Deconstructing an Old Saying

My weirdnesses are many; and today I reveal another one. Over the years I have spent a fair amount of time and brain-cycles mulling over proverbs, clichés, and sayings, trying both to understand them and to put them into an optimal context for myself. Sometimes that is much easier said than done ... and that’s certainly the case with this one. It’s bothered me probably from the first time I heard it.

Cue up the lovely Jethro Tull song, Living in the Past, because I’m heading there again. This saying is one I first encountered during my childhood; I associate it deeply with the counterculture of that time. It isn’t so much a saying as an urging to action:

If not you, who? If not now, when?

I appreciate its call to focus, to take responsibility and to act—psychological research has consistently shown that most people tend to be more talk than action (not without good reason, but that’s another issue for another day, perhaps). However, I think my activist track record demonstrates that I attempted to follow the saying too closely; and I suspect that other activists may have the same difficulty to some degree.

Freedom is certainly a worthy cause, one deserving of deep commitment and sustained action. Consider how the enemies of freedom so frequently invoke it as a means of suasion, if you doubt me: the lip service shows that it is a cherished idea, even amongst those whose acts would take it from others. Given what’s at stake, and the fact that our controllers have become masters of Orwellian doublespeak, urgency is understandable. But is it always wise?

I would say not. When I was new to the freedom philosophy, I jumped in to activism whole-heartedly and with all the enthusiasm the neophyte often brings. Truth be told, much of my “activism” really wasn’t back in those days—like many, I was mostly writing and urging others to take action. And, like many, I soon became frustrated, for at least two primary reasons. Why weren’t the people I was sending my messages to seeing the problems I saw; why weren’t they doing anything about them—even just sharing the message with others? How could they not care? And second, there were so many outrages and issues, I simply couldn’t keep up. Even trying to fit in to the niche others tried to build around me—that being a femme firearms expert—I couldn’t address every 2nd Amendment violation, nor every proposed legislation ... it was dispiriting. And of course, my interest wasn’t limited to gun rights: I opposed all laws and policies that restrict peacable individuals’ non-aggressive choices.

But, with that saying haunting my mind, and the righteousness of my cause burning within me, I kept trying to address it all. And of course, I came close to burning out. Small-brained reptile that I am, I repeated the process a few times before I observed the clue-bat whacking me. And then, I dropped out.

I cannot—nor can any other single individual—take on all the threats to liberty. Not in the world, certainly; but also not in my state, nor my town. The scope is too large. However, instead of despairing, I choose to have faith that others are addressing the issues that I cannot. If I try to live up to that saying, being the one “doing freedom” universally, not only will I fail, but I will die not having enjoyed my own life ... not having exercised my own liberty to choose what I want to do.

Similarly, the urging to do it now is simplistic. As has been discussed here a few times, the decision to go ex-pat is one that requires deep introspection, careful consideration, and a good deal of exploration and planning if preliminary efforts suggest leaving the USSA is the best course. The caution against laziness is sound, yet the other end of the continuum is just as ineffective. Some things can be done “immediately”—the choice to break speed limit or seat belt laws comes to mind—but the deeper the activism, the better it is to think and reflect before choosing one’s course. This is especially true for pro-freedom activists who have dependents.

Freedom is a very personal thing; and its pursuit is equally individualized. I think I was beginning to recognize that in the essay I pointed to a bit ago ... and because I don’t think I can put it any better, allow me the indulgence of quoting myself to emphasize my point:

How free are we if we enslave ourselves to the ideals of liberty? If we take on too much and therefore render ourselves less effective, we end up working against ourselves and our allies, no matter what our good intentions might be. As long as one is committed to working for that cause, one must keep in mind the necessary balance between the cause and one’s own personal liberty—and one’s well-being.

One person cannot do it all: moreover, there is not time enough in one lifetime to address all that deserves attention. Here’s another open secret that many of us in the pro-freedom family seem to look past, however: individual liberty and a free community are inextricably linked. The actions of one can serve as inspiration and foundation for others, creating a web of independent, cooperative individuals—voluntarily cooperative, of course. Participants needn’t see eye to eye for this to work: indeed, the freedom movement’s greatest weakness right now seems to be that many expect ideological alignment before action can commence. The economic and political climate suggests that continuing to insist on the impossible is extremely unwise.

So, to conclude my tale, I remain mindful of those questions, but I am no longer in thrall to their urgency. I examine the issue or proposed action, and evaluate its priority in my life at this time; I try to take stock of others’ responses to it. If I can do something, and I see value in it, I will. But I am not a slave to liberty; I choose to live my life on my terms, and with my eudaimonia as my primary beacon.


(I would be gravely remiss if I did not acknowledge the influence of Peter Saint-Andre throughout the ramble above ... just don’t assign him responsibility for its ramblingness!)