Comments on: Individual Liberty: A further step towards Civilization

By: krish

krish — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:19:26 +0000

Freedom of Man from Men
Nice expression. Conflict arises when this freedom is breached; when one extends his limits to encroach on the next.

The micro level analysis of why this happens would be psychological. On a macro level, reasons are manifold. It may involve the government, it may involve “competitive strategy”, it may involve power plays. Ths list is not exhaustive.

If individual liberty is the objective, how can that be achieved? Who is responsible? Who has the potential? Where to begin, where to end?

To begin with, the premises have to be right. Inherent weaknesses in the process and in the goal need to be acknowledged. Perfection, by definition, can not be attained – it can only be aimed at.

To wage a war is no big deal. But in knowing what is it that is being fought for, lies the trick. Are we aiming for an absolute accomplishment of the goal called “Individual Liberty” or are we aiming to achieve a part of it? If it is a part, what is it?

The best way to move ahead is to begin. And the best way to begin is from the self.

Am I Free?

What are my constraints? Where are my boundaries? Do I have a boundary? Where does my neighbour’s boundary lie? What is my liberty? What limits me?

The macro leads to the micro. The macro can be aimed at, only when the micro is sorted out.

Interestingly, the goals are much more intriguing and intangible in the microcosm than they are in the macro.

To demonstrate, the Five Factor model would dismantle the factors involved in competition – competition is one major source of conflict and treads on individual liberty. To analyse one of the major factors of competition would be easy, comparatively.

It takes much more clarity of thought to find out what is it that limits me. We are dealing with intangibles here.

“Ego”, for instance. To realise that one has an ego is a task in itself. To identify how it works in manipulating one’s thought process is a different challenge. And to suppress and overcome this force takes grit.

To sum up the previous post, we need to know the target before we plan a strategy. And when the target is hazy, set a target that is visible and accessible. . . . A starved man can’t protect the weak.

As has been stated, the role of a government is to make sure that individual liberties are safe and to provide a level playing field for players. And it’s pretty obvious that governments do not do that. If governments did that, why would we have a community called “Rational Behaviour” and be discussing such a topic?

Provided that the first step, “mastering the microcosm” (“Mastering” is too daunting a word in this context – should perhaps be substituted with “Being aware of”!), has been accomplished, the next step would be to see what liberty and who’s liberty is at stake – and to do whatever one can do in one’s capacity to help people protect themselves.

One important premise here would be to know that the idea behind a war is not to win – but to wage!

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:47:07 +0000

Well most of the people who give those kinds of comments are trying to publicize their own blogs, and websites, what they don’t know is that all the links on the blogs these days are embedded with “nofollow” option, so Google’s page rank algorithm does not counts the anymore.

So unless someone click on the name and go to the website only then it will be useful to have those kinds of comments posted there.

But anyways even if they are good faith comments or not, we love them.

By: Prathik

Prathik — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:11:33 +0000

The comments that you get are real silly. No one reads the post but just puts something like nice post etc.. Guys if you are here to make comments atleast make sure that they are not stupid. Read the post, understand and then make a sensible comment. Don’t make your self look like a fool.

By: Gagan

Gagan — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:42:51 +0000

very nice post ! amazing thoughts u have !!

By: Freesoul

Freesoul — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:46:45 +0000

Some excerpts from 2008 U.S Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul taken from his 1987 book "Freedom Under Siege". I see no conflict between the self "ownership" concept associated with natural rights and those who, for religious reasons, believe their life is “owned” by God. One is a political concept and the other a religious concept. Obviously no one can dictate another's religious belief. What one does with one's life and property is a personal decision and it may or may not include religious beliefs. In a free society a person can "turn his life over to God" or squander it as he chooses. The important thing is that the state not be permitted to assume any ownership role of the individual. A society built on the principle of individual rights rejects the notion that the state should protect a citizen from himself. Government cannot and should not protect against one's own "unwise" decisions. Freedom is impossible once a government assumes a role in regulating the people's eating, sleeping, drinking, smoking, and exercise habits. Once government believes it has an obligation to improve or protect the people physically it will then claim it can protect them economically and intellectually. It leads to a regimented society, hostile to individuals who cling to the notion that their lives and liberty are their own. Conservatives certainly must be reminded that "civil" liberty is the same as economic liberty, and present-day liberals must be told that economic liberty deserves the same protection that the written and spoken word under the First Amendment. Preemptive regulations of either literary commercial activity, for any reason, are prohibited in a free society. Fraud and libel are crimes that, when proven in a court of law, must be punished. The most important element of a free society, where individual rights held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. Initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it is supposed to be for the benefit of their individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense. This means that all associations are voluntary and by mutual consent of both parties. Contracts drawn up without force or fraud must be rigidly adhered to. This sounds reasonable, and most people would agree this outline of mutually agreed-to associations. But it also means that free people have the right to discriminate – in choosing a spouse, a friend a business partner, an employer, an employee, a customer, etc. Civil rights legislation of the past thirty years has totally ignored this principle. Many "do-gooders," of course, argue from the "moral high ground" for their version of equal rights, knowing that they can play the sympathies and the guilt of many Americans. Yet the real reason for some of these laws is less than noble. For instance, minimum wage laws are popular, but the proponents rarely admit that this protects higher paid union-jobs and it increases unemployment. Total freedom of contract and association is what the "pursuit of happiness" is all about. Once this principle is violated, the gradual but steady erosion of our liberties can be expected unless the principle of individual rights is reestablished. Free choice means that the incentive to produce is maximized, since it's assumed that we can keep the fruits of our labor. In a free society, an individual benefits from wise and frugal decisions and suffers the consequences of bad judgment and wasteful habits. The state should neither guarantee nor tax success, nor compensate those who fail. The individual must be responsible for all of his decisions. Because some suffer from acts outside of their control, we cannot justify the use of violence to take from someone else to "help out." People in need are not excused when they rob their neighbors, and government should not be excused when it does the robbing for them. Providing for the general welfare means that the general conditions of freedom must be maintained. It should never be used to justify specific welfare or any transfer of wealth from one person to another. A free society permits narrow self-interest but allows for compassion and self-sacrifice. Greed, when associated with force or fraud, is not acceptable. A free society is more likely to survive if compassion is voluntarily shown for the unfortunate than if the poor are ignored. A healthy self-interest associated with a sense of responsibility for family and friends is far superior to a welfare state built on foolish self-sacrifice and violent redistribution of wealth. A society that holds in high esteem the principle of individual rights is superior in all ways to a society that distorts the meaning of liberty and condones the use of government coercion. Dr. Ron Paul, "Freedom Under Siege", 1987

By: Jester

Jester — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:08:30 +0000

interesting. not a response that you will appreciate i know, but still.

By: Sachi

Sachi — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:18:14 +0000

nice blog…n ya well written!
everything surely does have a reason….

By: Angad

Angad — Sat, 31 May 2008 08:21:07 +0000

Nice blog…nice post..good work!!

By: renjith

renjith — Sat, 31 May 2008 07:55:41 +0000

that sounds like not to be wat it is…..

By: Ilnaira

Ilnaira — Fri, 30 May 2008 05:48:37 +0000

Truth, my blog is very colored, tomatoes are very good yes!! I will try to put a translator… I came to leave the message in his/her blog, but I saw that you moved for this place, I liked this place, very good!! Liberty, the civilization, liberty of the individual, the citizens’ fundamental right, PERFECT!!! I don’t understand very well, my English is terrible, finally, your site is beautiful!! Thank you for the visit in my blog, see you later more more!!!. =*

By: Prathik

Prathik — Fri, 30 May 2008 02:40:43 +0000

You see right to property was taken away from the people once in India as government didn’t care about people who had large property as they were is smaller number, its called vote bank politics. From one point of view what they did was correct but that is not my point of view. I still believe SC/STs shouldn’t get any quota because they can stand on their own feet. Gujjars are begging for backward state for privileges but don’t they have pride? Some people will die if someone called them backward. I am from the main root of a khshatriya family so I won’t have any idea about their trouble in the past or present but that does not mean that I support cowards who want support of the government.

Stay in touch.
Prathik

By: manorath

manorath — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:55:49 +0000

well.. this post made me thinking though not deeper as i din want to get dat far.. individual freedom is ofcourse a step upwards towards civilization.. i usually judge cities by the interest the peopl give on others.. and this freedom of voice, i strongly approve dat.. no more comments!!

yeah u have designed ur website well..

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:21:25 +0000

You mean my Comment or Freesoul’s post?

Lemme explain mine if that’s the issue.
When wrong kind of people end up the the government, how will the common citizens protect themselves from the govt?

The govt has a monopoly on possessing Tanks, Howitzer Guns, Mortars etc, and in a Statist society only the govt or the State has the power to possess them.
Right now only in Switzerland private citizens can buy and keep Tanks.

On the other hand if there is no Govt, anyone can possesses it. Even missiles. Private entities have little incentive to invade another company’s territory. On the other hand Govt has only one way of expanding its market, that is by invading another govt’s territory.

By: Deepak

Deepak — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:14:12 +0000

man..u got one hella thinking..frankly speaking..i couldnt get to the bottom line of your post..

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:17:55 +0000

Well I would suggest you to take a look at Bill of Rights of US Constitution and tell which of the first 10 amendment do you think you will cut out in your idea “Minarchist constitution”?

I would actually suggest you to read the whole United States constitution but then I don’t think you would be able to understanding it completely considering numerous issues which you won’t be able to understand unless you have taken a course in American Civics.

My point being, United States of America is a classical example of failure of a constitution limiting the govt.

The constitution was ratified in 1788, and more than 220 years from then, the size of US govt has not reduced, or remained stable, but only increased. Do you know what is the excuse of expanding the govt? “Well the founding fathers didn’t envision the current situation, founding fathers didn’t see Handguns before writing 2nd Amendment, founding fathers didn’t know about Pornography”.

If you wanna see when did the size of US govt(or any govt for that fact) increased, it was during the Wars. First major war US saw was Civil War, it took away the right of secession from most of the states, formed a quite large Union, then it was Mexican wars, which took the territory of California and Texas from Mexico.

Then it was World War I, and WW2 broke all the limits of expansion of govt. World came off the Gold Standard. During the Vietnam war Americans went off the Gold Standard.

Now in War on Terror President has the powers to wiretap the private conversations of American citizens.

I know you have an attitude of shrugging off every issue with America, but unless you understand it, you will fail to see perhaps the only example of constitutionally limited govt in the world and in history. In America till 1909 constitution had no provision of Taxes so the govt did not even collect any taxes from the people.

Any govt, WILL expand itself as the existence of govt itself implies physical coercion. Do you realize that if right now someone wants to bring tyranny today in Somalia through totalitarianism, they will first have to conquer all the areas of Somalia, these people are not surrendering themselves for one single govt just like that.

On the other hand once a central govt is established, no matter how much Libertarian or Objectivist it claims to be, in the wrong hands will become authoritarian. Nobody will be there to stand against it because it WILL be the most strongest force in the nation.

The point is simple, if there is only one monopolistic entity which has the power to acquire nuclear weapons, tanks, mortor guns, Howitzer guns, Boforse guns, how will you, a common citizen protect itself if the govt decides to go berserk in power?