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 2.
  • Posted by preimert1 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To me "freedom" is nuanced as a personal thing and requires personal responsibility on the part of an individual. "Liberty" would seem to be more of a group thing such as autonomous rule. America wrested liberty from English rule.

    In the Navy we got "liberty" but we certainly were not free.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As an author, moving your work site is easier than most. You will be most welcome in Atlantis, straightlinelogic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 8 months ago
    You ask, what are we for?

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 8 months ago
    I agree completely, straightlinelogic. Producers must have hope in something in order to produce an output that they are capable of. This is the primary reason that some of us are game planning for Atlantis.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The only way to get government out of one's life is to leave to where there is no government. You might be able to get close to that at some places here on Earth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Slavery includes such tangible restrictions as not owning property, not being eligible for professional work, having to have your master's permission for whatever you wanted to do.

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Circuitguy -

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oldwarrior -

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The great kilt was. The walking kilt was not. The 'plaid' as a distinct pattern for each tribe is modern, though probably based on local weaving techniques and dyes.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not LIKE the 'chemical imbalance' theory. However, I do note that there is an increasing amount of evidence in its favor.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 8 months ago
    Congress, the president and the courts,
    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.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Does an individual own himself or can he be made property, protected by slave-holder rights?
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, slavery was the elephant in the living room and the major contradiction in our Constitution was the failure to eradicate it at the beginning of the nation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like your characterization of responsibility. I've seen many posts here where the word "responsibility" could be replaced with "duty", which I do not accept. I agree that we each need to be responsible for our own actions which means being held accountable by an objective legal system should we encroach on the rights of others. Such actions need not be criminal in nature and civil proceedings should suffice to resolve many disputes. Initiation of force, however, is criminal and needs to be dealt with reciprocally.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    jsw225,

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by oldwarrior 10 years, 8 months ago
    In the last chapter of Atlas Shrugged, Judge Narragansett added an item to the Constitution (paraphrasing): the government will make no law interfering with the freedom of commerce. In addition, another item should be the government will pass no law redistributing the wealth of any one to others for any reason other than criminal activity or tort (and that includes envy).
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 10 years, 8 months ago
    There is no winning against these people until they are ruined. There's only 2 options.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo