Michael Beitler Article: Land of the Free?
Paul Wakfer
article, I need to use clear definitions for some of the words involved.
These terms are capitalized and their definitions are given with the
Natural Social Contract at: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html
At: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=729
Michael Beitler wrote:
> During the War of 1812, Francis Scott Key wrote a song about a star-spangled
> banner waving over the land of the free. Is this land still free?
It is interesting that this should have been written during a war which
was not to defend or to free the territory of the United States, but
rather to expand its territory by conquering and subjugating a neighbor,
Canada, that was no threat to the US. This is why the soldiers who
fought in that war of invasion of Canada were very much against it with
the resultant loss of the war and great wastage of human lives and
assets on both sides.
The introduction of "War of 1812: a Forgotten conflict" by Donald R.
Hickey is recommended as a (very) short read to become knowledgeable
about this part of history, mostly ignored in US schools.
http://tinyurl.com/yllqmcw
http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=336]
> Are you free to earn a living as you see fit? More and more jobs now require a
> license to practice. The licensing board, made up of your would-be competitors,
> can block your entry because they better connected politically than you are.
>
Michael makes the same fundamental error here as most libertarians, by
not distinguishing the essential differences between "free", "at
liberty" and "choice evaluations unaltered by the actions of others".
"Free" relates to whether or not an action is available/possible to one,
whereas "at Liberty" refers to whether or not an action is Socially
Constrained - ie a potentially possible action is physically prevented
from being available to one, by the actions of other people. Having
one's Choice Evaluations altered by threats and edicts of the State is
neither loss of Freedom nor of Liberty. It is important to always keep
in mind that such loss only happens after and as a result of the
physical force behind such threats and edicts being implemented by
enforcers.
With respect to Michael's example above, any person is still "Free" and
even, to begin with, "at Liberty" to practice any job without a license.
Although, for any job requiring the cooperation of others (to do the
job, not as clients/customers) s/he is only "Free" to practice it
without a license if those others agree to enable such practice. It is
only after being apprehended and jailed by government enforcers for
practicing such a job that s/he is no longer Free or at Liberty to do it.
Finally, Michael's pragmatic criticism that the licensing board is "made
up of your would-be competitors" and "can block your entry because
they better connected politically than you are" is irrelevant to the
issue of the rightness of licensing by governments. (Not by private
organizations though, which could test a person for competence at a
service profession and grant some certificate of approval. The
reasonableness of such test being judged by the marketplace of those
using it.)
> Are you free to enjoy the fruits of your labor? The government takes roughly
> half of everything you earn.
Similarly here, the government does not initially "take" any of what you
earn. If you are self-employed *you* decide to either send it to them or
not. If you are employed by someone else then some person who works for
that company effectively takes a portion of your apparent pay and sends
it to the government, only handing to you the remainder - your real pay.
Yes, if you are self-employed and do not pay them, then eventually the
bank (on government orders) will either send them the money directly
from your assets on deposit (effectively like an employer), or, if you
do not use a bank, the government will send enforcers to rob you of your
money, and/or the enforcers will deprive you of some of your Liberty
and your Freedom (all of it, if you don't give in).
> In addition, the government is encumbering your
> future earnings (and the earnings of future generations) by amassing ever
> increasing debt.
>
Again this is of concern only for the following reasons:
1) to the extent that you gain value in a manner that is recorded and/or
is otherwise discernible by government, because this enables them to
ultimately direct enforcers to use physical force to take your assets to
pay the government's debts, and
2) because and to the extent that you are using government currency,
their increasing debts will effectively rob you of value by inflating
that currency (decreasing its value relative to goods and services that
you need/want to purchase).
As for "future generations", if you actually plan to die (become
non-existent) then it is not rational to have concern about what happens
after that time. However if you plan to be cryopreserved and hope to
become fully functional again in the future, then all that transpires
between now and then is definitely a rational concern.
> Are you free to use your property as you see fit, as long as you do not infringe
> on the rights of others? You are required to get the permission of bureaucrats
> before you can build anything on your own property.
Once again everyone is Free (has the available actions) to use any
Property or Real Estate in any manner which is currently possible wrt
reality, even in a manner which Violates others. What s/he is not Free
to do is to take such actions and to not receive the consequences. These
include the harsh consequences meted out by governments for actions
which Violate no one, which harsh consequences will and can only result
from the use of physical force by government enforcers and their theft
of hir assets.
The major reason why all these rules and regulations have arisen is
because there has never existed a sufficiently strong and complete
definition of Real Estate (which is what Michael means by "property"
here), including the Covenants on the Boundaries. (For such a system far
more consistent and complete than any current one, see all the
references to Real Estate within the Natural Social Contract at:
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html) Because of that lack of methods
to optimally order a real need, governments have filled the void with
all sorts of rules and regulations which are not optimal for anyone.
> Even if you submit to all of
> the government's use requirements, your home and property can be taken from you
> in favor of a "public use" (such as a furniture store).
Michael's statement above is good, but I want to emphasize again, that
one *does* have the Freedom to resist such taking, but the strength of
the government enforcers who will do the "taking" is generally much too
powerful for such a Choice to have any reasonable chance to optimally
increase one's Lifetime Happiness.
> Are you free to enjoy your inalienable right to life?
Though the phrase "inalienable right" derives from the Declaration of
Independence phrase "unalienable Rights" and is frequently used by
libertarians, a little clear, thoughtful analysis shows that it is a
non-existent notion and therefore a meaningless platitude (see
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html for a detailed
critique of the "rights" notion). So therefore no one is or ever can be
Free to enjoy it (or perhaps more logically, since it is non-existent,
everyone is necessarily *always* Free to have it :)
> The government can draft
> (conscript) you into military service to fight in a foreign war that you believe
> is unjustifiable. Now politicians are suggesting conscription for mandatory
> domestic service for every young American,
Again one is Free to resist accepting the draft, to go underground or to
flee to another country. Yes, the existence of the draft and its
ultimate enforcement by government enforcers, does greatly alter one's
Choice Evaluations, and once one is apprehended, reduces one's Freedom
and one's Liberty. BTW, whether or not a war is "foreign" and/or one
finds a war "unjustifiable" are examples of "red herrings" thrown in for
their irrational persuasive effect (a standard political ploy - similar
to the use of the "furniture store" and "licensing board" of
"competitors" examples above), since both are irrelevant to the issue of
the rightness of conscription.
> following the Europeans on the road to serfdom.
Just as conscription has been phased out in most of Europe -
http://tinyurl.com/48x2yq
> Are you free to live your personal life as you see fit? You must receive
> permission, in the form of a license, before you can get married.
Since marriage is now a legal government process rather than a secular
or religious process, I see nothing wrong with that as long as there is
a government. The way to avoid it is simple - don't get legally married!
Yes, legal marriage or not also affects one's Choice Evaluations
relative to many government related actions and processes, but the fact
of such altered choice evaluations is not related to either Freedom or
Liberty. Now if government would arrest and jail you for having some
specified interaction with another person without being married, that
would be a different story.
> Are you free to invest your retirement savings as you see fit? The government
> requires you to participate in the world's largest Ponzi Scheme, known as Social
> Security.
Yes, everyone in the US *is* both "Free" and "at Liberty" to invest for
retirement as they each see fit. But again this depends on the meaning
of "require". It's analysis is the same as "takes roughly half of
everything you earn" dealt with above.
> Are you free to keep your personal finances personal? You may someday have to
> sit and watch an IRS agent going through your personal checkbook in an attempt
> to take even more of your money.
Again this has nothing to do with Freedom and only reduces Liberty (and
Freedom automatically) when enforcers are involved. You still have
alternate Choices, even if their Evaluations are considerably altered by
government laws and agency regulations. Some of these are: keeping
financial records secreted away or in one's head; not using a bank; or
operating effectively underground so the government knows little of
one's existence. I know someone who simply throws everything into one
shoe box, plays ignorant of any government requirements and agrees to
let the IRS look in his shoe box if they are so inclined. In addition,
how is "personal" relevant? It is *only* because of the possibility of
government or other Violation that any rational person would care about
others knowing to what use hir assets are put.
> Are you free to travel? Americans are subjected to random search, seizure, and
> interrogation in airports reminiscent of Germany's darkest hours in the 20th
> century.
Alternatives are to travel by private planes, cars and boats. The
problem mainly exists because the governments effectively own the
airports, and the commercial airlines are too large and "above ground"
to resist the governments' edicts, perhaps by jointly funding private
airports which they would control. But the latter would also not work as
long as the government claims that they also own all the airspace and
they have the enforcers to implement that claim.
> If you consider yourself free, I would like to see the criteria you used to make
> that judgment.
Mostly yes, but with my Choice Evaluations far too unacceptably altered,
according to my analysis above.
> Francis Scott Key asked the critical question: Does that star-spangled banner
> yet (still) wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave? The
> star-spangled banner still waves over the land. But is the land free? Are we
> brave enough to do something about it?
The last is the critical question. However since the solutions which
need to be promoted are not yet clear, I would rephrase it as: are
readers open-minded and rational enough to first read and critically
analyze facts and views other than the ones with which they are
currently familiar? Only then can changing their conclusions and
deciding on whether to "do something about it" reasonably follow.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting