Rants

A colleague and too-infrequent correspondent of mine in the freedom movement has, for as long as I’ve known him, signed his emails with the line “Only interested in freedom”. The first time I saw it, my immediate response was, “Well, duh!!”, but over time I’ve come to appreciate some nuances inherent in the phrase. At the risk of sounding like a purist who wants to herd the cats, I’ve been finding myself wishing more liberty-lovers would adopt the line and its implications.

Anyone who’s been in the movement for more than a day knows that we are often our own worst enemies. Far and above all the divisiveness separating Objectivists and Libertarians or anarchists and minarchists is the human tendency to put our own personal interests or desires ahead of freedom. Thus one can find examples of individuals who say they’re anarchists supporting laws that coerce individuals into certain behaviors, or that prohibit nonfraudulent, voluntary transactions. In recent conversations with individuals, I’ve been surprised by emotionalism that often appears to be guiding their thinking, and the negative responses to even hypothetical situations that would challenge the world they want to see.

My recent time in the southwestern desert reaffirmed and refocused my commitment to the freedom movement. I discovered that I am, at heart, “only interested in freedom”. To me, that phrase has become a simple metric against which to measure any plan: will this increase individual freedom or decrease it? If it’s the latter, I’m against the plan.

I had no idea how unpopular such a simple thing could be.

If no one takes an extreme position for freedom and considers the possibilities, how will we know that our progress is truly that? Without a vision of total freedom to guide our day-to-day choices and thinking, it’s all too easy to be sucked into the quagmire of today’s unfree systems. I’m not arguing for a utopian solution, nor saying that a Grand Unified Plan for Freedom must be spelled out in excruciating detail before we act. Considering the “impractical extremes” that some libertarians dismiss is essential to our cause, and to our progress. So, for me, thinking about what kinds of justice services might be offered in a free society is just as important as opening individuals’ eyes to the current sham of justice under the so-called “rule of law”.

I’m only interested in freedom. That means that, as far as I’m able (and fortunately, I’ve a number of good friends who help me when my thinking gets muddled), I don’t let personal preferences cloud my thinking about freedom.

Thus, though I despise physical or psychological abuse, I do not advocate more laws to help solve those problems. There’s no “solving” something that is part of human nature (which is an animal nature, after all), and I firmly believe that we’d see far fewer cases of infanticide, fratricide, and related horrors in a free society. Similarly, while I don’t use many mind-altering substances, I see no reason why my preferences ought to dictate what any other responsible person can do in the privacy of his own home.

I long to see truly free markets. Consumerism has been an evolving process for millennia—why on earth should we think that it would stop simply because some don’t like the thought of “big-box stores” replacing smaller-box stores? Farmers used to sell their wares from their farms, or haul them to markets in the nearby towns to sell; then merchants came along to do that task. Then, “Mom and Pop” stores were largely swept aside by supermarkets that were able to offer greater variety and better prices, largely due to technological innovations and economies of scale. WalMart is carrying on the proud economic tradition of supplying consumer demand—something that I won’t shed a tear over. I’m happy to shop at WalMart because they offer a lot of what I want—decent merchandise at low prices. When I want something special, or a higher level of customer service, I patronize a specialty store, and happily pay for getting what I want. [Addendum: at the time I wrote this, I chose not to address the other side of the issue, viz. WalMart’s use of eminent domain and other laws to acquire property for stores. That has always been problematic for me. More importantly, as I have embraced the Discordian philosophy, WalMart has become part of the consumerist system I try to avoid feeding as much as possible.]

Zoning regulations that are thinly disguised protectionism for some special group or cause, laws that create artificial scarcity or monopolies, prohibitions on how an individual can earn a living—they’re all cut from the same statist cloth, and I want nothing to do with them. This has apparently horrified some self-proclaimed freedom lovers, for I’ve been called amoral and disloyal, among other things.

I’m only interested in freedom. What that means is that I don’t care what anyone thinks of me, and I don’t much care what anyone thinks of my ideas unless he can show me—with clear, reasoned arguments free of loaded definitions—where I’m wrong. If your view will help get us to a freer world, then I’m all for it. I don’t care if I’m right or if I’m wrong—I just want freedom.

What that means, though, is that no appeal to public good, general interest, or some other group-based outcome or situation will hold any truck with me. Individual liberty is always usurped under those banners. Far too long have they flown, keeping creative, innovative individuals in the thrall of the collectivists who would steal their labors for the benefit of others, under the guise of “public welfare” or some other convenient fiction. It is precisely this sort of horridly misguided justification of the theft of others’ time and labor that has enabled and encouraged the statists to continue to steal from each of us, under the guise of “doing good”.

It is not good to be a thief—which is what everyone becomes, whether he wants to or not under the state’s programs of welfare and other “services”. It is not good to be the recipient of stolen goods—which is what everyone becomes under as widespread a system of looting and redistributing as we see in the United States today.

I’m only interested in freedom. I’m not interested in dredging up all history’s mistakes and seeking retribution for them—there are too many, and no innocent parties among adults. I’m only interested in the past insofar as it sheds light on failed solutions, so that we may find better ones to light our way. Patents and copyrights try to create artificial scarcity—where, thanks to technological advances, none need exist in most areas. A state-supported monopoly is a monopoly of the worst sort; thus I embrace the changes that are coming to creative endeavors that seek to shrug off these outmoded monopolies. The change is going to be chaotic, and likely very difficult for many, as they adjust to the reality that their preferred way of earning a living will not suffice any longer. This has had personal implications for me, as I had the goal of supporting myself via my writing. But I’m more interested in freedom than serving my short-term wants.

I welcome the future, for all its chaotic change, because I’m confident that freedom will win. There’s nothing that the state need provide for us—private markets unfettered by taxation, state-driven artificialities, or other interference can meet human needs. Indeed, they can do so better, cheaper, and much more reliably.

It’s easy for an individual to say that he or she is interested in freedom—many people profess to be, every day. But many seem to want to be granted permission to be free—as if any state would voluntarily free all its slaves. Others agitate for freedom in some areas, while overlooking coercive measures that supposedly work to their benefit, or which allegedly help create a nicer world.

We can’t break free of our shackles if we don't have our hearts firmly committed to working toward total freedom. We won’t create a totally free utopia—but we can’t make as much progress as we might if we don’t set our sights on the highest goal possible.

I’m only interested in freedom. What about you?



Author’s note: This essay was inspired in part by Iloilo Marguerite Jones, to whom it is admiringly dedicated.

How do I despise the USSA’s socialist health care system? Let me count the ways!

Another tease on the Google News page that I knew I should resist following, but failed to exercise sufficient self control:

Nearly 13 Tennesseans die every week due to lack of health insurance, according to a report published this week by Families USA.

Surely the researchers weren’t stupid enough to phrase their conclusion like that!, I thought as I clicked to read the Nashville Business Journal report.

Yep, you guessed it: I attempted to upgrade my Linux OS yet again. That required more maneuvering than I’d anticipated, but I finally got all the preliminary steps completed, and slipped the install disc into my machine. Actually, I tried three discs—each of them sent to me from the Ubuntu Overlords (I think the real name is Canonical)—and failed with all three.

No matter what option I choose from the initial menu, after the "kernel active" message appears in white text, the screen goes blank; then, after a few seconds, the disc stops spinning. And nothing else happens. I had thought this was happening because the discs weren’t set up to handle my nice wide screen monitor; but today I plugged in an old monitor and got the same result.

I can’t download what I’d need to burn my own disc because it exceeds our satlink provider’s niggardly “fair access policy” limit. Exceeding that slows one’s connection to under dialup speed for 24 hours.

I really, really want to have a newer Kubuntu install on my system before I leave ... but I am completely out of ideas as to why I cannot get any of their discs to work in my machine. (Well, I know why the PC one didn’t work—I have a 64-bit machine. But neither of the 64-bit install discs work.) One more try and then I’m going to hit the bottle.

Strike the Root has published an article titled Vulgar Anti-Corporatism. As readers of Kevin Carson’s excellent Mutualist Blog would immediately suspect from the title, the idea is a riff on Carson’s “vulgar libertarian watch” concept. However, Hogeye Bill’s article wasn’t at all persuasive to me.

Sorry, I’m still stuck in econ-land ... hard not to be fascinated by how exactly the USSA economic train is going to end up jumping the rails.

I knew, just from reading the title, that I would be sputtering with indignation if I clicked through to read Is a taste of deceit with carrots so bad for kids?. I clicked. Consider yourselves warned.

As I wrote a while back, in One Individual Defines an Entire Ideology?, I have been trying to understand the sentiment, apparently common amongst a broad swath of libertarians, that distills to “If you aren’t for R.P. then you aren’t a real libertarian”. I have encountered some pretty interesting linguistic gymnastics along the way, along with what strikes me as a lot of intolerance for those of us who love liberty deeply, yet aren’t worshipping at the feet of Dr. No.

I apologize in advance to all principled nonvoters in the audience for focusing yet again today on a most distasteful action others—including even some self-professed anarchists—engage in under the pretense of civic duty, self-defense, doing good, or some other equally flimsy justification. There’s just been so much bullshit spouted in the news recently that I need to vent some here. I simply do not understand how anyone can read the mainstream headlines on the coming primaries and still think that USSA elections aren’t rigged.

Over at The Boondocks, someone posted a recent ABC News story, Mercury-Containing Vaccine Vindicated. Since the toxicity of mercury is well established, I wondered what was behind that headline. Do I need to say that I was not impressed by what I found?

If I don’t get this out of my system [I tried taking it out on the tomatoes, and I tried exercise, but I don’t think all of the pounding in my veins was from the workout] I am going to pop a new hole in my head, and that I don’t need. Lest you think this is going to be an “I told you so” rant, put that out of your head. It’s an “Are you people totally fucking insane??” rant.

Oh, and there just might be some strong language along the way.

For those who don’t know or remember, Wisconsin is called “the badger state”. A recent entry by NeoWayland at Pagan Vigil reveals that the badgercrats are poised to seriously maim the state’s taxpayers—all in the name of compassion, of course.

Dear Anarchist or Similarly Pro-Freedom Nonvoter,

I have seen you, or heard you, before – talking about how voting is coercive or immoral or evil. You have waxed eloquent in that, and other contexts, about how principled freedom lovers do not choose to wield power over others. You spoke, or wrote, as if you truly understood that the free cannot win by adopting the methods of the state; that freedom does not flow from the barrel of a gun; that civilized people do not interfere in others’ lives. You had convinced me that you grokked liberty.

I see now that I was duped, along with the others who believed you meant what you were saying. Maybe you yourself count as one of the duped ... I cannot say. But I don’t know what else to call it when I see you proclaiming that you’ll vote in the coming presidential primary—some of you have already stated that you will, if necessary, cast a write-in ballot for the presidential election.

It doesn’t matter who you’re voting for. You can protest all you like, and declaim that “this time, it’s different”—but it isn’t. Each and every individual who announces that he or she is running for any elected office of the state has implicitly accepted the idea that it is okay for some individuals to control others. What else do elected officials do? They don’t create wealth. They don’t create things that people want to buy, or provide services that people would voluntarily choose to pay full price for in a free market. Elected officials play with the rules that others live under (to varying degrees), while often exempting themselves from them.

It is true that some individuals who seek office have higher character than others. It is likewise a truism that power corrupts; and that even those of high character can be corrupted by it. Some who have seemed untaintable have been tainted, once they’ve gotten power. That isn’t to say that every one will, but that is certainly the way to bet. And the office of president ostensibly holds the most power in this country.

But this isn’t about them—this is about you. If you genuinely believed all that you said before, then how can you turn your back on it? Do you really think you’re “sending a signal to the powers that be”? They don’t care!!! It’s their bat, their ball, their home field, their rules—and they have already shown they will gladly change those rules to suit their needs. What’s worse, you allowed yourself to get sucked back into their game. You, who previously wrote such ringing denouncements of voting. You, who said you wouldn’t initiate force against others. Do you really think it’ll be “fun”, to endure the gauntlet of admission to their home field, and then to pull a lever or touch a screen and thereby proclaim, “I think this person should rule over us all”—including those of us who just want to be let alone, who thought you were a fellow lover of liberty ... only to have Diebold et al. suck your ballot or electrons down the memory hole? Judas got a better deal than the one you’re taking.

“Do as I say, not as I do” has exposed many a person as not living up to the standards he or she has espoused. There are different reasons why that happens, some of which are understandable. But you appeared to grok the non-aggression principle; you have spoken of voting as a violation of it. Your betrayal hurts. It especially hurts the pro-freedom movement, because your example supports the idea that nobody sticks with principles any more. You just raised the bar for the rest of us.

Don’t bother trying to justify your actions to me. I want to hear nothing further from you. Please do make sure you vote early enough to get one of those patriotic stickers boasting of your act of aggression, though; it strikes me as a suitable reward for all your effort.

Well. Now that I’m finally here, I don’t know where to begin. Oh, yeah, that should be easy: HughesNet sucks.

I can appreciate how someone immersed in the Amerikan consumer culture would welcome a means by which he or she could reduce the plastic card proliferation that apparently just won’t stop. But I really don’t think National Payment Card’s solution is the best way to accomplish it.