Posts Tagged ‘Political freedom’

Freedom is not “feelings”

October 1, 2013

A quote: ” When you feel freedom, it’s because the laws that are present make you feel good”.

 

“True” freedom has nothing to do with feelings. And if you are bound by a law, how in the world can anybody think that makes anybody more free?!

Much of the “freedom” Americans “feel” so far this year has a LOT less to do with what laws are present, but a LOT MORE to do with what laws are NOT present, and what arbitrary dictates are not present.

But to the extent Americans “feel” free so far this year, much of that is illusion anyway. Unconstitutional executive orders multiply, grand theft inflation continues robbing value from the monopoly currency along with interest rate price-fixing, regulations multiply, and now we have this 1,500-page Godzilla eating the livelihood of everyday common Americans.

Another quote:  When you feel liberty, its because your fellow citizens permit you to be free.

A. Forget the “feel”, please. In reality, people “are” more “free”, by both your definition and mine, by the way, to the extent that citizens respect the principle of non-aggression. No citizen has ANY ethical or moral right, at least no “natural” right, to aggress and natural law demands that they respect it.

When they don’t, then the principle of self-defense kicks in with a role. Ted Cruz, for example, is absolutely doing the right thing. I don’t care how many people voted for Obama or how they forced this oppressive and freedom-killing law down our throats, it’s going to make Americans sicker than ever along with the EPA‘s rules and the FDA‘s and the FCC‘s rules.

In both cases, they are management processes. Some are societal, laws; others are individual or group management processes that respect the laws in place and in some case self-restraining processes.

And that, my friend, to be brutally honest, is a semantical tap dance to avoid the non-agression principle, and recognizing that central planning and collectivism and involuntary anything is an aggression against freedom, against the individual.

 

What’s Wrong With Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms”

September 29, 2013

Freedom and liberty are over-used words in 2013 English. But what matters in the concepts they cover, what is worth applying in the real world of interaction between humans, is contained in the non-aggression principle.

I like that phrase for that reason. And that’s the one I’m sticking to.

You might call it the idea that “freedom from aggression” is the freedom worth striving toward. But there are two people involved in the non-spiritual aspects of freedom. Freedom for one person requires respect for that freedom from others.

Self-defense is the enforcement mechanism for it, the best, in fact. As a matter of even more fact, any other mechanism for enforcing respect for the other person’s freedoms is a violation of freedom. (Contracting with security professionals counts as self-protection. Having the proper equipment for self-defense also counts).

The words “freedom” and “liberty” are so abused and twisted by Orwellian state propaganda shills that I prefer the N.A.P. Use that as the best non-ambiguous definition of freedom I can work with.

Roosevelt spoke about his “four freedoms”: freedoms of speech and worship, and “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear“. It is a crime against intelligence and dumbing-down historical episode that the last two self-contradictory items in the list were not hooted down as invitations to tyranny. They are not natural rights at all.

The only “freedom from fear” you’re going to get is a Huxley one, chemically induced or psychotic. If he meant freedom from aggression that would be a right, but not at the cost of fiefdom, even if the figurative lords of the manor change every so often.

The “freedom from want” is the worst one. It is a the demand for a license to steal, to feed someone or to solve their “lack” by plundering the neighbors’ cattle, property, harvests, animals, and even wives. (After all, why should an ugly cripple “want” for sex?)