Freedom vs. Slavery (Want vs. Need)
Always be suspect of laws that are made to protect you from yourself or give you something you did not earn. The dragon uses them to change its status from “your servant” to “your master.”
If I asked you if the United States is the land of the Free and the Brave, you would probably answer “Yes.” Then if I asked if you are a freeperson, you would probably answer, “Yes,” again. Lastly if I asked you: Is your personal freedom one of the most important, if not the most important, right that you have, I would again more than likely get a final, “Yes.” Oh, but are you being truthful? Very possibly you are not.
Free People own themselves; more specifically, they own their property including their bodies to do with as they please. Do you?
Before I go on, I need to say that this is not a “Conservative” versus “Liberal” (Progressive) issue. Historically (and currently) both of these groups have tried to restrict your Freedoms; they just disagree on which freedoms to restrict.
130 years ago, a man could go into an opium den and smoke opium, or he could go into a hashish parlor and smoke hashish (marijuana). He could also go into a saloon and partake of alcohol in its various forms. The same man could go buy a firearm or two just by giving the store keeper the correct amount of money, then buy himself a horse and explore the vast wilderness areas. No asking permission, no paperwork and no being denied. That was a freeperson. Life could be dangerous, and the freeperson often put himself at risk, not just because he needed to but often because he wanted to.
In the first half of the 20th century, a freeperson could still do all of these things. He could also drive a car without wearing a seat belt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. If a freeperson opened a bar or restaurant, he could let people smoke in his establishment and suffer the consequences of fewer customers if that was indeed one of the consequences. A banker could lend money to whomever he wanted with no more than a written agreement or a handshake with no interference from the government.
Can you do all of those things today? Nope! Now I have two questions for you. First, do you still really believe you are a freeperson? Second, if you had it all to do over again, would you elect to have those freedoms of old, or would you rather have the security of today. (Assuming you are indeed more secure today).
What happened, why, and how does this have anything to do with Freedom vs Slavery and Want vs Need?
The freer a person you are the easier is it for you to make poor decisions and get yourself into trouble, injured or killed. Over time, as our government became larger and more powerful, it has written more and more laws that restrict individual and group freedom. These laws of restriction can be classified as three types.
There are those that protect society from individuals and groups, those that protect the individual from himself, and those that require the individual to give of his property to the government so that the government can redistribute it as it sees fit.
Most everyone believes that our freedom does not include the harming of an innocent person. This is often expressed as, “Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.” Because of this most people have no problem about the concept of making laws to protect an individual, or group, from another individual or group. However, the specific laws that are decided upon to do this are often disagreed upon.
One way to evaluate how much you believe in freedom can be measured by how you feel about laws that are used to protect you from yourself. Since most behavior indirectly affects others, I will say what needs to be looked at is to what degree this behavior affects the physical health or property of another. That is easily measured. If you include how they affect the emotional health of others, it can quickly get out of hand. Examples of this are laws that make something illegal strictly because it offends someone.
Years ago I was walking across the Texas A&M University campus when I heard two people arguing. I didn't know what it was about, nor did I care. I just remember one of them saying, “What you just said offends me.”
The response proves my point. It was, “I'm offended that you are offended.” Enough said?
If you truly believe in freedom then you have to accept that people will do stupid things that will hurt and even kill themselves. This is the price of being free. If you disagree, then you believe in “controlled by the government” freedom. Which I guess is just fine as far as it goes; just be aware that you are starting to go down the road of government sponsored slavery.
“Wait a minute,” you say. “I am 100% against any kind of slavery, and I don't see how you can possibly come to that conclusion!”
My response is, “It has to do with want vs. need.”
You are probably thinking, “What does want vs. need have to do with any of this?”
That is a good question that really does need an explanation.
First I should define what I mean when I say “want” and “need.” “Need” or “needs,” for the sake of this discussion, is defined as that which one has to have to survive as a reasonably healthy, happy person. Examples of needs are protection from the elements (shelter and clothing), physical nourishment (food), reasonably good health (medical care and exercise), leisure, security and a certain amount of companionship. However you can have all of this and still be a slave.
During the time when we had slaves in this country, a concerned owner of slaves, or just one who valued his property, made sure his slaves had all of this and more. In fact, often the slave of a concerned and wealthy owner had his needs met better than a freeperson. Another way to look at this can be seen with horses. Very valuable race horses have everything they need and in some cases have a more secure and comfortable life than many people. They definitely have a more comfortable life than wild horses. What do the wild horses have that the race horses don't have? Freedom! I have never known of a wild horse that wanted to be captured, but I do know of kept horses that wanted to be free.
A freeperson had to obtain all of his needs on his own, both for himself and his family. He often made poor choices and did less than a good job of providing for himself and his family. The slave may have had the better deal in regard to all of above mentioned needs; he only lacked one thing which is not a need. What was that? Let me see if I can remember. Oh yeah, I remember now, freedom!
“Where does want fit in,” you might ask.
Before I answer that, I should define “Want” or “Wants” as used in this discussion. Want is that which one desires that he does not need. I don't need a new car because the old one works fine, but I desire or want one. I don't need three new firearms for protection, but I want them. (Some would say I don't need any because the police will provide me my protection, though they most often arrive after the fact.)
Now back to how it fits in. There were slaves in the old days that had a pretty good life as far as their needs were concerned, but every time they wanted to have something, they had to get permission from their master. The freeperson may not have had much, but if he wanted something, for whatever reason, he just had to find a way to pay for it or create it, because you see, he had freedom and the slave did not.
So how does this relate to us today? With our government of today it is pretty much the same thing. The government tells us that it desires to make sure that the needs of all the citizens are met, as did the masters of old. However it often tells us we cannot have our wants unless we ask the government for permission to have them, and it may just deny them out of hand. An example is if one of us wanted to open a restaurant that allows people to smoke (smoke contained in the building) most local governments would say, “No.” Remember that no one is forced to eat in that restaurant or work there. This is no different from the master of old telling a slave he cannot smoke because it is bad for him to do so.
So who in the government believes they know best and tries to dictate what we can or cannot do or have? Can we get an inkling by the words they use? I would say, “Yes,” and would suggest that every time a politician desires to outlaw something, either subconsciously or consciously, he is saying that you don't need that. This tells me he thinks he has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do or have, based on what he thinks you need. He believes it is his prerogative to allow you to have things based on what he (or she) thinks you need, not on what you want. What you want is not any concern of his.
He may take a different direction and say you need something whether you think so or not. He then attempts to mandate his view by law. For instance he might decide you need health insurance though you may not want it and don't think you need it. Now tell me how he is any different than a slave owner? If you let him get away with it, how are you any different than a slave of the government?
There is something you should understand about these people who wish to be your masters telling you what you need or don't need. They will invariably use the argument that this is not directed at you but at those that are irresponsible. However, the law must apply equally to everybody so that includes you. Interestingly, you may have noticed that sometimes politicians make exceptions of themselves; after all, they are the masters.
One more thing you might think about if you desire to be a freeperson, and that is security. Freedom comes at a cost, and that almost invariably includes less security. Freedom allows for more opportunities, for more wealth, and more pleasure, but the cost is the possibility of failure. This is because with choice there is often the risk of failing. Sometimes this failure can cause disaster, but that is the price of freedom.
Those who wish to be your master will inevitably say the reason they are restricting your freedoms is so they can make you more secure. I would suggest every time a politician wants to restrict your freedoms for security, he is telling you he is the one who best knows what you need to be secure.
Many of you are happy letting the government restrict your freedoms as long as they take care of you, and that is fine with me. But realize that you have allowed yourself to be a slave and don't be surprised when I stand up against you if you want to include me in your contract.
If you cherish your freedom, you should be aware the person who says that there is too much individuality in this country or suggests that those who believe in the concept of the rugged individual are possible terrorists. That person believes he should make your decisions for you and hates the individualist. This is because the individualist will not follow the mob and definitely will not be another cog in the wheel. He will always make it harder to make citizens as slaves and the government as the master. Think about it….
Now I am done writing and I wish to have a drink. I don't need to, but I want to go to the Shipwreck and have a beer (or two), and since the government has not restricted me of this freedom yet, I believe I will! Maybe I will see you there….
enough