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?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
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.
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.
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.
---
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.
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".
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.
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).
Load more comments...