concepts to exist and people to understand them would be absent. Human beings would perceive the world in a wholly different fashion and that manner would severely restrict their options for taking action in their environments. The manner in which people would be handicapped in this respect would be similar to the way in which a person who was blind from birth would not be able to conceptualize colors. Without the experience of perceiving color, the brain has no way of knowing what it is. We may say the same of thought and its attendant structural foundation, language.

Without language, those same people would not be able to coordinate food-gathering efforts or to engage in mutually beneficial collective action of any sort. In the case of defending the familial- or tribal-unit, instinct would almost certainly cause them to gather because of the unarticulated feelings from their midbrains would drive them to act, much as the sexual urge would drive them to copulation. There would be a complete absence of rational thought, where in its stead only primitive urges would drive all actions.

In the same case of community defense, consider how severely handicapped people without language would be from the standpoint of keeping guard and warning of danger. Once again, instinct would perhaps provide the drive to maintain vigil, which might consist of everyone sleeping with one eye open every night. Ignoring the poor state of rest in which they might find themselves, consider the practical disadvantages of an absence of language and rational thought for these people where the common defense would be concerned. Imagine that everyone is asleep, save one “sentry”, and he spies a known threat closing on them. What could he do to warn the others? Short of screaming and flailing wildly to arouse his companions, it would seem that anything useful to the defense of the clan would be beyond their reach. Supposing he does just that, those so rudely awakened would know only that there was danger. There would be no way of informing them as to the nature of the threat; what sort of creatures, from what direction, how many, etc. All they would know was that they were in danger, which we may all agree might not be enough information to be of any real help in some situations.

Consider the way of identifying similar threats. The language deprived clan sees one of their own taken by a spotted cat. That direct experience enables the survivors to identify the next spotted cat as a threat to their lives. But what of a striped cat? We take it for granted that a large cat is going to be a threat no matter what its markings, but these people have no concept of “cat” as a category because they are incapable of categorizing anything for lack of the intellectual tools that language provides. There would be no ability to abstract “cat” from “spotted cat”. Therefore, that striped cat would take those poor primitive beings completely unawares as he came along and ate one of them. What would they do when they encountered a bear?

Compare that situation with one where language, thought, and a sufficient body of relevant concepts were available to that tribe. First, there could be a sentry because through the instruments of thought and its linguistic foundation, the primitive men would be able to work out the idea that having a handful of their fellows keeping watch as the rest slept would be beneficial to the state of restfulness of the community. When a sentry discovered the approaching threat, there would now be open to him a range of responses, each appropriate to a different set of circumstances. If he discovered the threat while it was still far distant, a sentry could quietly arouse his fellows and apprise them in detail of what he had discovered. This might provide the option of quietly slipping away undetected, rather than reacting in a manner that would only serve to alert the potential enemy of their presence and location. And when that striped cat showed up, the people would immediately be able to identify “cat” and therefore realize the danger and take action before anyone was eaten.

From these simple examples, we can readily see that language and what it brings to the table of human consciousness changes the quality of life from the most rudimentary levels all the way up to the most abstruse concepts. Without language, our worlds would be far smaller and vastly more meager, not to mention a whole lot more dangerous. Language establishes the very basis of virtually everything we do by enabling us to acquire, store, abstract, and build upon information and knowledge. Without language there would be no knowledge.

Language provides us with the following capabilities:

• To conceptualize
• To abstract from specific experiences to generalized concepts
• To assign meaning through concepts
• To apply conceptual generalizations to specific and often new cases
• To communicate meaning and intention to others
• To know given things in different ways
• To think rationally

There are many other abilities for which language acts as a vehicle, but most of those arise through the agency of those listed above. The fact that one can consider this list and come up with additional capabilities based on it is yet another way in which language serves us from the depths of our minds.

This leads us directly to the idea of proper and improper uses of language, whether through intent or ignorance. Remembering that language is the foundational basis for rational, conceptual thought and that our thoughts form our realities, it then follows that the soundness of our thoughts is at least partly dependent on the soundness of our skills in using language. Strong language skills are a fundamental prerequisite for sound capabilities in reasoned thought. That is, one cannot think in a well-reasoned and orderly manner if their language skills are not sufficiently developed. Freedom, therefore, depends on language for its very existence and survival.

In the absence of strongly educated, independently thinking people who are well habituated to powerful critical reasoning, we can neither realize nor maintain the concept and practice of living freely as a nation nor even as individuals. Without adept language skills, the quality of our critical reasoning habits and our attitudes regarding our freedoms are meaningless because without those skills, our abilities to employ those habits and attitudes will be ineffectual. Without that ability, we stand impotent to determine whether any given proposition will serve liberty or hinder it.

The ignorant misuse and malicious abuse of language has been the cause of endless mischief. One of the most troublesome areas lies in the abuse of the very meanings of words themselves. Many people are fond of excusing the abuse of language, citing the “fact” that languages “evolve”. They may indeed evolve, but that does not mean that it is a good thing in all cases. There are countless examples of how such evolution causes far more harm than good. Consider this quote:

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

- SC v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448

This, from a Supreme Court decision, indirectly acknowledges the vital importance that the proper use and maintenance of language holds for us all. There are, however, those who assert that the Constitution is a living document, and therefore changes its meaning as times change. If the meaning of our Constitution alters in time with superficial changes of context, then in actuality the document means nothing at all for it is subject to arbitrary interpretation by whoever it is that happens to be assuming positions of power at a given time. It further implies that fundamental principals that people live by also mean nothing, as their “meanings” may alter with time and fashion. Proponents of the “living document” notion have used this fallacious, yet emotionally compelling fiction to convince people that the Constitution no longer means what it says. While it has not always been successful, that this notion has ever succeeded constitutes convincing evidence that the language skills of many Americans are probably lacking in a potentially fatal manner and degree. Fatal, at the very least, to our freedom.

We may demonstrate the wholly unsound nature of this point of view with a simple example based on our murder laws. It is safe to say that the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans agree that laws prohibiting murder are in fact constitutionally sound. Imagine, then, a defendant pleading not guilty to a charge of murder and basing his defense on the position that his act was in fact legal because “times have changed” and the applicable laws no longer mean what they once did. How many presumably sane and rational people would accept such a defense? Yet this is the very argument that some use to justify the usurpation of power by government and the infringement of rights of the people. Such people will argue that government may now assume this power or that because “times have changed” – the old “necessity” trick. Legislators often use the same argument to justify the legislative abrogation of civil rights. In virtually every case one can find that abuses of language, which skew reason and hide logical flaws, lie at the foot of such efforts.

Regardless of the issue at hand, such arguments tend to carry with them heavily flawed reasoning. They do, however, also carry with them very strong emotional force that is almost universally couched in the misuse of language. Many people, at times a majority, who are the targets of such arguments, are unable to analyze them due to the lack of strong language skills that stands at the root of the cascade of their other deficiencies, all contributing to an inability to refute even the most egregiously obvious attempts to violate the sovereignty of the individual.

Consider the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which states:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This simple and eminently clear sentence has been so grossly misinterpreted that it almost defies credulity. This is especially true of those who oppose the notion of a right to keep and bear arms. Why is this so? Poor language skills and the redefinition of terms are the main culprits. A common misinterpretation, stemming from a singular lack of grammar skills, asserts that the enumerated right is collective rather than individual. One “fact” they employ in support of the claim is that the first clause, also called the “prefatory” clause (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state), places a restriction upon the second clause (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). In other words, they claim that the Amendment is saying that the right to keep and bear arms is collective rather than individual and that this right is therefore reserved to “the people” and exercisable only through the militia, which many assert to be the National Guard with equal error. Therefore, according to this “interpretation”, only those in the National Guard have the right to keep and bear arms. Notice also that a “right” seems to appear to one’s possession, as if by magic when they join the National Guard and disappears with equal mystery when they leave. What of the other armed forces that are not the National Guard?

A simple example to expose the flawed linguistic understanding that underpins the collectivist interpretation might read:

“A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”

How many of the collectivist adherents would interpret this statement to mean that only well-educated people had the right to own and read books? Most likely, none would, and yet they advocate this ridiculous notion where the Second Amendment is concerned and many others fall for it because they simply do not possess the basic language skills that would enable them to know the true meaning of the Amendment.

How about this, for the benefit of those fans of the First Amendment:

“An open and candid Congress being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to hold and express opinions shall not be infringed.”

Is there any reasonable chance of interpreting this to mean that only senators and representatives are entitled to free speech?

Another equally significant example involves the Congress’ use of the so-called “commerce clause” to make an end-run around their constitutionally limited powers to interfere with the affairs of the citizens. Once again, the lack of sufficient language skills has enabled Congress to enact entire bodies of unconstitutional legislation, and to have them upheld by the courts. One illustrative tidbit relating to these centers on the very definition of “commerce”, which today we take it to mean trade – all sorts of trade, in fact. Back when the commerce clause was penned, “commerce” had a different and very specific meaning, which was trade over the oceans and as affected by ship. Its original, mercantilist intent was to nationalize state imposts on foreign trade. Some desired this for two reasons, the first being that the federal government was in sore need of revenues to pay the debts it incurred in financing the war of independence and the second was to minimize precious specie movements out of the country by restricting foreign trade. For anyone finding this definition non-credible, one may find original research into the issue here[1].

Applying the meaning of “commerce” as employed by the framers of the Constitution at the time of its ratification, the legitimacy of all such acts based on the commerce clause come immediately into question. This may not seem very consequential until we begin to consider how many people have served long and hard prison sentences because of convictions under such unconstitutional laws.

If we cannot make proper use of language even to the point of possessing the real meanings of words, how will we be able to realize freedom for a moment, much less maintain it across the generations? If an iron will does not bind us to endow ourselves with strong skills in language and the other arts that they allow for, the hope for free living is as dead as yesterday’s news.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

---

[1] http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/PandasThumb.pdf

Degrees of Freedom

Just How Free Are You?

There are those persons and institutions that believe they hold the moral authority to abridge the freedoms of others. Where so-called “legitimate” government bodies are concerned, they back that belief with the means and the will to threaten and apply various types and measures of force upon the governed pursuant to the capricious dictates of law that violates the individual right to be free. Underlying this mentality of entitlement there is a notion of "degrees of freedom". We will analyze this notion that some claim the necessity for which grants them the moral and/or the legal authority to infringe upon the freedom of others.

Some definitions are in order before we proceed:

slave – noun

1. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person

slavery - noun

1. the condition of a slave; bondage 2. a state of subjection like that of a slave

subject – noun

1. One who or that which is under the power, control, influence, observation, or action of some other person or thing, especially a person who owes allegiance to a ruler, government, etc.

freeman – noun

1. one who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another 2. one who is not in slavery or bondage

bondage – noun

1. slavery or involuntary servitude 2. restraint of a person’s liberty by compulsion 3. serfdom

serf - noun

1. a slave 2. any person who is oppressed or without freedom

chattel - noun

1. law: a movable article of personal property 2. a slave

abject – adjective

1. sunk to a low condition: applied to persons or things

utter – noun

1. situated at or beyond the limits of something 2. complete; total 3. absolute; unconditional; unqualified;

subjugation - verb

1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave

citizen - noun

1. a native or inhabitant, especially a freeman or burgess of a town or city

2. a member of a state or nation, especially one with a republican form of government, who owes allegiance to it by birth or naturalization and is entitled to full civil rights

Note the second definition under “slavery”: a state of subjugation like that of a slave, the use of which indicates “similarity”, in turn indicating that one need not be an abject slave in order to live under conditions of slavery, thereby denoting degree. Furthermore, the term “abject slave” indicates the degree to which one is a slave, in this case the worst possible condition. Other terms that we may use interchangeably with “slave” include bondman, bondservant, and serf.

Consider “serf”; it equates with “slave” as well as denoting any person who is oppressed or without freedom. Once again, the concept of degree applies because oppression need not be absolute in order to be present. We commonly accept that oppression exists in degrees. One may say the same of “subject”. Degree follows axiomatically from these terms due to their very nature. One person ruling over another such that the other’s role is that of a serf, slave, or subject directly implies the ruler’s power of caprice and his discretion to dispose of the other as he sees fit in some degree, which is not always absolute. It is, in fact, rarely absolute, for even kings were often bounded in what they were legitimately empowered to do with their subjects, though most often those limits were broad enough to render them effectively limitless. The point is that kings and other governments exercise varying degrees of illegitimate and unjustifiable power over their respective people as a rule, particularly if we accept the premise that we are all equal and free.

The Fallacy of “Degrees of Freedom”

Those who justify the circumscription and denial of the freedom of others will often raise the argument that "one cannot do anything they want", implying that this is what the concept of "freedom" represents. One commonly offered remark is that one cannot go around killing people just because they want to; therefore we are not completely free." This position and its attendant reasoning demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what freedom really connotes as it relates to the personal state of liberty of the individual, and by extension, a nation. A corollary of this point of view is the concept of "degrees of freedom". Let us begin by stating unequivocally that there is no such thing as "degrees of individual freedom". One is free or one is not; there is nothing in between. This implies that one is either a freeman or a slave.

There are those who object to the use of the terms “slave” and “slavery” when discussing issues of personal liberty on the grounds that the words are simply too strong and therefore misleading and inappropriate. They further argue that this is especially so today, an age where slavery has been “eliminated” from the world. To this, they will add that use of such terms in the context of the people of “free world” (USA, Europe, etc.) is absurd on its face. For such people it appears that their understanding of the term relates solely to the archetype of the manacled abject slave, betraying their belief that slavery does not exist in degrees, but is an all or nothing proposition and that "freedom" exists and is therefore "allowed" in degrees. In fact, such objections most often stem from a precisely reversed understanding of this very aspect of the terms “freedom” and “slavery” in the all too commonly held false beliefs that freedom exists in degrees and slavery does not. Freedom never exists in degrees, while slavery always does, over a very broad continuum. The "best" forms of slavery therefore, may appear as freedom to those for whom the state of subjugation is more severe. Understandably, such people may observe the conditions of less restricted people and wish for their “freedom”, not quite realizing that what they wish for is actually a similar cage, only with more gilding and perhaps a bit roomier. For those living under the comparatively enviable circumstances, their chains often rest lightly upon them and the perceived benefits of their subjugation, mild as they may be, provide little or no motivation to strive for actual freedom. Real freedom is, in fact, anathema to the way such people appear to view life. They view actual freedom as something reckless, dangerous, antisocial, and therefore something to avoid assiduously and with vehemence; something to be eliminated. Many who live in their gilt cages are more than happy with the restrictions placed upon them, at least so long as the gilding does not start to peel. It is their right to agree to such conditions for themselves. What of the rest of us? An oft-forwarded justification for imposing interference upon those who do not agree is the fallaciously employed doctrine of "fairness", which holds that what applies to one must apply to all. In such cases, nothing could be farther from the truth. Let us then answer the question as to why there can be no degrees of freedom. The answer is straightforward: "degrees of freedom" implies an arbitrary, therefore capricious, and therefore unpredictable third party control over one's prerogatives. If freedom exists in degrees, it follows that someone is making the determination of which beliefs and behaviors the "authority" in question shall allow, a direct contradiction of the definition of "personal freedom". It also begs the question: Who is this third party and by what moral authority do they assume the right or the power over others to thwart them arbitrarily? Clearly, they are not arguing for what axiomatically flows from the very definition of freedom; the actions of legislators at every level of government rocketed past that boundary long ago. Such people seek nothing less than ever-greater degrees of subjugation of the individual's freedom pursuant to a purpose, fair or foul. Rarely will they admit to such goals, most often arguing that their actions constitute that which is ‘best”, rather than an act of war against the individual in the name of some inorganic justification. A litany of equally fallacious justifications usually accompanies such arguments and usually fall into categories that include:

1. The greatest good for the greatest number must be served

· Ex.: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his congress shove the welfare state down the throats of a proud and self-sufficient American people.

· Ex.: The Soviet Union under Stalin murders tens of millions of its own people to “protect the people from counter-revolutionaries”

· Ex.: Adolph Hitler exterminates millions of people and destroys nearly the entire European continent pursuant to his goal of the 1000 year Reich of which his people were to be the masters.

· Ex.: China, under helmsman Mao, purged and “reeducated” tens of millions of his own people during the “cultural” revolution. The Chinese government destroyed much of ancient Chinese architecture and art in an apoplectic fit of serving the greatest good for the greatest number.

· Ex.: The Khmer Rouge engaged in a massive “social engineering” program wherein they murdered approximately 1.5 million Cambodians through torture, execution, forced labor, and starvation, all for the good of "the people".

· Ex.: Fidel Castro seized Cuba, nationalized everything for the good of one and all, resulting in a nation still living in 1959, short on food, medicines, and … freedom

· Ex.: The long-standing attempts at firearms prohibition on the presumption that removal of the guns from the hands of the citizens will make for a safer society, the ostensible goal of which makes right the denial and abridgement of the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

· Ex.: The Volstead Act passed on the basis that alcohol consumption was to be prohibited for the good of “society”.

· The litany of such historical events appears to have no discernible end. There is always someone out there claiming he has the solution for all human woes and that those who succeed must be subdued and suborned for the benefit of the rest. The implication here is that someone’s opinion of how the world should be supersedes the inborn and natural rights of people.

2. It is for your own good

· A variation on the point, above.

· Ex.: The outlawing of possession and use of illicit drugs such as marijuana and heroin, even when such possession and use affects none but the users.

· Ex.: The long standing attempts at firearms prohibition where one much loved argument in favor of it has been the claim that one is “43 times more likely to be shot with their gun than to be saved by it.”

· Ex. Prohibition of gambling. Prohibited, except of course in approved government monitored facilities where the taxman is most likely to get his pound of flesh.

· There are those ostensibly well-meaning souls out there who presume to know what is best for you and will save you from yourself no matter how stridently you may object. Such people will go so far as to see you go to prison for your own good, the Constitution and your freedom be damned.

3. One owes it to “society” to accept the transgression

· Ex.: Prohibition of tobacco smoking in public places. The City of Philadelphia adopted such stringent public anti-smoking laws that it was once observed that apparently the only place where it was still legal to smoke in public was the middle of two lane and larger roads, on the yellow line.

· Ex.: Property taxes – you owe it to society to subsidize the educations of your neighbor’s children in perpetuity. If you fail to pay for any reason, your friendly county sheriff will forcibly remove your private property (i.e. your home) from you, at gunpoint if necessary, and auction it off for the outstanding sum. If you resist, you will arrested and possibly tried and jailed. If you really resist, "law" enforcement may even kill you.

· Ex.: Times are tough and we all must make sacrifices; therefore, you are no longer entitled to do, own, or act upon X. We in the United States hear presidents make this claim now and again, particularly when the freedoms they are demanding we abdicate are particularly important to us.

· For some, being “free” apparently means you owe something to somebody just because they occupy space. This is a central pillar of all forced-collectivist philosophies.

4. An emergency condition exists and we must give up some rights

· Ex. We are at war and must give up some of our rights. Do not worry though; you will get them back when the war is over.

· Ex. For fifty years, the US government bilked US taxpayers because of the never-ending threat the Soviet Union posed to our security.

· Ex. “National security” becomes the catch all imprimatur by which government arrogated to themselves an ever-growing litany of powers.

· Ex. 9/11/2001 – the war on terror begins, showing no potential for seeing an end. One of the earliest babies born of this disaster was the USA PATRIOT act, the provisions of which every American is behooved to read. PATRIOT II was so bizarrely and overtly extreme that even the US Congress had to say no to it. Never fear, though, for congress incorporated most of the provisions of PATRIOT II in some form into other legislation.

· Need to maintain extraordinary power for an extraordinary period? Just concoct an extraordinarily severe emergency that is never resolved and you are good to go.

5. It is only "fair"

· If it applies to one, it must apply to all.

6. It is the will of "the people"

· Perhaps the lamest excuse of them all.

When such schemes are forced upon a person, he is no longer free, but a slave or a subject to a greater or lesser degree. Note how in such cases, force or its threat universally serve as the means by which governments of all sorts thrust such transgressions against individual freedom upon the people. In most cases, legislators never even bother to consult the citizens on such matters, regardless of the fact that they are supposed to be public servants and not anyone's masters.

When one accepts the notion of “degrees of freedom”, they have rejected, perhaps unwittingly, actual freedom in favor of some degree of slavery. Some appear to be largely unaware of what it is they are choosing. Many seem to believe that slavery is freedom and freedom some dangerous horror to be stamped out, along with all its proponents. These people constitute the most eloquent vindication of George Orwell, who is perhaps spinning like a lathe in his grave. Recall the definition of personal freedom as we developed it here: the prerogative to choose any action one wishes, within their means, as long as it does not constitute a violation of the freedom of others. This definition is unequivocal and the prerogatives it allows for are expansively broad and the restrictions vanishingly small, yet few people are aware of it and of those, fewer still, accept it. Given the definition, who can look at even the great United States and conclude that their people are free?

If they are not free, then they are slaves, or subjects - but subjects of whom? Certainly, the question cannot be "subjects of what?” for how can an inanimate object or a materially insubstantial concept hold dominion over us? Who is it, then, that holds moral supremacy over the rest such that they may dictate what shall be allowed? By what standard are they superior to the rest such that they may claim moral authority over everyone else? These are the questions each and every human being on the planet should be asking themselves and each other. Each of us should question with healthy skepticism the standard assumptions and suppositions upon which the arguments for third party interference rest, always asking, "Who says?" and "By what standard is this so?"

The lesson here is simple: freedom is monotonic, i.e., you are free or you are not. There are no variations on the meaning of the term or the condition that it represents. If you are not free, then at the very best, you are a subject and not a citizen, for the latter implies a free man whereas the former implies one subject to the opinions and whims of another. If we agree to the notion of “equality” as commonly used in this context, then how can one man act as the master of another? Is that not the very definition of slavery? Is slavery not one of the things our cultural values have taught us to despise, reject, and act against with venom and single-minded determination? How is it, then, that we tolerate such intrusion and theft; such violation? Why do we tolerate the intolerable? What is it about our ways of thinking that have brought us to this unfortunate state of being? Why do we not act to reclaim that which was born to us and stolen from us through force and fraud by those who would presume to be our masters? How can it be justified? How do you justify it? What are your reasons? What are your excuses? Finally, ask yourself how you will feel if one day you wake up to find that the most precious thing you ever possessed is now far gone, never to return.

Please take the time to consider the ideas and questions here and discuss them with others. Is your freedom not worth this much?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.