13

I Want My Freedom Back

Posted by straightlinelogic 10 years, 8 months ago to Government
82 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    still no example. Your perceptions are pointed. Where did you develop this perception? I understand your overall concept. I want to see if we perceive things similarly. Without an example...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm saying I agree with the notion of selling what we want rather than what we don't want. (the empty hole thing) But some of us are nutjobs. This is why the average person misunderstands Ayn Rand and maybe why we don't have politicians supporting libertarian ideas even though I suspect most people are libertarians.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "most people who vocally claim to support objectivism and/or libertarianism come off as some combination of paranoid, whining, bigoted, and mean-spirited." example please
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 8 months ago
    I agree completely. It's easier for me to support "eat more homecooked meals" than "eat less fast food." If you tell me what not to do, I imagine an empty whole where that unhealthful treat used to be.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MicheleGM 10 years, 8 months ago
    Freedom comes with a cost; that of acting responsibly and taking responsibility for your own actions. Self responsibility, along with the freedom to fail, are critical components of Liberty. And, as Matt Kibbe so eloquently states in the title of his book: "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff." Government in Liberty is restricted to its proper role of protecting property, whether it be the lives of the citizens (national defense) or enforcing contracts between freely associating people.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SolitudeIsBliss 10 years, 8 months ago
    Sad that we have to admit: We want a FREE nation, we want our Individual freedoms however, as law abiding citizens there isn't much we can do to engender change. Vote, yes ! Show up at marches and protests. Be outspoken about the evils, corruption and dysfunction of our government ! All of this still does not accomplish much ! We are still trapped in the same system until enough of the populace chooses to effect change by whatever means. Until then, we simply share idealistic platitudes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Personally, I am not a big believer in the chemical imbalance thing. I think it is overplayed just like ADD. A person my have a deteriorating brain that causes them not to be able to use it to reason but just don't buy the chemical thing. Of course I have been wrong before so could be this time too. Just need to see proof.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In many cases, there is a chemical imbalance in the individual which makes rational thought problematic. In others, there is an emotional imbalance that causes the same.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So very correct. Too many want "freedom" without consequences nor responsibility. For example, the freedom of speech would call for anything to be permitted. Yet, those who believe in liberty understand that there are consequences for one's actions and thus would not yell "fire" in a crowded and not easily exited venue as such might cause a panic that could result in harm to others. Likewise, those espousing "freedom" might advocate no rules against driving intoxicated, but those who believe in liberty understand that one has a responsibility not to drive intoxicated so as not to put at risk others. Liberty is a state of responsible freedom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
    I think the early United States, that immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, epitomizes that society. It wasn't the ultimate, as there was still oppression of a significant portion of the populace, but in general, while there were sporadic instances of slavery in the north, one could look at the majority of the non-slave areas of the US as that society. Or perhaps Australia between when it was a penal colony and the beginning of WWI.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 8 months ago
    Very interesting. However, I believe the gulch was Rand's depiction of the ideal. But yes I agree that showing what is possible or the goal is as important as showing what is wrong.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 8 months ago
    "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"
    ---
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like to ask questions that get people to think. I may not always have the best words for the question but I have faith that someone will take it in the direction I was hoping. This time it was you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with you. I only wanted to get people looking at the possibility that if we go to far and death is the only way to gain freedom, where have we gone. We are on a bad path but I cannot help but believe there are people in other countries that death is the only way. Maybe I am wrong. I like how SLL took this to a conversation about freedom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 8 months ago
    I am so so pleased that you post this. I am gaining a great deal of respect for you SLL. I could not have asked for more that to see this conversation continue in a different and better light.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Commander 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I find myself being very care-full of the words I use these days. "Words that can hurt, can heal". (George Carlin)
    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".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have differing personal definitions of "freedom" and "liberty".

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sure would have been, since William Wallace and Robert the Bruce were both part of the ruling class of Scotland; an aristocracy out to expel a foreign aristocracy.

    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).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, words appear to be my one particular skill. I'm not the only one with that skill in the Gulch, and I love the opportunity to go back and forth with Gulchers.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo