Understanding Freedom

http://www.libertyforall.net/carolinus.html

Understanding Freedom
by R. Lee Wrights


"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

- Thomas Jefferson


The ability of our third president to convey the strongest possible message in the fewest possible words never ceases to amaze me. Mr. Jefferson makes it easy for anyone to understand the principles of freedom. The realization that every man had the right to "unobstructed action," directed by nothing other than his own inclinations as long as the actions he chose did not violate "the equal rights of others," was known as The Enlightenment. A revolution was built upon the foundation of widespread, in fact nationwide, enlightenment.

This new-found enlightenment opened people's minds to the endless possibilities that were a byproduct of the myriad of choices offered to a truly free man. For the first time in history government was to be formed and administered by the people themselves. Each individual equally represented and recognized as the only true source of governmental power. A man that has no say in his legislature is no longer free, for he has become a subject to tyrants.


"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

-Thomas Sowell


So, people had to learn how to be free; or more precisely, how to deal with the responsibility of being free by accepting the consequences of individual "unobstructed action." Remember, these people had never been free in the sense we think of it today. They were used to the King's (government's) intrusions and had learned to wear the chains of subtle servitude without raising even more than a whimper of resistance. Being free created a whole new world that centered around the rights of the individual rather than the pleasure of a despot. It was so new it was exciting, a true wonderment to behold. But still, the people had to learn how to be free.

I know it may seem funny, but think about it. How do you exercise rights that no one on the face of God's green earth had ever recognized as even being in existence? For the first time people were able to speak their minds freely, and assemble in public with other individuals of like mind. Never before had individuals had such opportunities to profit from the fruit of their own labor and reap the bountiful harvest afforded by the fertile fields of Freedom. This new enlightenment offered new challenges as man embarked upon his maiden voyage onto the boisterous Sea of Liberty.

Like any other lesson that is taught by experience of life, learning to embrace freedom was and is an ongoing process. Unobstructed action was/is not the hard part, of course. It is easy for individuals to understand that it is okay for them to live as they please. It is not so easy; however, to define the limits prescribed by the equal rights of others. This is where people have, and always have had, the most trouble with freedom. Deciding where your rights end and another's begin becomes a matter of debate. A debate that can reach such magnitude that it has been known to spark global warfare. Sadly, the true problem is often not a violation of rights so much as it is an unwillingness by one or all parties involved to allow the other parties equal freedom. Maybe it is not so much that people needed or need to learn how to be free; but rather, they needed and need to learn how to let others be free.


"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

-Ayn Rand


No enlightenment is complete without the recognition of individual rights being superior to all other concerns, and, that they are the very cornerstone of a foundation of freedom. In other words, and at the risk of over-simplification, two individuals with the same vested interests do not have twice as many rights as any single individual. Groups of individuals cannot and do not possess rights collectively that supersede the rights of the individuals themselves. In fact, America was founded on the principle that government could not possess, or take on itself, any right that was not possessed by the individual citizenry.

Still, it is hard for human beings not to get cocky when they are with a group of their friends. Wherever there is a self-righteous mob, be it formed in the street or convened on Capitol Hill, there is a plot to rape Lady Liberty. When you hear the murmur of "collective rights" you will know that a thief is among you that seeks to steal her virtue, and you will know that fragile freedom is in peril. When it is decided that individual rights must be sacrificed for the good of the group, freedom begins to wane and it becomes only a matter of time until we suffer from the sickness of slavery.


"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)


Understanding freedom is easy when we apply its principles to ourselves. But, without the patience and tolerance required to allow the application of freedom's principles to others, we plunge ourselves into a cesspool of servitude. Our unwillingness to allow others to be free compromises any claim we have on freedom ourselves. The recognition of the superiority of individual rights in all human contracts allows all of mankind to share in the riches of those precious ideological gems, Liberty and Freedom. When the rights of the individual are forsaken, freedom becomes nothing more than a handful of counterfeit bills and the diamond of liberty is reduced to a lump of coal.


"Liberty is a harsh mistress. You cannot pick and choose what you like and dislike about her. Liberty will not change her principles for you, no matter how much you claim to love her. She will stand fast in her demands for total acceptance. If you can't receive her, she will recognize you as a false lover and leave you. And when you hear that door slam, it will take every tear in your eye, every ounce of blood in your veins, and all the nerve in your heart to win her back."

- Bill Masters

..............................

R. Lee Wrights is a freelance writer, editor and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and Editor-in-chief of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All; an Editor for Rational Review News Digest; and, a Contributing Editor for Rational Review. Mr. Wrights also serves as Vice Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee; Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina; as well as Chairman of The Libertarian Party of Forsyth County. You can contact Mr. Wrights at [email protected].

I have no problem with that piece until i read little miss selfish herself:

"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

-Ayn Rand



My right to not get shot is more important then your right to own a gun.



Groups of individuals cannot and do not possess rights collectively that supersede the rights of the individuals themselves.


Sure they can, the right of a kid to a state funded education, supersedes your right to not be taxed.



Understanding freedom is easy when we apply its principles to ourselves. But, without the patience and tolerance required to allow the application of freedom's principles to others, we plunge ourselves into a cesspool of servitude. Our unwillingness to allow others to be free compromises any claim we have on freedom ourselves.



Its real easy, be as free as you want as long as your freedom doesnt affect or annoy me in any way. You have the right to listen to loud music, but not outside my house. You have the right to have orgies, but not where my kids can see it.
The problem i have with libertarinism is it views every man as an island, and doesnt allow for acknowledgement of any sort of responsibility to society. I think collective rights are more important than individual rights, you are not an island onto yourself. You are a part of society and having taken advantage of its benefits to some degree during your life, you now have a responsibilty to the greater good. And if you have to give up some personal freedom for that greater good, too damn bad. I think you should be forced to wear a motorcycle helmet/ seatbelt, for the sake of hospital resources, too bad if you consider it a affront to your right to be stupid. Same as speed limits, your right to drive like a madman should be curtailed in order be protect the collective rights of society, even if you havent hit anyone yet. There is a greater good. I also dont agree with the every man for themselves, let the poor starve ideals of ayn rand. It just seems cruel and uncompassionate, you people can fight against socialism all you want, the whole world disagrees with you though.
Freedom is just a word, its doesnt mean shit

"My right to not get shot is more important then your right to own a gun."

If you were breaking in my home, you would have no right not to be shot, I would have a right to shoot you in defence though. Other then something like that, you have nothing to fear from my guns, or the Freedom to own guns. The fact that some "people" use guns for bad things, does not give you the right to take everyones guns. You have no right to feel completely safe from other peoples Freedoms. You have no right to take anothers Freedom so that you may feel a little safer. It would not make you any safer anyway. If someone was going to kill you, they could still do it without a gun. Saying your rights are more importent then others is, well, kind of selfish isn't it? I have a right to life also. If I can not defend my life, I may lose it. My right to life is no more or less importent then yours.

"Sure they can, the right of a kid to a state funded education, supersedes your right to not be taxed."

State funded education is a right? Could you show me where in the US constitution it says you have a right to force someone to pay for anothers education with taxation? Telling people how they have to spend their money is tyranny, not some kind of right.

"Its real easy, be as free as you want as long as your freedom doesnt affect or annoy me in any way."

So if you find my Freedom of speech annoying, then your saying I have no right to do it? If my Freedom to own a gun annoys your sense of safety, then do you have a right to do away with my safety. No, you don't have that right. You don't have a right to decide what Freedoms are more importent then others, mainly because they are all importent.

"I think collective rights are more important than individual rights"

This type of thinking has been tried before, and failed. Several times. What your saying, and I don't know if you realize this or not, is that the government has more rights then the people. It is in the best intrest of the people to keep all rights individual. When you pick collectivism over individualism, then your saying government control is better then individual Freedom.

"The problem i have with libertarinism is it views every man as an island, and doesnt allow for acknowledgement of any sort of responsibility to society."

Your wrong about that. Libertarians are all about responsibility for our actions. If you could show me where our government gets it's permision to give to charity, I would sure like to see it? Say you have more then me because I am lazy and your not. Do you feel it would be your responsibility to give me some of yours? Would you feel you owe me because I had less then you?

"you are not an island onto yourself"

Your not exactly a group either, but thats what your saying. We are all different. We are individuals. Collectivism takes all that away, and makes everyone the same. No thanks! I think that would be a little to boring for me.

"You are a part of society and having taken advantage of its benefits to some degree during your life, you now have a responsibilty to the greater good."

I have paid plenty for whatever benefits you think I may have recieved from the government. The only responsability I am concerned with is defending Freedom, all else is secondary. Without Freedom, you have nothing.

"And if you have to give up some personal freedom for that greater good, too damn bad."

I'm not seeing so much good coming from my having to give up my Freedom. By the way, how much Freedom am I going to have to give up for this "greater good"? Where is the good in a larger more intrusive government? I guess your right. It's just to damn bad, and I should just roll over and take it. I expect force would be involved in that if someone like you ever got in power.

" I think you should be forced to wear a motorcycle helmet/ seatbelt, for the sake of hospital resources, too bad if you consider it a affront to your right to be stupid."

All sorts of activity's done by humans use medical resorces. How many will you save us from? All of them? Seems a little bit like you consider Freedom stupid. Personaly, I think you would be kind of stupid yourself if you did think that. Lets take that a little farther, and say that having trials by jury is too expensive for the courts, so we just have criminals tried, convicted and punished on the spot. Instent death can be the punishment of choice since it is the cheapest way to go. One shot to the head don't cost much, and dead criminals don't commit more crime, right? Hell, if ya make the family pay for the bullet and other costs of execution, then no resources at all will have been used. Resources are not nearly as importent as Freedom. If you think resources are more importent then Freedom, then I believe you have a very odd malfunction in your head. I am starting to see a pattern of you thinking there is always something more importent then Freedom. Figures!

"There is a greater good."

I'm not so sure there is. Your speed limiting didn't do it for me. The drug war is waged for "the greater good" and yet all it does is cause harm to the people. The tyranny of the "greater good" is quite clear in certain cases. The benifits are not so clear. If you could find something a little more clearer then the speed limits, I sure would like to hear it.

"I also dont agree with the every man for themselves, let the poor starve ideals of ayn rand."

Most charity, and the kind that does the most for the people you speak of, is private. Government charity is nothing but stealing from one to give to another. Americans are the most giving people there are in the world. If they had more control over their money, instead of having to hand it over to the government, they would more then likely give more.

"It just seems cruel and uncompassionate, you people can fight against socialism all you want, the whole world disagrees with you though."

The whole world? You might want to recheck that. I think you may be off just a little on that.

"Freedom is just a word, its doesnt mean shit"

It's quite clear that Freedom means shit to you, that's for sure. Like all good collectivist's, you expose your lust to control Freedom with damn near every word you spout. I hope you will continue to spout, I like it. It shows you and your theory for what it truely is all about, and that is control of the people.

Toker

i was waiting for your reply to that. nice.

how can people think socialism now is suddenly grand, just like people thought so back when. and we all know what socialism leads to...and it's not freedom.

Some people can't handle Freedom, so they think others can't handle it also, and there for they think that Freedom should be controled with laws and threats of punishment. For some reason they think they can save the world with laws, and large intrusive governments, that make everyone stand in line or else. It looks like, to hear them tell it, that there is some "greater good" out there that is taking our Freedoms and replacing it with government control. I don't know about you, but I think it should be called a greater evil. Mainly because I can't find enough good in it to justify the control of Freedom.

Toker

oh, it's totally based on pure evil. i would take it a step above greater evil. the most evil the world has probably ever seen.