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.

The Nature of Human Beings in the Context of Political Power

Power and Human Nature

We cannot properly appreciate, understand, and act upon our discussions of personal freedom without a basic understanding of several related factors that allow us to ascribe a more complete, correct, and proper meaning to it. One of the most important considerations is a correct and sufficient practical understanding of human nature in the context of power. For the purposes of this essay, we will further confine the discussion to that of political power. Be aware, however, that this short study of the principles of human behavior in the context of political power yields a fringe benefit that the knowledge gained is useful to the understanding human action no matter what brand of power may be under consideration. It is therefore of value in regarding a broader spectrum of personal and institutional power issues.

To begin, we must define the terms “power”, “politics”, and “political”. Consulting the dictionary once again, we find the following:

Power –noun

1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

Politics – noun

1. the activities and affairs involved in managing a state or a government.

2. social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power

Political – adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics.

With these definitions in hand, we are now prepared to discuss the topic of political power from the standpoints of those who have it and those who do not. It is of little use to discuss the one without the other, as they are two sides of the same coin.

What, then, is political power? Given our definitions, we can state that it is two things. The first, perhaps “naïve” definition is that it is the ability to act or accomplish goals pertaining to managing a government. It is naïve because it does not take into account other significant and commonly found elements associated with the term. An auxiliary definition that goes hand in hand with the first and puts a somewhat finer point to it would be the capability to gain, cultivate, and maintain the means of accomplishing political goals through intrigue and other instruments. Note the specification of “intrigue”, a term whose definition will become useful at this point:

Intrigue – noun

1. the use of underhand machinations or deceitful stratagems.

Armed with this additional definition, the term “political power” takes on a meaning that strongly agrees with that to which governments, politicians, groups, and individuals treat us on a daily and seemingly unlimited basis: people and groups making use of force, deceit, and other dishonest or otherwise immoral means in pursuit of gains toward some set of goals. In most cases the goals in question, even if only partially met, result in further infringement and denial of our rights, which are nothing more than enumerations of some of the elements that comprise our freedom. Later we will explore the notion of human- or civil rights in some detail in the hope of bringing that concept into greater clarity. That will be, however, a discussion for another day, for it merits our full attention and devotion.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who covet political power and those who do not. Most people covet some form of political power. Parents, for example, covet power over their children. Without it, chaos would reign, and in some households, it does. Very often members of personal relationships covet and exercise political power over their partners. It can take many forms, none of which we will discuss here. It is, however, important to be aware that our discussion of political power does not confine itself solely to governmental sorts, but applies to all forms where two or more people are concerned. This fact should prove useful as a tool with which one may better protect their personal freedoms from usurpation by third parties, whether a boyfriend, an acquaintance, a boss, or anyone attempting to violate one’s rights regardless of the manner or degree.

For the sake of this discussion, let us pay special attention to the case of political power as it applies to broad social applications such as government. This narrowed focus is necessary because while it is perhaps desirable for people to be free from unwanted interpersonal interferences, it is essential they be free in terms of unwanted institutional interference. Here, “institutional” refers to large institutions such as governments as well as corporations and other groups that often apply force in order to coerce people into doing their bidding. In this sense, an institution need not be necessarily formal; any group acting to exercise power over others we will consider an “institution” simply for the sake of easing the conversation.

The reason for making the distinction between those who covet political power in our narrowly focused sense and those who do not is that they comprise two sides of the same coin. Therefore, a complete understanding of the one is not possible without understanding the other. With all of this in mind, let us now examine the basic characteristics of human behavior where issues of political power are concerned.

Human Nature in the Context of Political Power

There is an oft-misquoted phrase attributed to Lord Acton from a letter to Bishop Marshall written in 1887. Lord Acton wrote:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This famous and almost universally misquoted statement is, in a word, a great steaming pile, the author’s presumed good intentions notwithstanding. Asserting that “power” corrupts is akin to advocates of so-called “gun control” asserting, “Guns kill”. Neither assertion has so much as the smallest shred of truth in it. They are, in fact, two examples of bald-faced falsehoods, sometimes offered as outright lies by those who know better, and perhaps more often are nothing more than harmful memes that people blindly repeat. Such statements, however, often carry with them a great preponderance of emotionally compelling, if wholly fallacious, logical energy. Given what we “know” about power, Lord Acton’s assertion seems intuitively obvious and true – perhaps even axiomatic for some. This is due to the subtle nature of the basic assumptions the very topic commonly engenders, the fallacious nature of which readily twists the unwary into believing things that are simply not true, and an examination of which readily exposes as obviously – axiomatically – false.

Here is a quote from Rorschach that provides another perspective. It states:

“It's not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us.”

In this quote, we find the truth. Power does not corrupt. People do, and only people. In this sense, the nature of power is that it is absolutely and incontrovertibly neutral. It is nothing more or less than a means by which the corruption of a human being, which was there in the first place, may come into bloom. Power is not the problem, but rather human behavior in its presence. The attribution of human qualities and capabilities to inanimate things such as power, guns, and drugs, is a problem of huge proportions, the extent and significance of which few people appear to be even faintly aware. We shall devote considerable effort to expose, clarify, and correct this greatly flawed habit of thinking and in so doing provide yet another implement for our toolbox of understanding.

The general characteristics of human behavior in the context of political power include the following:

1. Holders of political power always act to maintain current levels, or to increase them, never relinquishing except by force, or when presented with an otherwise more attractive alternative, or a combination of these.

2. Increases in power enable holders to amplify and act upon some or all of their outwardly apparent personal characteristics, plans, and desires, this being the nearly universal result of acquisition.

3. Increases in power enable holders such that previously latent personal characteristics tend to become apparent, regardless of whether he, or anyone else, desires it.

4. Those holding political power will often resort to any means available to them and with which they feel they can get away to maintain, increase, and exercise it according to their desires.

5. Holders treat political power as a zero-sum game.

6. Applications of political power most often serves to further diminish or deny individual freedoms, good intentions or otherwise notwithstanding.

Rare is the person who will relinquish power, once acquired. In this sense, power is analogous to a strong drug that users will avoid surrendering even to the point of personal destruction and death. The fate of Benito Mussolini is one example of this. For those attracted to such power, usually little will dissuade them from pursuing and using it.

When endowed with power, people will use its enabling aspect to fulfill and realize those desires and characteristics that may have otherwise remained latent. History provides us with countless such stories, as has Hollywood, about the simple and unassuming protagonists who, after acquiring some form of power, often by some twist of fate, become monsters. Nikolai Yezhov, a Soviet minister during the 1930s is a good example of this. Though he was repellent even prior to his climb up the ladders of power, the true horror of what he was, came to realization only as the result of the power Stalin placed in his hands. Schools should heavily emphasize examples such as these in civics, social studies, and history classes.

Very often, characteristics that were once latent become highly, and in some cases alarmingly and even dangerously apparent when a given individual acquires a certain level of power. Just as the lenses of power distort formerly apparent characteristics, they often expose previously latent characteristics as well, often to the misfortune of others. In this sense, power is like a nutrient in that it feeds whatever happens to be present. Throw fertilizer down and weed as well as grass and flowers will grow. If a saint exists within, the presence of power will only make him more saintly. However, if a saint turns to a monster, one may rest well assured that the saint was never real. Alcohol consumption has a similar effect wherein the behavior one witnesses in a person who drinks to excess is that of the real person. Thus is the case with power such that people who go off the rails are often referred to as “drunk with power”.

Because power reveals the true person and perhaps because the sorts of personalities that power attracts are usually rotten at a fundamental level, those who acquire power will most often use any means to grow it and exercise it to the greatest extent possible. Those who hold power and covet more are most often utter pragmatists, which is to say that the only principles by which they live are those dictated by their goals and the determination to achieve them no matter what it takes so long as they are able to get away with it. Note that “getting caught” no longer even matters in many cases because so very often those caught at something are never called upon to account for their actions. A good example of this was the affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Congress had no business asking the President about his dealings with miss Lewinsky. It was a private affair. However, they did ask, and instead of telling them to mind their own business, President Clinton lied to them. Congress caught the President with his pants down, so to speak, lying to them under oath, yet never held him accountable for it. We could write several volumes on the long litany of similar examples from the last twenty years alone.

We could argue the precise nature of the game of politics as being zero-sum or not. The nature of the game is, however, irrelevant to the practice. What counts is the fact that those exercising such power treat it as zero-sum. In other words, the only way that one seeker of political power believes he may succeed in acquiring more is to take it from others because the pool of available power is fixed. Pragmatic considerations by competent holders of power will drive tolerance levels to the lowest possible value such that one’s position is not threatened, but no lower.

The written history of the human race presents an enormous body of examples of the results of the use of political power. We can readily see that such applications of power constitute de facto abuse by those in nominal control of a population. This has overwhelmingly resulted in the wholesale destruction of personal freedom for countless numbers of people, often including those who put that power to work. What many in power fail to see is that the prison they build around those they ostensibly control, they build around themselves as well.

A centrally critical point to be understood about those who wield political power is that its misuse is not always the result of cabals of conspirators in hidden places, scheming on how to foist the next great evil upon the world. Indeed it is likely that in many cases such abuse is the result of well meaning sorts who believe that they have the answers for everyone – what I refer to as the “one size fits all mentality”, another topic for pointed discussion someday. Such people are often idealists who are hell bent for leather to see their vision of utopia realized for all. Such people are usually so certain they are right that the hubris driving their certainty blinds them to reason and shuts them off to any possibility that they may in fact be on the wrong path. These are some of the most dangerous people in the world, behooving all lovers of liberty to learn how to recognize and fight them, preferably by ensuring they never make it into a position of power in the first place.

These behaviors tend to hold in varying degrees when we consider any form of personal power. They speak directly of human nature, as is readily observable in practice.

The bottom line is that people covet power of many forms, acquire it as they are able and motivated, and exercise it to the degree they choose or to that which the hard limits dictate. This applies to all forms of power and it is not necessarily a bad thing. Observe children as they grow and learn new skills. They revel in the newly discovered powers that learning and practice bestow. Power manifests perhaps most often in ways we might all agree are good, such as going to work and providing for one’s family. However, the so-called “negative” aspect of power, though it constitutes a distinct minority proportion of the practice, represents a concentration of capability that most often precipitates great harms upon people with but small applications.

Take the building of a skyscraper as an example. The towers of the World Trade Center required years to erect and represented a huge investment in energy in the accomplishment, which we may look upon as the application of power in pursuit of a positive goal. Consider just how much energy and time their erection required and compare it with how little was required to bring them crashing down. In many cases and in many ways the application of destructive (negative) power accomplishes far more per unit than does the constructive. Entropy can be like that.

One might conversationally say that a little bit of evil goes a long way, which in turn goes a long way toward making clear the nature of political power as those wielding it have overwhelmingly tended to throughout human history. Overall, the exercise of political power has overwhelmingly resulted in incalculable suffering, death, and destruction of the natural and man made worlds. In virtually every case, excepting that of outright military assault, the fun begins with a campaign of ever-tighter circumscription of personal freedom. At least as often as otherwise, well-intentioned politicians or political groups, poisoned with the hubris of their absolute certainty, impose these campaigns upon the rest of us for our “own good”. In the other cases, the intentions are not so kindly.

Why people covet the acquisition and exercise of political power is a question whose answers are beyond the scope of this essay. In a sense, the reasons are irrelevant to the practical question of how we as individuals should respond to the reality. What is relevant is the knowledge that some people want it, seek it, get it, and apply it, usually to the detriment of others. That is the reality of that side of the power coin.

What, then, is the truth about the other side? Those who do not seek political power tend to be complacent with regard to its exercise by others, almost regardless of how it may affect them. A superficial survey of the history of US culture reveals that there was a time when the people would have met the sorts of license that politicians and government agents routinely take today with the rights of the citizens with immediate and unequivocal opposition, possibly spilling into physical violence. The great material abundance that the 20^th century has provided, appears to have lulled us into a fantasy existence where convenience has nurtured a certain lassitude with respect to our will to guard our liberties. It has become more interesting and convenient for many to concern themselves with who won the game last night, which color BMW to get, or whether their latté is up to standard, than to actively keep their political representatives on very short leashes. For such people, it appears that the conveniences of believing either that their elected officials are indeed seeing to their better interests, or that there is nothing they can do on the other hand, is more important than dealing with politicians running amok in a head-on manner.

Unlike the near-irrelevance of the reasons why some people covet power, understanding the reasons why people allow other people trample on their rights is of central importance and should become a primary topic of discussion amongst those interested in recouping their liberty and maintaining watch it. Though a thorough discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this essay, it is useful to mention that education and attitude are the two main causes. If people are unaware of what their freedom really is and why it should be centrally important to them, one cannot expect them to stand vigilantly and strongly against those who approach it. If their attitudes about those proposing to circumscribe their liberty are laissez-faire, it is equally unreasonable to expect them to respond appropriately. Therefore, we should all be actively advocating the seemingly tired old saw about the significance and importance of education with great vigor and determination. Without a broadly based change of heart and knowledge by people, freedom is doomed to extinction.

Does anyone here recall classes in civics and social studies? It appears that civics class has gone the way of the dodo and heaven only knows what schools are offer in social studies classes these days, if even those are still on the standard curricula. It is most interesting to note how our schools vigorously indoctrinate our children with an absolutist form of relativism, yet they ignore the crucial task imparting an in-depth practical knowledge of government, its structure, functions, and purposes. Likewise, schools appear not to teach our children what it means to be a “good citizen” any longer. How many children would be able to give a precise and complete account of what it means to be free? How many would be able to describe what the valid roles of government are? The answer to those questions appears to be “frighteningly few”. Until we force the issue of relevant education and restore these critical elements of the standard knowledge base, we will continue to suffer from the current scourges of ignorance and improper attitudes. If we do not teach the importance of freedom to our children, they will not regard it as such.

The central lesson of our political history as it relates to freedom of the individual is that regardless of intentions, the unwanted interference of one human or group thereof in the affairs of others is universally damaging to the welfare of all. Given this, the welfare of humanity is most faithfully served when people learn the lesson of the Golden Rule, live by it, and in so doing become utterly intolerant of those who seek to gain, grow, and apply political power such that it denies, diminishes, abridges, disparages, or otherwise infringes upon the liberties of the individual. Any lesser position with respect to the applications of political power is tantamount to a surrender to tyranny. If we, the people, fail to enforce the mandates of liberty on our own behalves, we have nobody to blame but ourselves as our freedom wings away into the hands of those who would have us toe a line of subjugation and slavery. Let us be clear that there are but two states for human beings, one in which they live and the other in which they merely exist. To the former we ascribe the appellation of “freedom” and to the latter, “slavery”. There is nothing in between, all cleverly and possibly obliquely pedantic philosophical arguments to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Each one of us has the choice to make of whether we wish to live, or merely exist. One may choose boldly, intelligently, confidently, and actively for life and all which real living has to offer. Otherwise, he may choose meekly, uncertainly, ignorantly due to lack of knowledge, or irresponsibly through the default of avoidance in favor of mere existence. Take five or ten minutes to sit alone in a room and ask yourself the question of what shall it be for you in the context of considering what is it that you would really like from life for yourself and the people for whom you care. What do you really believe about how things must be? How did you come to believe it? Could you be wrong? Could you have been deceived, bearing in mind the nature of people in power as we have examined it here? There is so much nonsense asserted about how people must act that you must examine all offerings of truth with a skeptical eye, including what you read here. No matter on which side of the so-called “political fence” you may find yourself, there are heaps of lies, fallacies, and poorly formed opinions about how “it must be”. Social liberals go on endlessly with their wholesale lies about social obligations, the debts we owe our communities, and a whole raft of other nonsense. Likewise, many conservatives would have us believe things about liberty that are simply untrue and are in fact frauds equal to their liberal counterparts. We could go down the list and find perhaps not a single group free of the guilt of selling lies, distortions, fallacies, and other forms of false and misleading information. This is the greater truth of human behavior where political power is concerned and it is a sad one.

Remember that choice we must all make. We will each make it one way or another, by an act of will or by default. There is no escaping it. The answer you give will affect your life profoundly and possibly for all your days, so be careful in deciding what it is you choose. To that I ask, “what shall it be?”

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

What is "Freedom"?

Freedom is a word that people throw about an awful lot, especially in the United States of America. Yet few people seem to have any real idea what freedom actually is. Without knowing what it is, how can one proclaim that they are free, as so many seem to do? To do so under such conditions is meaningless. To this, many people will cite relativist doctrine in an attempt to justify the assertion that any notion of "freedom" and "liberty" is a matter of opinion, and is therefore a fluid thing. In a strict, pedantically metaphysical sense, which some often disingenuously employ to nefarious ends, such people may have arguable points.  I am not, however, interested in such practically unproductive pursuits. In my opinion they have, at best, zero value in terms of everyday living and are often very damaging to real lives in the real world. Freedom as it exists or could exist in the everyday lives of people is what is of interest here. Freedom for you and for everyone. 

Thomas Jefferson described it with an admirably elegant succinctness:

       "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

I have spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing the common, yet commonly misunderstood concept of what it means to be “free”. During those years I have worked diligently on coming to what I believe is a sound and correct understanding of personal liberty. 

Given the generally unfavorable results of world politics with a special emphasis on those of the United States throughout the past several decades, it seems clear to me that something different from the philosophical status quo is needed if freedom is to survive the attacks mounted against it, and which grow in intensity, viciousness, and brazenness on what now seems a daily basis. Those holding power throughout the world, well intentioned and otherwise, have not demonstrated themselves as friends of freedom. At least not for the "little people". Their ignorance or malice is of such a timbre and degree that everything they do appears only to diminish freedom, which necessarily diminishes welfare.

In coming to this opinion, I have assiduously disregarded the things they say in favor of closely observing the things that they do and how well the walk tracks with the talk - another habit I would advise people to adopt with strong discipline and vigorous consistency. Every day those in power, or seeking it, treat us to an endless torrent of frenetic hyperbole. If one consults memory, we find that the same things are repeated ceaselessly, usually in the form of promises for "change", something for nothing, or ironically, greater freedom. When we compare all those noises with what actually occurs, even the less astute among us take pause to wonder what, precisely, is going on.

Recall the old definition of insanity: doing the same things repeatedly, expecting different results. This is precisely what the world has been doing - the same old political tricks yielding the same rotten results. Can you recall a single year in your entire lifetime when politicians on the campaign trail have not promised "change", or something for nothing? I cannot. Do you remember the campaign slogan that stated: "ask yourself this, are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Well, ask yourself that very question, only go back at least 30 years or more in your memories or your research. I will bet that most of you would have to answer "no".

If people want better lives, – free lives - they have to make it that way. While this may be only narrowly possible in many nations, the people of the United States have no excuse for not wholly engaging those in power with an informed and unbending will that forces the politicians to conform with their rightful claims, rather than having public servants acting as masters over chattel. Politicians as a class have amply demonstrated their proclivities for corrupt self-service at the grave expense of the rest,  every day over the past several thousands of years. Most of the time their personal and political interests do not coincide with those of liberty for all. It seems to me that a lot of people are discouraged and strongly pessimistic because of this. To those people I bid you despair not. There is hope, but only if we as a people work on it smartly, coherently, tirelessly, and with no tolerance or mercy for those who would endeavor to trespass upon our liberty.

Consider how well sitting idly by has worked out for us, expecting our better interests to be served by  largely unknown third parties whose fealty to the citizens is questionable at best. Also consider how well the political activism of most citizens has worked out for us. Overall, I would rate it all as a dismal failure where freedom and prosperity are considered. Therefore, we must do something different. Just getting involved is not enough. We must do so in a new way - in a smarter way - in an effective way that delivers on the promises - a way that actually produces the results that we want. I submit to you that the solutions are all staring us squarely in our faces and that the way is eminently simple. Putting them into practice will probably not be easy, but in my opinion, we can call off the endlessly frenetic search for complicated and elusive solutions because they have a long history of universal failure. Recall that definition of insanity.

If people want to restore to themselves their freedom and prosperity, they must come together as like-minded citizens. What, however, does that mean? It does not mean that we all think the exact same way on all the issues. It does not imply a forced collectivist hive mentality where all march in stern lockstep according to the dictates of the Fearless Leader or some ill- or arbitrarily-defined body of moral or political mandates. What it does mean is that we think precisely alike on a very small set of basic propositions that comprises the fundamental skeletal structure of our common stream of political thought. These principles set the context within which all people go about their daily lives. Please read that again. The context defines the metes and bounds of our choices and I assert unequivocally that those limits are expansively broad; the restrictions vanishingly few, and that all derive from a strictly rational and well-reasoned basis.

What we need in order to reestablish the United States as the great and free nation that was once the envy of the world, for example, is for people to come to agreement on a very small handful of principles and then to plan and act in accordance with them, leaving all other considerations aside. We do not have to agree on all details of how to live, which is one of the great advantages of life in a truly free nation. People may come and go as they choose and not feel hindered by the oppressive compulsion to correct the ways of others who have committed no crimes, nor be equally oppressed by their fellows. Live. Let live. Learn the basics of what freedom and liberty are and strive for a nation that is based on that and absolutely nothing else.

That is my hope for America. While still a great nation, we have far separated ourselves from what we once were and what I believe we could and should be. Take heart in knowing that these things are not broken beyond repair, yet. Take heed, however, that they are rapidly approaching that point of no return. We are still fully capable of recovering that which those in power have taken from us through the faulty reasoning of misguided good intentions and malice. Recovery cannot and will not happen without widespread, vigorous, and smart participation by individual people.

We must excise the apathy and ignorance that has grown in our nation like a cancer if the restoration of personal freedom and prosperity be the goals. It will require the guts to face the failings of ourselves as individuals, as communities, as businesses, and as a nation. It will require the willingness to learn new ways of seeing old things - ways that were once common but have now become rare and often distorted such that our forebears would scarcely recognize them. It will require the determination to hold steady to a course of action and allow neither trivial issues nor promises of token fortunes to divert our will or lull us into further complacency by the paid representatives of those who wish us to remain quiescent on our couches, consuming their product and not rocking the boat.

To this end, let us now embark upon the journey at the beginning. I hope you will find it interesting enough and of sufficient value to at least get you reading and talking about these ideas. With some small luck and determination, perhaps you will be inspired enough to set a course for your political life, embark upon it, and stay actively with it for many decades to come. I cannot overstate how important this is if liberty is not to be stamped out in the foreseeable future.  I also cannot overstate how regretful people will be if the day comes their freedoms become extinct, failing to miss it until it is gone.  Please do not let this happen to yourself.  Do not let this happen to the people you love and for whom you care.

Remedial Freedom Lesson #1

In order to discuss freedom, that is to say personal freedom, as opposed to other senses of the word, it is important to begin at the beginning and define our terms. Few people appear to be in the habit of taking this simple step before engaging in exchanges of a non-trivial nature. This failing has lead to many problems in our world and it is my intention not to follow suit. So, let us start by putting a definite meaning to the terms "freedom" and "liberty, which I use interchangeably here.

Consulting the dictionary, or in this case dictionary.com, we come to several definitions of "freedom" as appropriate to our purposes including the following:

Freedom - noun

1. Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery

2. Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. Civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

4. The right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will.

5. The power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

All these definitions share the common notion that a state of personal freedom is characterized by the absence of unwanted forces applied so as to thwart, diminish, or compel an individual's choice of action. These definitions carry with them a considerable body of implications that may not be immediately obvious to anyone who has not given these ideas a lot of thought. I will therefore elucidate upon these implications in order to make clear what freedom is and equally importantly, what it is not. Let us begin with the latter.


What Freedom Is Not

The first thing I would like to make clear about personal freedom is what it is not. It is not the liberty or right to do anything you please at any time, to or with anyone or anything. In other words, freedom is bounded, meaning there is a natural limitation on our prerogatives as individuals and as groups for taking action. The limitation to which I refer is that nobody is entitled to impose their beliefs, desires, or demands upon others without consent. We will look at this more closely in short order because there is more to it, but for now let that bit sink in without arguing against it just yet if you are so inclined.

A common response to the assertion that freedom is in some ways bounded is the claim that if one is not free to do anything one wishes at any time, then one is not actually free. Such theoretical nonsense holds little to no value for practical living. It may, in fact, prove highly deleterious when foolishly misguided people attempt to set into practice laws and policies that are based on such a flawed belief. It has been something of amazing for me to witness the volume of people who mistakenly believe that the definition of freedom means the prerogative to do absolutely anything one wants. Because there are laws against acts such as murder and robbery, laws that proscribe such behavior and with which most such people agree, many will assert that we are therefore not entitled to be free - that the right does not exist.

In other words they assert that acceptance of any boundary conditions on freedom is inherently arbitrary and therefore implies that they may be arbitrarily altered at any time as deemed "necessary". Wow. The problem here, if I may repeat that which bears repetition, lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be “free”, not to mention a serious need for remedial lessons in logic and reason.

The truth runs more like this: we live in what we call, for lack of a better term, the "real world", which is full of other human beings. Therefore, freedom is bounded because if we are each and all free to live in accordance with the dictates of our consciences, it strictly follows that it is improper for one person to impose his choices upon those who do not welcome them because it interferes with those persons' freedoms. In short, to be free is nevertheless to be bounded by this single axiomatic corollary whose basis lies in the equal claims of all people to be at liberty.

This seemingly paradoxical aspect of freedom, therefore, places certain practical restrictions not upon one's own freedom per sé, but rather upon one’s right to step beyond the boundaries that equal claims draw around us, prohibiting each from violating the freedom of others. In other words, the prerogative to violate the freedom of another lays beyond the metes and bounds of individual freedom by the very definition of the term itself when taken in the context of life amongst one's fellows. If we are each free to live without the unwelcome interferences of others, it follows we are not free to act against the freedom of others in such unwelcome manners.  This is a fundamental and centrally important concept to the idea of living freely, so read it several thousands of times over if you have to. Without a full and clear apprehension of this single principle, there is little hope of properly understanding what is required for securing, enjoying, and maintaining a state of personal freedom.  It is, in fact, the Golden Rule.

Acts that deny, diminish, abridge, disparage, or in any way infringe upon the liberty of others non-consensually lie beyond the moral prerogatives of the individual, groups thereof, and perhaps most importantly, so-called "government". Such acts are, therefore, what we commonly call crimes. Crimes are prohibited behaviors, usually punishable by laws or otherwise sanctioned through institutionalized systems of ethics.

Thus far, we see that personal freedom is characterized by this fundamental contradiction - to be free is to be bounded by an axiomatic moral prohibition on violating the equal rights of others. That we are bounded in this manner is not up for much discussion as it is the self-evident consequence of the very definition of freedom as it equally applies to all people. What is up for discussion and which shall prove most critical to the practical applications for living as free people, is the question of what are the properly reasoned metes and bounds?

This argument turns on a single point: that of "equality".  In this case, we refer to the equal rights shared by all people - the equal claim to live freely that is born into us by virtue of our very fabric as living creatures.  This assumption of equal claims may seem pretty bold to some, who may ask, "what is your proof that we are equal in this respect?"  After all, we are so very obviously not equal in virtually every other way.  We do not look the same, sound the same, smell the same, think entirely the same.  We often do not like the same things, nor do we hold the same opinions on many diverse issues.  We are not all of the same physical strength or size or shape or character.  We are not of the same intelligence.  To look at us all it becomes very clear that we are not all equal in any respect that presents itself to us in obvious fashion.

Why, then, should anyone accept that we are each perfectly equal in our freedoms?  The answer to that is actually rather simple, though we need to step down yet another philosophical level in order to see why.  Our claims to freedom stem from a more fundamental claim that is born into each individual human being: the claim to life.  Other words for "claim" include "title" and "right".  Restated, our equal claims to life becomes our equal rights to life.  Sounds more familiar?  So the presumption here is that each individual human being is endowed by virtue of his very existence with a claim to life. This is born into us.  The claim is not, however, a guarantee of life.  It only says you are within your rights to do whatever lies within your personal power to best ensure that your life continues onward at any given moment.

Now consider the only possible alternative to the presumption of equal claims to life, that of unequal claims.  What does that mean?  It means that some people hold claims to life that are superior to those of others.  If we accept this as true, we must do so according to some standard of judgment.  What could that standard be?  Where did it come from?  Why is that the standard and not something else?  Who put it there as the standard?  How were they authorized to make it the standard?  By what standard were such people made the authorities to put this standard into place and to which all people must kowtow?  By what virtue can any of these standards be demonstrated as non-arbitrary?

If we look at these two approaches side by side we may readily observe that the presumption of equality stands rather elegantly on its own.  It seems intuitively obvious that at some level we are the same, each of us.  We are each alive.  In this we are quite obviously equal, the differences then lying only in the ways in which we exist as living beings.  Some have brown skin, some pale.  Some tall, others short.  Some fast and others relatively slow, and so on down the line of physical and other attributes, all of which are mere outward manifestations of the life within.

Compare now that to the presumption of non-equality.  What do we find?  We find a broad vista of gnarly, thorny questions opened before us addressing the issues of whose rights are superior and by what virtue they are so.  The list above is just the beginning of a path that expands endlessly toward the horizon and to each side.  It is literally infinite precisely because none of the questions that arise have complete and satisfactory answers.  No matter how one might answer any given question such as, "what is the standard by which we judge one person to hold superior claims to live over another?", such an answer will always lead to more questions.  If you doubt this, try it.  But be so very careful in thinking that you have reached the end of the line at any given point because I can assure you that you have not.  Just because you may not be able to cough up yet another question, it does not follow that more do not follow from whatever answer you have just obtained, if any.

So let us reiterate again because this is a truly monumental point on one's understanding of such things.  The presumption of equality pretty well stands alone in its elegant simplicity, raising no difficult questions by simply telling us that all people hold equal claims to life.  The opposite presumption of unequal claims raises in infinite litany of questions that cannot be answered in ways that are not hopelessly obvious in the arbitrariness of their nature.  Which do you feel in your heart of hearts is closer to truth, a simple, elegant, and intuitively compelling assertion that stands perfectly on its own, or one that explodes into an endless cascade of rather disturbing questions about the assertion of the inherent and absolute superiority of one human being over another and the standards by which this is determined?

Please give this issue its due consideration because, believe it or not, it affects your life every moment of every day.

The answers to the question of what the metes and bounds should be are mainly rather simple and intuitively obvious when operating under the assumption of equal liberty for all people, which stems from the presumption of equal claims to life. Living by them, however, is not necessarily always easy. Never confuse simple with easy. Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to do.

So What, Then, Is Freedom?

Now that we have an idea of what freedom is not, all that remains is to determine what it is. Simply put, freedom is the prerogative to choose any action one wishes, within their rightful means, as long as it does not constitute a violation of the freedom of others. By "means" here I refer to material means. For example, if one wishes to carry a gun for a lawful purpose, they are entitled to do so provided they may also lawfully provide for themselves the means, which is to say the gun and, presumably, the ammunition. The right to carry a gun does not imply the entitlement of being provided with one at the expense of others. This is a common logical error upon which much of the philosophy of the welfare mentality is based. It is a horrific flaw that has wreaked incalculable damage upon billions of people worldwide.

While people are generally quite fond of proclaiming the virtues of freedom, their private definitions of what it means to be free appear to suffer greatly from the universally fatal character of hypocrisy. Fatal, that is, to their credibility as honest and intelligent beings. For example, so-called “social liberals” and "progressives" speak of freedom, albeit infrequently as they appear to prefer the vile term "democracy", yet they are more than willing to apply whatever manner and degree of force they deem necessary to impose their political views upon each and every one of us regardless of consent. They do so quite paradoxically, nonsensically, irrationally, and non-credibly, asserting that such applications of force make us all “more free” or otherwise better off for any one of a number of trite, tired, and wholly fallacious reasons.

In case anyone of a liberal bent is feeling picked upon, banish the thought, for there is plenty of blame to go around. Another example might come from the cadres of ultra-fundamentalist conservative Christians who similarly proclaim the virtues of freedom so long as it carries the Christian imprimatur deeply engraved upon on its forehead. One specific case could be the question of “decency”. In general, what some liberals may consider wholly acceptable in terms of decency, those of the Christian right often find abominable and would impose by force their political views upon even those who do not give their consent.  Hypocrisy abounds and we are drowning in it.

Who is right and who is wrong? They both are. They are each right in holding their personal opinions on the question, to which each is entitled by virtue of the very freedom they claim, yet seek to deny in others, often "for their own good". They are both wrong for attempting to force those opinions down the throats of those who neither share in, nor welcome them. That, my dear readers, sums up the core problem of humanity as it has existed since our earliest written history.

The litany of such issues includes abortion, birth control, sexual orientation, gay marriage, pornography, drug use, prostitution, smoking, liquor, gambling, and a whole host of others of which we are all, no doubt, well familiar.

This leads directly to the question of what may and what may not be proscribed behaviors, either by law or through personal interactions. Once again, the answer is quite simple: any act that denies, abridges, disparages, diminishes, or otherwise infringes upon the rights of others is proscribed behavior. Sadly, in the real world things are rarely this black and white. Therefore, we find certain areas of murkiness even in the actinic light of this radiant principle. While the principle holds strongly in most cases, a few gray areas can be troublesome. We must therefore address them, at least initially.


Direct Vs. Indirect Means of Violating Individual Freedom

The violation of a freedom is always a direct consequence of some action. The methods used to violate individual liberty is not, however, always direct and obvious. If I take a stick and bang you over the head with it, I have used a direct, which is to say an immediately obvious method to violate your autonomy – your freedom – your rights. If, however, I give 25 cents to Joey over there who then at my behest and payment takes a stick and bangs you over the head, I have still violated your freedom, this time using an indirect method or an agent. We now know the two main avenues by which one person or group violates the rights of others. You no longer have any excuse to allow those who claim, “I never laid a hand on him” or "this new law does nothing to limit free speech" to fool you. If you have trouble remembering this, just bear in mind the old line by George Carlin: “If you can’t beat them, arrange to have them beaten.” It is all the same.

Imagine next, if you will, that The US Congress enacts a bill that retroactively taxes all ammunition for all firearms at $1 trillion per round. You may pay the tax or surrender the ammunition to the “authorities”. Each violation of this new law will earn the guilty party 20 years to life in a federal penitentiary, and the law is vigorously enforced in the most draconian fashion imaginable, making for strong motivation to comply. Does such a law violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, assuming people are free to keep and carry their pistols, rifles, and shotguns anywhere and everywhere they please, public or private? The answer is yes, though through indirect means.

In such a case the Second Amendment right has been violated through the agency of exorbitant taxation placed upon ammunition, making it effectively unobtainable on a legal basis by anyone, save trillionaires. For those who may find this example absurd in its fabric, recall that one Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan introduced and danced for all he was worth to gain passage of just such a bill. The only difference was that the tax would have started at $130 per box for handgun ammunition, which was a tidy sum in 1979 and would in fact have placed ammunition out of reach for many millions of Americans, some of whom may have needed it most.

Use of the indirect method to violate the freedoms of people is perhaps the most common and insidious means by which mobs of people commonly called "government" perpetrate such crimes against others. There are literally tens of thousands of laws on the books that make end runs around the freedoms protected by the Constitution in such oblique and obtuse fashions as that demonstrated in the above example. One of the most egregious examples of this is Congress’ use of the so-called “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution to arrogate powers to itself and abridge the rights of the people.

One reasonably concise and accurate way of considering the concept of freedom that may help one maintain a proper perspective is the good old Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, live and let live. Free people are free to live by the dictates of their consciences up to the point that their choices interfere with the freedoms of others.

Direct methods of infringements upon freedom are usually far more readily identifiable and therefore more easily fought against.  Indirect attacks can be very oblique, their grotesquely twisted logic often holding an emotional appeal for some of those upon whom the violations have been foisted or who otherwise stand to benefit.  Most often indirect attacks very effectively conceal the violations they carry, much as rats carried bubonic plague to the cities of Europe.  Where even the indirect attack is unable to adequately conceal the outright violation of the rights of people, those seeking the imposition will provide false, yet emotionally compelling reasons to justify it.

Likewise, laws based on such hopelessly but subtly flawed reasoning will often pass muster with judges of lesser intellectual or moral caliber because they fail to recognize the flaws and fallacies. Irrational appeal and subtly fallacious twists of logic notwithstanding, such laws still constitute violations of our civil rights – of our inborn freedoms.  As such we should not tolerate them in any form or in any measure, however slight or insignificant they may seem, for these were the precise means by which our freedoms have thus far been whittled away by usurpers.

That particular method used to be referred to as “salami politics”, whereby freedoms were removed a thin and seemingly insignificant slice at a time. Bear also in mind that my use of “usurper” does not necessarily mean cadres of evil, crazy-eyed sociopaths. More often than not our freedom has been abridged by those well intended persons and groups who are convinced they know what is best for each and every one of us, regardless whether we want it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and such intentions most often bear the mask of hopelessly misguided benevolence.
 
That thought leads us to the notion of tolerance. Many sources, the mass media in particular, ceaselessly rail on about the virtues of tolerance.  While I agree with it in certain, specific principle and in much of practice, even tolerance has its limits. Not everything is tolerable. For example, would you tolerate your neighbor having sex with your 3-year-old son? Didn’t think so. That example alone demonstrates beyond doubt that not all things are rightly amenable to our tolerance.

Why, then, are so many people willing to tolerate violations of their rights? Ignorance, complacency, and a lack of proper attitudes and skills for detecting and defeating those who would trample on our rights are the main reasons. Are violations of one’s freedoms, either singly or collectively, ever tolerable? The only correct answer to that is a resounding NO! Under no circumstance whatsoever is anyone justified in violating the freedom of another, not even in “emergencies”, national or otherwise. That we have tolerated the piecemeal obliteration of so much of our freedom is a profound shame on all the people of the world, especially those of the United States who are as a matter of course supposed to know better.

Finally, allow me to mention an important aspect of the concept of freedom, and in fact of many of life's issues in general. Freedom must always be considered within a context. What, you may ask, is that context? Nothing more and nothing less than human life. The context of free human life, which is the basis of the Golden Rule, sets an objective standard of behavior for all people, which is the practical product resulting from the metes and bounds that arise naturally in the philosophical discussion, above. Yes, true freedom, through the context of humans living amongst humans, imposes a standard of action upon each one of us: live as you wish, but afford the same opportunity to others. It is that plain and it is that simple.

You are entitled to freedom from being murdered, raped, robbed, beaten, or violated in any manner. Likewise, onus rests with you to refrain from so acting upon others by virtue of the same entitlement bearing upon them. In the end, those who understand what freedom really is know that courtesy, respect, and mindfulness of the rights of others lie at its very core. In practice, it is the courtesy and respect to allow others to live their lives and to hold their personal opinions as they see fit without fear of retribution. Mindfulness rests in never forgetting that everyone enjoys the same freedoms as you.

Even if all people were to live by this central pillar of liberty, there would still be conflicts of interest. That cannot be denied because people are people. However, consider how many fewer such conflicts there would be, how much less friction between people when the burden of having to impose one person's or group's sets of beliefs and "values" is absent. I can barely overstate the significance of this notion. It would change everything, and for the better in virtually every case. As far as I have ever been able to ascertain in all my musings and conversations with hundreds of smart people over the years, the possible downside byproducts of living truly free lives are so few and generally so uncommonly realized, as to be essentially nonexistent.

I contend that the answers to such problems as we face today will be best arrived upon when we are all empowered through the prerogatives that fully realized inborn freedom allows. Within the metes and bounds, and in compliance with the universal standard of behavior, more freedom is never a bad thing.
 
As we continue down this path, we will explore the ways in which our freedoms are violated on a daily basis by others, expose the rotten reasoning used to justify it, and will consider how life might be were such unwanted interferences no longer tolerated. In addition, we will look at how we may change our current political realities such that life for everyone would be better overall. Far better.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.