IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY

Over the years I have found there are those who wholeheartedly support my philosophy of individualism and conversely, those who despise it. It is most fascinating that among my detractors and supporters there are both self-proclaimed "liberals" and arch "conservatives."

This must be because each faction finds certain ideals of my philosophy that are in harmony with their own. They either overlook what they disagree with, or hope that some day I will "come around" and "see the light" where I'm in error.

My more "conservative" oriented friends hope that I will eventually awaken to the threat and dangers of complete personal freedom, and my "liberal" associates hope I will ultimately see the error of letting the capitalists act freely.

I'll confess to you that both camps are in for a long wait. Try as I may I haven't been able to find any moral or ethical justification whatsoever for any limitation of liberty imposed upon some people by other people, for any reason, whether the limitations are of a "liberal" or of a "conservative" nature.

My "conservative" associates insist that "society" (whatever that is) can never be well served if men are allowed to follow their own instincts with regards to personal choice in their unconventional lifestyles, use of recreational drugs, unusual dwelling preferences, dress habits, sexual morals and a host of other "non-establishment" behavior.

My "liberal" oriented friends can't understand how I can so enthusiastically support a complete "free market" without government control of any kind. They fear a world without a "consumer protection agency," without the "Naderites" to shield them from "greedy" profit-motivated "big businesses," or concentrations of "mega-capital" that might render all the "little people" slaves to economic power.

Even those who are most sympathetic to the ideal of liberty for all men still cling tenaciously to the hope that government itself is not a bad thing, but that we just need to elect the "right people," form the right kind of republic and things will get better. They believe that government can provide and ensure liberty.

For those who subscribe to this fantasy, I would recommend a review of history.

There are records going back over 6,000 years showing that all governments, without exception, have robbed, controlled, murdered and en-slaved their populace. It matters little whether these "rulers" were kings, princes, emperors, Devine entities, dictators, prime ministers, or presidents. The results were the same; starvation, misery and death.

In all cases, the peaceful traders, farmers, craftsmen, fishermen, weavers, artists and builders were forced to pay taxes, forced to conduct their trade with state control, forced to join their rulers in war, or to flee from government sponsored wars.

Upon occasion I have been accused of being "indifferent to the sufferings of the poor and powerless," and that I am totally lacking in "compassion for my fellow man." Such accusations make me angry.

As a matter of fact I think that I feel and exhibit strong empathy for the suffering of others. I will defend my compassion for my fellow man as long as my debaters will listen to reason.

This is why I am so sensitive to the atrocities inflicted upon people by other people in the name of government. When the liberal cries about the need of the welfare recipient I ask about the robbery that has taken place in order to facilitate a welfare state. Why be selective in our sympathies?

What is so compassionate about an ancient institution that embezzles people's savings through inflation, taxes almost 50% of a workers earnings, then taxes everything that is sold, confiscates property, conscripts young men for war, causes economic chaos in the marketplace, and creates "criminals" and punishment where no crime has been committed?

The American government creates 50,000 new laws each year, and over 2 million new regulations. Then we are told by the courts that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!"

How much time are we obliged to spend studying the laws that men make? I don't know about you, but I have more productive things to do.

As I look about in the world today, and consider the several thousand years of recorded history, I see a common source of human suffering and misery. It is this ... when some men attempt to "govern" others, here begins the age-old saga of poverty, oppression, hunger, fear, and slow death of the human spirit.

The attempt to govern others is the underlying basis of humankind's strife. It is here we find the source of conflict and violence. And here are found the roots of war.

It's often true that the most obvious things can be the most difficult to see. I contend that the concept of government as instilled in the human psyche arises from our primitive and barbaric past, from a time when our remote ancestors had not yet developed self-awareness, or the concepts of individual volition and free will, but were dependent upon leadership of the most dominant member of the pack. Deference to authority was a survival mechanism.

Later, as consciousness evolved, and brain became more instrumental to survival than brawn, this most ancient form of government became not only unsatisfactory but now destructive, as tribes, states, and empires fought among themselves with ever improving war technology.

However, what they have been fighting over is still that same old outgrown, outworn and useless, prehistoric relic; who will govern whom.

Here is the blind spot, where a beam, not a mere mote, is in our eye.

Each of us is a self-aware, fully conscious, self-directed individual, entirely capable of self-government. The next step is to realize this and learn to live our lives accordingly. This is the only way in which we can ever hope to co-exist peacefully, and indeed, to survive at all.