[118926] in Cypherpunks
Essay: Freedom On A Leash (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Sun Oct 10 17:34:22 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910102119.QAA14858@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:19:40 -0500 (CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Hi,
May I put this on SSZ's CDR hompage?
----- Forwarded message from Secret Squirrel -----
From owner-cypherpunks-outgoing@ssz.com Sun Oct 10 15:19:02 1999
X-Authentication-Warning: www.video-collage.com: Processed from queue /var/spool/mqueue-majordomo
X-Authentication-Warning: www.video-collage.com: Processed by cpunks with -C /usr/local/majordomo/sendmail.cf
X-Relay-IP: 209.75.197.2
Date: 10 Oct 1999 20:06:01 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <5f90f8c13e102b628e49e4d839c68acf@anonymous>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Old-Subject: Essay: Freedom On A Leash
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to
<squirrel-admin@nym.alias.net>. The message sender's identity is
unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Subject: CDR: Essay: Freedom On A Leash
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@ssz.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cypherpunks@ssz.com
X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks@ssz.com
X-List-Admin: list@ssz.com
X-Loop: ssz.com
X-Language: English, Russian, German
There is a lot of talk here about whining for 'rights'. Here are a few
thoughts on this...
Rights
------
A lot of people who talk of their 'freedoms' (eg Freedom Of Speech) are
really just talking about the length of their leash. There's a
difference between being free and being granted a certain amount of
clothesline by an authoritarian keeper. Particularly, those who have it
deeply engrained in them (via psychological pressure, etc.) to obey can
be given more leash (the leash has been internalized). But the leash is
still there.
The principle of freedom requires an entity called an "individual". No
one else can grant you freedom, they can only grant you an amount of
leash (an amount of limitation), for in the act of 'granting' they are
assuming control, and you are assuming an obedient role. Only you can
grant yourself freedom, by acknowledging whatever strengths and
resources you possess, acting according to your own individual values
and aspirations, and facing the consequences with whatever is at your
disposal. This same principle applies to an organization which seeks to
be free - it all depends not on what others grant them, but what they
assume for themselves. With freedom implicitly comes responsibility.
The etymology of the word 'right':
Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht
right, Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight,
direct, rule, rogare to ask, Greek oregein to stretch out
If you are granted a 'right' that is proof that you are NOT free, that
you do not possess liberty. Liberty is not, cannot be a right. That is
an oxymoron. Whether the writers of the American constitution
understood this I cannot say. But you can understand it if you choose.
If you ask others to grant you rights, at least acknowledge that you are
granting them the right to dictate to you, to lord over you. You are
abdicating your liberty and acknowledging their lordship. There are
benefits to having an overlord, which is why people abdicate their
liberty in some circumstances. But if it is liberty you seek, then
assume it, seize it; make your own decisions, obey your own values. You
may ask others to respect your individuality and personal sovereignty,
but don't ask others to give you liberty.
Liberty requires two ingredients: freedom and power. Liberty is the
employment of freedom.
Consider those who are granted "Freedom Of Speech". Are they permitted
to speak whatever they wish? Of course not. There are exceptions,
qualifications, subtle and implied limitations. Say the wrong thing and
the leash gets shorter, or the master comes to move you to different
accommodations (ones less visible and with fewer rights). Those granted
"Freedom Of Speech" like to show us how splendidly long their leash is,
polishing it with pride and making speeches about it, but they are
mistaken in calling it freedom.
But you already have the freedom to say what you wish. Can you not
operate your own mouth, your own pen? What this so-called Freedom of
Speech right really grants is a promise that, within limits, your keeper
will not attack you for what you say, and will stop those who would
attack you. (Whether this promise is kept is another issue.) Thus you
are granted the right not to be attacked by your master, and you are
granted his (promise of) protection (or often merely his promise of
retaliation which is far less useful). In other words you are not given
anything, merely promised that you will not have something stolen from
you. And this makes sense, because the keeper is not really in a
position to grant freedom, merely to take it away, to limit it. He does
not possess your freedom so he cannot give it. You possess your
freedom.
Can your freedom be stolen? In fact no. Your goods can be stolen, you
can be beaten, killed. Your resources, means, power, liberty can be
diminished. But freedom cannot be stolen. At best others can convince
you to obey them, to lend them your freedom, your obedience, usually in
return for something.
Laws
----
Two examples of laws:
1) A driver may not drive faster than 100 kph.
2) Light does not exceed 3 x 10^8 meters per second.
What is the difference between these two laws? They both imply limits.
However the first is a decree, an order given by one to another which is
to be obeyed. In fact it is false, in that a person may choose to drive
faster. This law conveys a desire and a will to enforce.
The second is a natural law - a limitation. It's not that a photon
disobeying it will be pulled over, racially harassed, and ticketed. He
is free to go as fast as he can. The law doesn't set the limit or
attempt to usurp freedom, it merely reflects an observation of behavior.
It is unenforced.
To be more natural like the second law, the first law could be
rewritten:
1) If a driver drives faster than 100 kph, hungry police may attempt
to catch him and attack his wallet, and he may be stigmatized with
demerits which may affect his (granted) rights.
Unfortunately some live as if a law (decree) really does represent an
impossibility, a natural limitation, saying such things as "I can't do
this" or "I have to pay my taxes". Their habits of speech reveal how
they have been conditioned and how they condition themselves - how they
have removed the possibility of choice from their consideration.
Tucking those facts away as impossibilities, they then consider
themselves free and possessing individual liberty.
I think is it important to remind ourselves of the difference between
things we really believe we cannot do, such as drive 10000 kph, and
those which we are told by an authority we must or must not do. In fact
we should say "I choose not to do this to avoid attack (what some call
'punishment', although I fail to see a distinction), instead of saying
"I must do this". The difference is the difference between choice and
obedience. Responding to a force out of necessity and consideration of
its potential or merit is different than obeying a force which you
regard as your lord.
How Power And Freedom Are Often Confused
----------------------------------------
Earlier I stated that an individual's freedom cannot be granted or
stolen, merely forgotten or dismissed. Does this then imply that a
person who has acknowledged his freedom and does not look to others to
grant him rights is able to do anything he likes? No. Just as a light
wave cannot propagate faster than c, individuals have natural
limitations, based on resources, wit, courage, wisdom, their position
relative to others and their environment, etc. Their power.
In contrast to the case of a person who looks to others to grant him
rights, a free-minded individual evaluates his own power, strengths,
limitations, and needs, and takes actions which _he_ deems suitable.
Likewise he takes responsibility for those actions, and deals with their
consequences.
The state of freedom can be a very subtle one to realize. In a sense it
is an 'anything goes' policy. But while some would claim this leads to
anarchy or chaos, in fact people do have values, and they do have
limitations. This is as much a part of them as are their destructive
tendencies.
Now let's consider what might happen if everyone were free, as I have
claimed they intrinsically are. Some, due to their nature, would live
in peace, but others, due to their nature, would seek to subjugate the
will of others, would steal and plunder. People would probably form
into groups, based on their beliefs, skin color, or location. They
might choose as leaders people with charisma and energy, and they might
be betrayed by brutal leaders who assume power.
Groups might set decrees setting forth certain expectations, and
individuals would be expected to obey these decrees, or would be
attacked by the group. Many individuals would become accustomed to
being controlled from without. The group might use psychological
propaganda and misinformation on young people to deeply engrain habits
in them at a young age, or might even attempt to convince them that
freedom is a thing which only the group can bestow - a right.
Groups would often conflict with other groups, waging war to attain
supremacy, attempting to assimilate the losers.
This discussion was my clever way of demonstrating that people are in
fact already free, and always have been. Freedom does not imply
omnipotence or omniscience. It alone does not imply liberty. It merely
indicates a will to choose. What many seek while claiming to seek
freedom is more power.
A free-minded person does not have to be a rebel, his house filled with
machine guns, explosives, and Crays. In fact he may be a peaceful law-
abiding citizen. The difference can be very subtle. He may obey a law
only because he understands that if he doesn't he will be attacked by
the group. This does not mean he is not free, for he is consciously
making his choices based on his environment. It does mean his power,
and thus his liberty, is limited.
Likewise, a rebel may not understand freedom at all. He may rebel
against governments and people because he believes they possess his
freedom. He may break laws only because the action is forbidden. He
merely reacts. He may be just as bound as one who obeys unthinkingly.
He has power but cannot employ it freely, he can only apply it in
opposition.
Now my reader may say that most are like the law-abiding, free-minded
individual, just obeying to avoid punishment, but in fact that is not
the case. Government has become a deeply engrained religion of sorts,
and people have become dependent on the security (illusory and
otherwise) which the group mentality provides. They see presidents,
governors, soldiers, policemen, and pieces of carefully printed paper as
holy and sacred. They believe deeply that rights granted are freedoms.
Except when encouraged to do otherwise, they assume that the law is
right, and that which breaks the law is wrong. They rarely question the
basic fabric of their beliefs. It is unthinkable.
Further, even aside from the influence of their governments proper,
people are greatly influenced by the subtle pressures and taboos of
their neighbors. They sacrifice themselves and their liberty to blend
in, not merely because they fear the consequences of being different, a
reasonable fear even for a free-minded individual, but because they
honestly come to believe themselves to be wrong, broken, sick. They
come to hate themselves as others do.
The difference between those who are free at heart, yet lack liberty,
and those who are deeply conditioned to believe in authority, cannot
often be clearly seen in times of peace. Those who have forgotten
freedom will often claim they are free, ironically pointing to their
leashes, their rights, as proof. But when the opportunities for change
come, as they always do eventually, these people will cower and try to
retain 'the system'. They have grown dependent on it. They will
respond to those who welcome change with violence and hatred, much like
a trained dog on a leash angrily barking at a stranger. Others will
welcome change, and will struggle through it, still able to see that
greater things can be accomplished.
I believe most of us would like to put ourselves in the second category,
believing we are just putting up with the system for awhile, and have
not forgotten that we are free. But that is wishful thinking, and the
truth is not black and white. We have all been trained to think we are
not capable, trained to believe freedom is bestowed. And this training
takes constant vigilance to challenge.
Pleading for rights, while perhaps valuable, will not make you free,
will not give you liberty. It will only make you a more powerful dog, a
more effective tool. Liberty requires a much deeper commitment than
begging others to grant you rights, or attempting to become one of the
rulers rather than the ruled, and it requires a great deal of patience
for the genuine changes to occur. I see many grabbing for rights while
still clinging to an entire system hinged upon obedience and oppression.
It is not freedom these people seek, it is merely power.
At first, freedom must be cultivated internally, by realizing that
rights granted by an authority are not freedoms. Until you take your
destiny into your own hands and stop whining to others for rights, for
privacy, for power, you will not comprehend the nature of freedom, or
the nature of freedom in motion - liberty. We all have some power, no
matter how large or small, no matter whether we live in the wilderness
or in a jail cell. It is how we use that power which we have, or in
despair fail to use it, that determines whether we live as free
individuals or as automatons. Power and wisdom work in tandem. If one
has more power than wisdom, he uses it poorly and looses it. If one has
more wisdom than power, he uses what little he has wisely, and thus
gains more power. Power alone is not liberty. One may be powerful but
not free. One may be free but not powerful.
Freedom is choice, independence. Liberty is the free use of power - not
power over one's environment or fellows, but power in harmony with them.
Thank you for reading.
Anonymous
I hereby grant you the reader the _right_ to use this (public domain)
document _freely_. (If you've been paying attention you understand that
you are already free to do as you choose. I am granting you a 'right of
freedom', an oxymoron. You probably realize that my statement isn't
granting you freedom, which in fact you already possess, it's just
saying I am abdicating the _right_ granted to me to have you attacked if
you make you use of this text without permission. Thus you have gained
no freedom, no liberty, merely a right, a length of leash. Wag your
tail.)
----- End of forwarded message from Secret Squirrel -----
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
