I Want My Freedom Back
Earlier this week, edweaver submitted a post, "Does a person have to die to be free?" In it, he asked: "Is death the only way to rid yourself of government?" I submitted a response keyed to that question, and the response developed a thread. However, I wanted to submit what I said to the entire Gulch community to see what everyone had to say about it. Here goes:
One realization that has come to me, far slower than it should have, is that it is not enough to be against statism and government, one has to be for something, to have a vision of where one wants to go. The Fountainhead sounds the tocsin against the encroaching state, and Atlas Shrugged painted the dystopian future after that encroaching state has smothered everything in its path. However, Rand never presented a vision of a world in which the things she was fighting for—liberty, limited government, rational self-interest, and capitalism—had triumphed. One of the reasons I wrote The Golden Pinnacle, which you read, Ed, is to, if not show a world where those ideals had triumphed, to at least show what America was like when we approached the pinnacle of freedom during the Industrial Revolution. It is the first of a trilogy, and the third novel will offer the ultimate utopian vision.
You can look at the current nightmare and despair. You ask: “how do ever get the government out of our lives?” Reformulate your question: “how do we restore freedom in America?” It may seem a trivial point, but the first question is akin to: “how do we get the cockroaches out of our kitchen?” It’s a valid question, and the cockroaches have to be eradicated, but it’s mundane and uninspiring. Restoring freedom, on the other hand, inspires, and freedom’s proponents aren’t left just pointing out the deleterious consequences of statism and coercion (even, or especially, for the so-called beneficiaries), but can instead frame the issues in terms of people building better lives for themselves and their families, unobstructed by the state, reaping their just rewards, and rediscovering respect for themselves and their fellow citizens. People need to strive for higher goals than cockroach eradication. (Even that task sounds more palatable if you reformulate it is a part of the job of making your kitchen sparkling clean.)
If we Gulchers frame our goal as restoring freedom, then that can be done in ways large and small. Realize that like all corrupt, overreaching, overextended, overly indebted governments, ours will fail. A big part of our job will be done, but if all we can offer is: “told you so, told you so,” it will not matter. Winston Churchill said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.” After the collapse, many Americans will be ready to try the right thing: restoring freedom. The government will be bankrupt and continuation of the welfare state and foreign adventurism will be fiscally impossible. But intellectual revolutions always precede actual revolutions, so it is now that we must make the case not just against current arrangements, but the positive case for restoring freedom, in every way that we can. That’s what leaders do.
Thoughts?
One realization that has come to me, far slower than it should have, is that it is not enough to be against statism and government, one has to be for something, to have a vision of where one wants to go. The Fountainhead sounds the tocsin against the encroaching state, and Atlas Shrugged painted the dystopian future after that encroaching state has smothered everything in its path. However, Rand never presented a vision of a world in which the things she was fighting for—liberty, limited government, rational self-interest, and capitalism—had triumphed. One of the reasons I wrote The Golden Pinnacle, which you read, Ed, is to, if not show a world where those ideals had triumphed, to at least show what America was like when we approached the pinnacle of freedom during the Industrial Revolution. It is the first of a trilogy, and the third novel will offer the ultimate utopian vision.
You can look at the current nightmare and despair. You ask: “how do ever get the government out of our lives?” Reformulate your question: “how do we restore freedom in America?” It may seem a trivial point, but the first question is akin to: “how do we get the cockroaches out of our kitchen?” It’s a valid question, and the cockroaches have to be eradicated, but it’s mundane and uninspiring. Restoring freedom, on the other hand, inspires, and freedom’s proponents aren’t left just pointing out the deleterious consequences of statism and coercion (even, or especially, for the so-called beneficiaries), but can instead frame the issues in terms of people building better lives for themselves and their families, unobstructed by the state, reaping their just rewards, and rediscovering respect for themselves and their fellow citizens. People need to strive for higher goals than cockroach eradication. (Even that task sounds more palatable if you reformulate it is a part of the job of making your kitchen sparkling clean.)
If we Gulchers frame our goal as restoring freedom, then that can be done in ways large and small. Realize that like all corrupt, overreaching, overextended, overly indebted governments, ours will fail. A big part of our job will be done, but if all we can offer is: “told you so, told you so,” it will not matter. Winston Churchill said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.” After the collapse, many Americans will be ready to try the right thing: restoring freedom. The government will be bankrupt and continuation of the welfare state and foreign adventurism will be fiscally impossible. But intellectual revolutions always precede actual revolutions, so it is now that we must make the case not just against current arrangements, but the positive case for restoring freedom, in every way that we can. That’s what leaders do.
Thoughts?
One of the goals of our books is to show that in a free society, most people are not only honest but heroes who are incredibly ingenious. I have seen this in my own life. Most of the people who came into my office were heroes (not necessarily Galts) who were striving for and in many cases achieving incredible things. They were also fiercely honest, because you don't create an invention by faking reality.
my dictionary defines "licentiousness" as an excess of freedom constituting an abuse of liberty.
But maybe it is an excess of liberty constituting an abuse of freedom.
Whatever, you cannot have true freedom/liberty without restraint or responsibility, in my view, anyway.
Freedom seems to mean to many what you said, "license".
Whereas I define "liberty" as "freedom with responsibility".
That is, you have freedom to act, but you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.
In the Navy we got "liberty" but we certainly were not free.
In addition, our educational system (preferably private) must teach financial and economic literacy, so the average person, to be considered educated, will be able to avoid the nonsense that triggered the meltdown a few years ago.
I think the Constitution should stay out of education. I think that an amendment that says, "All laws passed in the US at any level must be Constitutional." is essential.
Jan
I have one very strong objection. Supplant "freedom" with "Liberty". Liberty implies responsibility to self and community extant. "Freedom" reminds me too much of "Lord of the Flies".
To directly address edweavers question: Freedom is a concept only for the living. Without life, and consciousness to perceive, freedom, does not exist....even in "animal" state.
I do agree.....Freedom is more "inspiring".
There are some rational thinking people who see suicide as the rational solution. Say the long married person who's partner of many years passes, and they see little remaining reason for living (no kids, perhaps). Or the breadwinner of the family that becomes unemployed and subsequently loses more and more assets, causing their loved ones to suffer and the only seeming way to "provide" for those loved ones is to convert a life insurance policy (a la "It's a Wonderful Life").
It's not a solution that I would advocate, but I can see how a rational person could come to that choice.
Jan
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/182/1/5.f...
http://www.neulaw.org/blog/1050-neulaw-b...
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-11-ps...
Jan
Braveheart, while entertaining, was such crap. Wallace was nothing like the long-haired barbarian Gibson portrayed, and the kilt wasn't worn in that era (what's more, there are paintings of Wallace in full armor).
Jan
including the supreme court, shall make no law
or regulation abridging the voluntary choices
of the citizens, except as is mutually and
unanimously agreed between the Speaker
of the House, the president and the Chief
Justice, to violate the constitutional rights
of *other* citizens.
how about that amendment? -- j
p.s. all federal laws and regulations are
to be reviewed within two years and reinstated
thusly, else they are revoked.
p.p.s. Yes, the Gulch was the beginning
of the ideal society, in my view.
1.) Leave. But there is only one final frontier. And as of right now, Mars isn't worth colonizing. (Working to solve this).
2.) Crash. You can't beat these people at their own game. They wrote the rules. They've perfected it over thousands of years. The entire system must crash before it's fixed. And even then, there's no guarantee that you'll win in the aftermath.
you are as right as rain. you could leave; i.e. live on a sail boat, I have done it; once you leave the dock money is un-necessary. and as for the crash; I think it has actually taken place but those in Washington do not care about the nation only them selves and for fixing it they do not have a clue if they even think about it which I doubt. the aftermath will be war in the streets like it is throughout the rest of the world.
I do not know how to apply that to anti-statism because most people who vocally claim to support objectivism and/or libertarianism come off as some combination of paranoid, whining, bigoted, and mean-spirited. Despite that, I think most "normal" people are actually libertarians and don't know it. Even patent non-objectivists who believe giving alms is a sacred duty might accept the gov't isn't that at carrying it out.
Someone smarter than I am about this needs to come up with a positive way to present the gov't being less costly and intrusive.
I think that Straightline has an excellent point, which you have just supported. Many people tend to phrase their philosophy in terms of "don't stand under my umbrella", which leads to the list of unpleasant adjectives you cite. We need to increasingly phrase our philosophy as a "You believe in freedom? Y'all are welcome!" approach. We are our own worst PR agents.
Jan
Answer, he owns himself.
But in relativism, society decides what is right and wrong, even if it is wrong.
Did unalienable, natural, civil, societal or god given rights include slavery? That depended on if “society thought” the rights of masters to have slaves should be respected. History shows they were. Even today there is slavery. Using these subjective rights can mean, and does mean, well, nearly anything, depending on the current “mood of society.” Most everywhere, full slavery is currently wrong, again. But one day, using relativism, “society” may make it right, again.
For individuals that respect individual rights, slavery is always wrong and never right, period.
I would like to point out that blacks were slaves for a few hundred years; women have operated under the abovementioned restrictions for thousands of years ('how many thousand' depends on the part of the world). But women's condition was 'spun' to a positive image - so it couldn't be wrong, could it?
And women got the right to vote 50 years after blacks did.
Jan, the elephantess in the room
And we bought this line. For thousands of years. Women accepted that we were superior beings, eternal children, raising other children.
So, I am not commenting on the condition of today's world, I am commenting on how deeply people can fool themselves - all the way to the point where the generally savvy folks on this site find no fault in a comment that '[black] slavery' is 'the elephant in the room'. It is not! 50% of the human race brainwashed into non-productiveness for thousands of years is the elephant in the room; slavery pales beside this.
Jan
You must also stand up against those who seek for power - those who want to destroy freedom. And they will come, to be sure.
You must teach that there is black and white. There are actions that lead to freedom and actions that lead to slavery. ALL actions have consequences and all decisions are based on moral principles of action that either maintain or erode the cause of freedom.
If you have any feedback, comments, or ideas, please let me know. I have been interested in this for at least 30+ years. I have spoken to many well versed individuals and have read many authors who have solid economic policy.
Live long, and PROSPER!
In AS, Galt's Gulch was, if not that ideal society, then the nucleus of one. Specifically it was a large camp where the most productive of men could live apart from the government that made true living impossible.
Months ago I at least conceived of a multi-commodity money system. I sought to replace fractional-reserve banking and trading in debt, with trading with coin (all precious metals allowed), and scrip backed with specific quantities of named commodities. Any merchant would be free to hawk his wares for any commodity he needed either to make them or to support his daily living.
Imagine being able to trade unrefined petroleum directly for refined motor or jet fuel, wheat (or corn) for bread, or silver for any electronic device that needs silver to make. That's just for starters.
Rand assumed putting gold and silver in people's hands would be enough. I propose a wider selection of commodities, to avoid a repeat of the "cross-of-gold" situation that ultimately gave way to the Federal Reserve.
I had in mind letting people carry scrip denominated in certain weights or liquid volumes of commodities the scrip issuer would store in a silo, a tank farm, or other general or specialized warehouse. And to get around the fluctuation issue, I would put the onus on the merchant to offer his goods for sale in any quantity of any commodity he wished. And in this era of smartphones, I'm sure you could soon get an "app" to track commodity-exchange rates, so you could decide for yourself whether any givern merchant was offering you a good deal.
I think you can understand why a purveyor of, say, motor fuel might gladly accept oil scrip at a more favorable rate of exchange than that at which he would accept wood scrip, or paper pulp scrip, or wheat scrip, or even gold or silver coin. Everything would depend on how much effort he would need to get the raw material he needs to produce the goods he provides.
Now of course the merchant has a joker of a problem. His employees could use that wheat scrip to be paid in. And that's just for starters. So any merchant would have a use for any of a number of commodities, not just to make the finished product but also to pay his workers and to support other "ancillary" parts of his operation.
What I'm really callng for is "partial enhanced barter." The enhancement would be that everyone has available to him all the information on how valuable certain commodities can be.
I might agree to this much: publish commodity values in terms of one value standard: say the gold troy ounce. But sill allow people to carry receipts for any commodities that anyone is willing to store for others. Nor do I propose that the government involve itself in any of this.
Think of the Mulligan Mint in Atlantis in AS. Mulligan would strike gold or silver coin on request. Now imagine as well that Ellis Wyatt were to issue scrip for the oil he brought out of the ground, or that Midas were to go into the "oil banking" business. All without any government involvement, and with no attempt to fix the value of any commodity in terms of another.
All I'm dealing with here is the concept of Legal Tender. Legal Tender is anything of value that a court might write into its Rules as universally acceptable for the discharge of a private debt, a tax obligation, or a court judgment.
---
I dunno. Seem to me like you're essentially arguing that rather than focusing on getting cockroaches out of the kitchen, we should instead focus on restoring the kitchen to its former cockroach-free, sparkling clean condition. Granted, the first statement evokes a negative emotion, while the second statement evokes a positive emotion, but logically speaking, they're really just two different ways of saying essentially the same thing. If you took two different people and gave one of two statements to each of them, and then asked them to both to devise solutions with their particular statement as the goal, I think they would most likely produce the same methodology and the same tactics. The fact that one was using a negative statement and the other a positive one wouldn't make much of a difference.