Give me freedom and shut the f**k up

Life, I think, without liberty is nugatory. Whereas, liberty, without freedom, is inutile for any human being with a sound mind. Unfortunately, many statists are set to horrendously dismiss my premise because they have been hopelessly inured to vociferously sell “dangerous freedom” and to blatantly buy “peaceful slavery”. The real tragedy of our so-called modern civilization is that not many people are capable enough to even ‘reason‘, except thumping chest to emotionally abuse the reasoning individuals or by expropriating the freedom of an individual for the ‘greater good’ of the society. These imbeciles are the one who are unready to realize the salient features of liberty and freedom at any cost. Thence, this analytical article is a critical attempt to notify their real eyes about the real lies regarding the state and also concluding with a short note on the difference between liberty and freedom. And, it is no greed to ask for both liberty and freedom because I have not assented to any social contract at all.

On State

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

“The word ‘We’  is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages. What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?” – Ayn Rand

What the State fears above all, of course, is any fundamental threat to its own power and its own existence. The death of a State can come about in two major ways:

(a) through conquest by another State, or,

(b) through revolutionary overthrow by its own subjects.

In short, by war or revolution. War and revolution, as the two basic threats, invariably arouse in the State rulers their maximum efforts and maximum propaganda among the people. As stated above, any way must always be used to mobilize the people to come to the State’s defense in the belief that they are defending themselves. The fallacy of the idea becomes evident when conscription is wielded against those who refuse to “defend” themselves and are, therefore, forced into joining the State’s military band: needless to add, no “defense” is permitted them against this act of “their own” State.

In war, State power is pushed to its ultimate, and, under the slogans of “defense” and “emergency,” it can impose a tyranny upon the public such as might be openly resisted in time of peace. War thus provides many benefits to a State, and indeed every modern war has brought to the warring peoples a permanent legacy of increased State burdens upon society. War, moreover, provides to a State tempting opportunities for conquest of land areas over which it may exercise its monopoly of force. Randolph Bourne was certainly correct when he wrote that “war is the health of the State,” but to any particular State a war may spell either health or grave injury. We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the State’s lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the State’s openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d’etre.  Read Murray Rothbard.

On Liberty and Freedom

There are too many words in the English language. In fact, two or more words may mean the same thing, and one can be used in place of the other. Sometimes it can get confusing, and sheeples find it hard to decide which word to use as in the case of the words “freedom” and “liberty”.  The word “freedom” comes from the Old English word “freodom” which means “state of free will, charter, or deliverance.” It, in turn came, from the Indo-European word “priyos” which means “dear” or “one’s own.” The word “freedom” is more concrete than the word “liberty” which is more associated with the notion of liberty in connection with the state. In short, “Liberty” comes from the Latin word “libertatem” which means “condition of a freeman” while “freedom” comes from the English word “freodom” which means “state of free-will. Freedom is the exemption from control by some other person, or from arbitrary restriction of specific defined rights like Worship, or Speech. Liberty is the sum of the rights possessed in common by the people of a community/state/nation as they apply to its government, and/or the expectation that a nation’s people have of exemption from control by a foreign power. Freedoms are things that people EXTRACT from their government; Liberty is less derivative, more formative; a thing GRANTED by the people to the people in common. The ability to Assemble, for instance, while commonly thought of as a freedom, is really an aspect of liberty.

“Liberty” is defined as “the right and the power to believe, act, and express oneself as one chooses, of being free from restriction, and having the freedom of choice. It is the condition of having the power to act and speak without restraints.”

Liberty is the condition wherein individuals behave according to their will and govern themselves, taking responsibility for their actions and behaviors. It is classified into: positive liberty wherein individuals act on their own will without being influenced by social restrictions and taboos, and negative liberty wherein individuals act without being influenced or coerced by other people. “Freedom,” on the other hand, is defined as “the state of being free to enjoy political, social, and civil liberties. It is the power to decide one’s actions, and the state of being free from restraints or confinement. It is synonymous to the words liberty, privilege, deliverance, and independence.” It is also referred to as “free will.” The ability of each individual to make choices that are free from coercion or restriction.

Suggested readings

Anatomy of voting: bit.ly/ZNuJnB

Culture of sheepleocracy in India: bit.ly/1FMMvZf

Clandestinism in India: bit.ly/1rtEE8o