I am just throwing this out there....
I wonder what you all think about it...
By Harry FelkerFreedom Is Not FreeEvery individual who has sought freedom from an oppressor knows precisely that “Freedom is not Free” is representative of their endless perseverance against their own tyrants. What does this quote really mean to the reasonable person, politicians have used this to justify foreign intervention, but this is senseless, how does the freedom a country enjoys be dependent of fighting oppressors in foreign lands? This concept implies that there are inconveniences one must endure to prevent and stop tyranny at home, freedom demands, in maintenance, a price in time and energy, which takes two forms, passive resistance and aggressive resistance. Passive resistance includes, but is not limited to, informing and educating people why resistance is necessary, civil disobedience, organizing and participating in peaceable protest. I would like to believe aggressive resistance is self explanatory, but for the sake of clarity, this tactic includes insurgency and violent revolution. Both of these tactics require a tremendous investment of time and energy; organizing, spreading the word, equipping, etc, this is the price of freedom. Verily, the monetary cost of resistance is also an indicator of the price of freedom.“Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.”Thomas JeffersonSimply knowing that there is something wrong is not enough, instinct overrides reason if one does not expend the energy to explore and identify this malady, and use knowledge to judge the best course of action. Think of wild animals, when nature is about to unleash itself upon an area, instinctively the animals move away, flee the area, as humans, however, we have reason, fleeing is not the only option against forces that act against us, we can act upon reason. Reason leave us as humans two options for action, fight or flight, we can choose to stand up against the issue and figure a way to overcome it, or we can choose to flee for a society that has no such issue. Knowing that there is something wrong is not enough; if you have the knowledge that there is a problem and do not act you are accepting the flawed society and the oppression that invariably comes with it. It is only what you do with that knowledge, which is where the power is, in the implementation of the knowledge, not in having the knowledge. When you know something is wrong (no Power), you can act, you can identify it (Power of Perception), you can announce it (Power of Declaration) and you can neutralize it (Power of Destruction) or you can choose to not act at all and remain powerless. You use your knowledge to direct your action, your knowledge is your weapon, lying dormant, acting upon that knowledge is effectively lifting the weapon and using it, giving it the power. I am sure some have come to the conclusion that, at this point I am only speaking of violence, I wish to remind people of the adage the “pen is mightier that the sword” ones word is a weapon as well as ones fist. One can destroy tyranny with either words or arms; the only commonality of these two tactics is the use of the primary weapon, the human mind, knowledge, and without such you leave one tyrant only to deliver yourself into a new oppression.Freedom is ResponsibilityThe responsible person takes their freedom very seriously, they guard it from all oppressors, they extend their vigilance to the rest of their society as a loss of liberty to any member of a society can, and often does revert back unto them. The irresponsible person takes their freedom for granted, expects others to be inconvenienced and often finds themselves without liberty in a reasonably short time, as with most cases, without their life as well, as they well should. It is very easy, there is no “cost” to being irresponsible, it requires no prior investment, however there is a price, the loss of what one is irresponsible with. This is very true in the case of liberty; the responsible person heeds the words of wise men before him:“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”Patrick HenryThe men responsible for the American Revolution also mentioned those that are irresponsible with their liberty in quotes such as this:“That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly.”Thomas PaineWhen a people are drawn to irresponsibility, not only out of ease, but usually coaxed to it by their own government, they begin to take for granted the freedom that they once had high respect for. They become complacent and then apathetic, the final stage of irresponsibility before all responsibility for your life is placed in the hands of an oppressor, and with that great irresponsibility comes the loss of all power. The complacent are ruled, they do not decide their life, it is chosen for them and if they decide to turn from this they are punished gravely.With everything I write I cannot force you to follow, agree or read, I can only ask and give the choice to you, the audience, and this is the greatest reward of freedom, the freedom to choose your own path. You can choose to be a responsible person with your freedom, give the time and energy that preserving that freedom demands, or you can choose to not, be irresponsible with your freedom, and risk losing it. Freedom is a concept that has the seed of it’s own destruction planted well within it, the choice, you can chose wisely, and despite the demands, live free, or you may choose poorly and risk oppression.
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Nice, well-stated, clear, succinct. Around here, you're largely preaching to the choir - do you write elsewhere as well?
It'd probably make a nice short pamphlet for leavin' around - do you grant permission to reprint, or do you want renumeration for that?
Danno, eyeballing the printing press over there...
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
I am thinking that within the framework of coercive government, vigilant defense of liberty is necessary, as you outline, to counteract all incentives to those in government to take power, and there can be high costs associated with this. In the framework of a free society, it is actually profitable to defend encroachments on liberty (see Chaos Theory and The Market For Liberty). Getting from one to the other is certainly not free.
Danno:It'd probably make a nice short pamphlet for leavin' around - do you grant permission to reprint, or do you want renumeration for that?
My remuneration is to have my name on it as the author, that is all, I cannot, in good conscience take your money for something I give freely to you to view, and copying it and spreading my message further is only a bonus
Danno:Nice, well-stated, clear, succinct. Around here, you're largely preaching to the choir - do you write elsewhere as well?
I wish I could completely agree, the majority I see here are full anarchist, not the limited gov't types, and I do appreciate that, I like talking ideas with people that do not agree with me in total...
I have a web site that I blog on, and another site that I try to emphasize my points on...
Constitutional Revolution 2009
Sodahead
If you could, mail me I will give you my address and you could shoot me over a few copies, I have some places that I could leave it laying around too :o)
liberticity:I am thinking that within the framework of coercive government, vigilant defense of liberty is necessary, as you outline, to counteract all incentives to those in government to take power, and there can be high costs associated with this.
I am a realist, coercive government is what we have, and most likely what we will have for some time, my first priority is to stop the coercive government, limit it, and generate a populace that understands that limitation is as close to freedom they can have with a government in place...
liberticity:In the framework of a free society, it is actually profitable to defend encroachments on liberty (see Chaos Theory and The Market For Liberty).
Even in the case of coercive government it is profitable to defend encroachments on liberty...
liberticity:Getting from one to the other is certainly not free.
Freedom cannot be free, if it were, there would be no need to fight to gain it....
To denote that freedom is not free is to denote that there must be some form of payment for it. To denote that means that freedom can be alienable from an individual (for to not pay for it means that one can be without it completely) and requires some form of sacrifice. However we are born into the state of Man, therefore the state of Natural law, therefore freedom. Freedom is not something that can essentially be alienable, therefore if left unperverted freedom is free. What is fought for today is not necessarily a battle for freedom itself, but for the expasion of freedom to a near limitless level. We are to some degree free beings. The eliminatation of the state is just another level of freedom, a more powerful and extensive freedom that is sought after.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man:However we are born into the state of Man, therefore the state of Natural law, therefore freedom.
This is a semantic argument that LS and I had already, he chose Liberty to represent what you are now calling freedom, the inalienable freedom is not a free life but a free mind...
What I am talking about is a life of freedom, what is demanded of the individual to attain/retain freedom in an unfree world
Laughing Man:The eliminatation of the state is just another level of freedom, a more powerful and extensive freedom that is sought after.
And the elimination of the state does come with a price, there is a payment for it, the "state" will not just decide it is done oppressing and pack up shop and go home...
Laughing Man:To denote that freedom is not free is to denote that there must be some form of payment for it.
If you do not mind...
Harry Felker:This is a semantic argument that LS and I had already, he chose Liberty to represent what you are now calling freedom, the inalienable freedom is not a free life but a free mind...
No.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Harry Felker: Laughing Man:However we are born into the state of Man, therefore the state of Natural law, therefore freedom. This is a semantic argument that LS and I had already, he chose Liberty to represent what you are now calling freedom, the inalienable freedom is not a free life but a free mind... What I am talking about is a life of freedom, what is demanded of the individual to attain/retain freedom in an unfree world
Damnit, he is always trying to one-up me Freedom is not some black and white issue. There are degrees of freedom and if there weren't then no present state legislation would make us more 'unfree'. You speak in platitudes, which are nice to see yet meaningless none the less.
Harry Felker: Laughing Man:The eliminatation of the state is just another level of freedom, a more powerful and extensive freedom that is sought after. And the elimination of the state does come with a price, there is a payment for it, the "state" will not just decide it is done oppressing and pack up shop and go home...
Really? Are we to run up to the stairs of Congress and demand what we propose through Natural law, that which is inalienable in every Man? The state will fall because of crisis, not because of guns or gradualism.
Harry Felker:Prove there is no payment in order to gain freedom from a tyrannical government
This proposes that we do not have freedom right now. We have it, it is merely the wish of Anarchists (my personal intrepretation) to have more of it.
Harry Felker:Prove there is no payment to maintain said freedom once you have it
Again, I point out what I stated before. Payment infers some kind of cost to that which is fundamentally inalienable to the human being. I don't pay my lungs to breath. I do not sacrifice for my heart to beat. That is the natural state of things.
liberty student: Harry Felker:This is a semantic argument that LS and I had already, he chose Liberty to represent what you are now calling freedom, the inalienable freedom is not a free life but a free mind... No.
Care to elaborate?
What I took from the didcussion we had you said (paraphrase) that a child born in a wartorn country, missing limbs and whatnot, still has free will, but I fail to understand how that relates to a free life...
Having a free life is being free to make choices without coercion...
Maybe it was how I worded the response...
Laughing Man:Really? Are we to run up to the stairs of Congress and demand what we propose through Natural law, that which is inalienable in every Man? The state will fall because of crisis, not because of guns or gradualism.
I disagree that gradualism will work...
Are we to... Well you tell me what congress' reaction will be, the most dangerous proffession is to take the power from powerful individuals...
The Declaration of Independence did exactly what you (sarcastically) proposed, everyone knows that declaration was the mark of damnation in the Eyes of England upon those that signed and those that supported Revolution...
Laughing Man: Harry Felker:Prove there is no payment in order to gain freedom from a tyrannical government This proposes that we do not have freedom right now. We have it, it is merely the wish of Anarchists (my personal intrepretation) to have more of it.
No, I am not saying a tyrannical America n government for this question, in general, you are living in fictitious country that has a tyrannical government, prove there is no payment to attain freedom...
Laughing Man: Harry Felker:Prove there is no payment to maintain said freedom once you have it Again, I point out what I stated before. Payment infers some kind of cost to that which is fundamentally inalienable to the human being. I don't pay my lungs to breath. I do not sacrifice for my heart to beat. That is the natural state of things.
Recognition and respect of freedom is not inalienable to human beings...
Do you not have to eat to breathe or for your heart to beat?
Harry Felker: I disagree that gradualism will work... Are we to... Well you tell me what congress' reaction will be, the most dangerous proffession is to take the power from powerful individuals... The Declaration of Independence did exactly what you (sarcastically) proposed, everyone knows that declaration was the mark of damnation in the Eyes of England upon those that signed and those that supported Revolution...
What in our history has shown you that gradualism is anything but futile? And I would contest that since the industrial revolution, we have more economical interests to lose then the faux deities known as the 'founding fathers'
Harry Felker:No, I am not saying a tyrannical America n government for this question, in general, you are living in fictitious country that has a tyrannical government, prove there is no payment to attain freedom...
Again you are laboring under the false delusion that the government will simply crumble by guns or gradualism. I believe these two paradigms to be false and the state will fall because of crisis. That in essence will require no payment.
Harry Felker: Recognition and respect of freedom is not inalienable to human beings... Do you not have to eat to breathe or for your heart to beat?
I believe that to be a false analogy. I assume you believe in natural rights. Life, liberty and property are normal states of humanity. It is not so much 'respect and recognition' but a beign apathy. In mingling with humanity, I do not fear that my rights will suddenly be transgressed against therefore causing me to take preemptive measures. I do not wear a football helmet to make sure no one punches me in the face while I walk down the street. The normal condition of human interaction is cooperation and nonviolence. Much of the irrespect towards freedom comes from the state, not neighbors.
limited government makes no sense. the whole point of soveriengty is that there is nothing higher to appeal to. by what method will the government be limited? If it limits itself it can simply abandon those limits any time it wants. If it is limited by some external power then it is not soverign and you're back to asking the same question of whichever body is doing the limiting.
The individual must be sovereign, any other conception ends with inconsistency and coercion.
nazgulnarsil:The individual must be sovereign, any other conception ends with inconsistency and coercion.
The individuals limit the government, as it is their responsibility...
Harry Felker: nazgulnarsil:The individual must be sovereign, any other conception ends with inconsistency and coercion. The individuals limit the government, as it is their responsibility...
Unless those individuals are constantly holding a gun to the head of government or always on the edge of rebellion then the government is not limited. Both of these events are impractical.
Laughing Man:What in our history has shown you that gradualism is anything but futile?
Our application of Communism...
Laughing Man:And I would contest that since the industrial revolution, we have more economical interests to lose then the faux deities known as the 'founding fathers'
Thomas Paine mentioned this as well, that the revolution had to be when it was, if it waited any longer the people would have too much to lose. I believe that you are wrong in your analysis, the average person owned a piece of land, not a debt to a bank. The people now have complacency and commercial goods to lose, unfortunately this is more addictive than heroin and cigarettes....
Laughing Man:Again you are laboring under the false delusion that the government will simply crumble by guns or gradualism. I believe these two paradigms to be false and the state will fall because of crisis. That in essence will require no payment.
No crisis has a toll in human life? Let us take the innocuous financial crisis gone horribly astray scenario...
"The Government" will be undermined by such, but not eliminated, action is still required to get it out, it is a nice story to tell children that Ghandi was the reason that the British left India, and he did have a profound impact, but there was much violence to this end as well, the nice story is the reason Lala Lajpat Rai and Bhagat Singh are never mentioned. People will starve and die, then some will act, is this not a price?
Laughing Man:I believe that to be a false analogy. I assume you believe in natural rights. Life, liberty and property are normal states of humanity. It is not so much 'respect and recognition' but a beign apathy.
Your mind is your bodies government, your body is necessary to keep your mind alive, but your mind in turn must respect and recognize the bodies need for food, without food your body cannot perform the functions to live, the natural state requires effort to maintain it.
How is benign apathy not disrespect and non-recognition? The moment you have apathy, you have a scenario where the rights of individuals can be attacked or treated as privilege, just because it did not happen to the apathetic individual, logic and history dictate, a transgression on rights leads to more transgressions.
Laughing Man:In mingling with humanity, I do not fear that my rights will suddenly be transgressed against therefore causing me to take preemptive measures.
No, but you are prepared to take reactive measures...
Laughing Man:The normal condition of human interaction is cooperation and nonviolence. Much of the irrespect towards freedom comes from the state, not neighbors.
Unfortunately we live in a world where a state is present, everywhere. This is why there is a price to pay to be free, even in the instance you live in a stateless region, there are still states around you that you will either protect your freedom, or not. Keep in mind, those that choose to not, often find that freedom is an inalienable right that crumbles under coercion...
Laughing Man:Unless those individuals are constantly holding a gun to the head of government or always on the edge of rebellion then the government is not limited. Both of these events are impractical.
I disagree, it is inconvenient, but not impractical. I think you are confusing the idea of preemptive acts with preparedness....
Harry Felker:What I took from the didcussion we had you said (paraphrase) that a child born in a wartorn country, missing limbs and whatnot, still has free will, but I fail to understand how that relates to a free life...
A free life is related to nature. As you said, a baby could be born with no limbs,the mother dies in child birth etc and the baby is alone on a mesa, bloody and hungry, hours from it's own death.
Yes it is free. Yes nature will kill it.
By your definition, then the aging process towards inevitable death compromises "freedom". Nature and circumstance are completely seperate from deliberate aggression from other individuals.
In order words, freedom is related to man vs. man, not man vs. nature or man vs. his environment.
Harry Felker:The individuals limit the government, as it is their responsibility...
No, they have no responsiblity. There is no obligation on people to fight tyranny. The tyranny itself is wrong, and you keep framing it as not coercion, but a consequence of nature. It is nothing of the sort. The government is an intentional coercive tyranny designed by men.
Every man has a responsibility in a free society not to initiate coercion, not to defend against coercion.
Harry Felker: nazgulnarsil: The individual must be sovereign, any other conception ends with inconsistency and coercion. The individuals limit the government, as it is their responsibility...
nazgulnarsil: The individual must be sovereign, any other conception ends with inconsistency and coercion.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap