scared of freedom

SCARED OF FREEDOM

There are a lot of people who consider themselves freedom
advocates, who, with righteous zeal and indignation, vehemently
rail against the injustice, corruption and oppression "government"
continually spews forth. However, many of those same people, when
they hear someone suggesting life without the monstrosity called
"government," will immediately go into turbo-backpedal mode,
insisting that some "government" is needed, that we need to work to
fix the system, and that we need a good "government," that just
does good stuff, and protects us, and so on.

The situation is a lot like a battered spouse, who is given the
opportunity to escape her abuser, but who insists that she can't
leave, that he really loves her, that she needs him, that the
relationship can be fixed. Such a response shows that, as much as
the abuser is a nasty scumbag, there is also a serious problem in
the mind of his victim, which enables the abuse to continue.

So it is with statists who just want a nicer, gentler "government."
They don't actually want freedom. In fact, they are scared to death
of freedom, which is why they refuse to give up the very beast that
they are constantly condemning and complaining about. They insist
that "government" is needed to protect people, to maintain liberty
and justice, and do nothing more. The fact that the gang called
"government" has never done that, anywhere in the world, at any
time in history, doesn't shake "limited statists" from their faith
in the idea that that "needs" to happen.

Those who glorify the Constitution, for example, don't like to
accept that it utterly and completely failed to keep the beast
"limited." Those who still focus on voting don't like to admit that
democracy has utterly and completely failed to lead to freedom or
justice. Those who still advocate limited "government" don't like
to admit that there has never been any document, any ritual, any
system or plan, that has resulted in an actually limited
"government."

Those who speak of getting back to the Constitution refuse to see
that the Constitution was just another tyrant trick. Aside from the
obvious example of slavery continuing under the Constitution, the
thuggery of the new "servant government" became evident very
quickly. Four years after the Constitution was ratified, the new
tyrants created an extortion racket ("tax") related to whiskey, and
then used the violence of the state to crush resistors. Eleven
years after the Constitution was ratified, the new tyrants were
locking people up for criticizing "government" (under the alien and
sedition acts). The document has been used an excuse for tyranny
since it was written. Why is there any reason to believe that
trying the same thing again (as if that's even possible) would work
out any better the second time around?

More to the point, why would someone who advocates a puny, weak
little "government," that does almost nothing, be so utterly
terrified of having no "government" at all? Again, the excuse is
usually that we need some form of "government" to protect us. But
that is not what "governments" do, and it never has been. You might
as well argue that your town needs a carjacker in order to protect
you from car thieves. How can we "need" "government" to be what it
never has been, and how can we "need" it to do what it has never
done? And why would anyone expect, or even hope, that that will
ever change?

Every gang called "government" commits extortion, and calls it
"taxation." Every gang called "government" threatens and bosses non-
violent people around, and calls it "law enforcement." Ron Paul
recently stated that the only proper purpose of "government" is to
promote liberty. The only trouble is, not only has there never been
such a "government" in the history of the world, but by definition,
there can't be. If there was an organization that only defended
individual liberty, there would be no reason to call it
"government." It would have no power to "tax" and no power to
"legislate." In fact, it would have no power, no rights, and no
"authority" that you don't have all by yourself. It wouldn't have a
monopoly, and it couldn't force people to fund it. It would be a
private security company, or many of them. Nonetheless, when
someone like me advocates what "limited government" people say they
want--organizations that only defend against aggression--most
people can't handle it. In fact, they won't even allow themselves
to think about it.

A while back I made a deal, offering to send anyone a copy of my
book, "The Most Dangerous Superstition," on these conditions: the
person has to read the book, and then, if it changes the way they
see the world, they pay for it; or if it doesn't, they send the
book back. Over a hundred people have paid, after reading it. Of
the four books I've gotten back, three of the books looked a lot
like the reader never made it halfway through.

It's a small book, the wording and concepts in the book are quite
simple to follow, and the people agreed to read the whole thing. So
why didn't they? Because they have been indoctrinated to the point
where there are some things they literally don't dare to think
about. When their minds start to approach something completely
outside the authoritarian paradigm they were raised in, they
mentally flinch, and back away. And, I'm sorry to say, most people
who consider themselves freedom advocates are the same way. I'm
even more sorry to say, I was that way myself for many years. I
still insisted on pretending that there is such a thing, or at
least could be such a thing, as legitimate, purely defensive
"government." I now realize that there isn't, and there can't be.

If your ultimate goal is to be bossed around and coercively
controlled in a limited manner, to be extorted and robbed in a
limited manner, and to have everyone around you victimized by
similar theft and aggression in a limited manner, then I guess we
have different goals. You see, I want you (and everyone else) to be
free. All the way free. Not robbed at all. There is a fundamental
difference between being a free human being, and being the property
of a relatively benign, compassionate master. If you're still
advocating "government," you're only shooting for the latter. And
you won't even get that.

To those of us who were trained to be the subjects of a ruling
class (which was almost everyone), the idea of a world of equals
can be a foreign, disturbing concept. Heck, it's even called
"anarchy," in case you weren't scared enough of it already. And
there are some who are trying hard to keep it so that, even if
you're one of those people righteously pontificating about how evil
and destructive "government" is, you won't actually get to the
point of advocating true freedom, or even to the point of being
able to think about it rationally. Freedom is unpredictable and
scary, and the psychological security blanket known as
"government," despite its horrendous track record in the real
world, feels so much more comfortable and predictable.

The promise of an omnipotent good guy, who will make everything
fair and safe, is so tempting that even otherwise rational people
still try to hallucinate such a thing into existence. They insist
that we need the magical (and mythical) entity called "government"
to keep us mere mortals in line. And when the monster they create
turns around and stomps on them, oppresses them, extorts them and
assaults them instead, they then say that we need to modify the
monster, or maybe even get a new monster. But if you suggest life
without the monster, those same people freak out. "We can't have
live without any monster at all! We just need a wise,
compassionate, limited monster!" The success of authoritarian
indoctrination can be seen in the fact that even many of those
being eaten by the monster will continue to defend the monster's
existence.

Well, if the evils done in the name of "authority" and "government"
ever get so bad that you are willing to re-examine a few
fundamental concepts and principles, then read "The Most Dangerous
Superstition." Until then, keep trying to cage the omnipotent
monster that you created, and that you continue to create, and see
how well that works.

Allow me to end with a low blow: All of you out there horrified at
all the oppression and injustice going on--the police state lunacy,
the murderous war-mongering, the socialistic robbery and state
control of everything--remember the seed that this grew from. The
Constitution. This is what "limited government" becomes when
applied to real life. How do you like it so far? To those who say
that a stateless society will never work, how has the "stateful"
society been working so far? To put it another way, "government"
sounds good in theory … but it will never work. < snicker >


written by:
Larken Rose
larken@larkenrose.com