Freedom Perhaps

Patrick Henry, 23 March 1775

I've been feeling a sensation of doom. I used to believe the conscious and independent might mount an effective resistance to the momentum of the all-powerful State but I don't anymore. I see weak acceptance around me, and teat-suckers seduced by the latest shiny thing. Their casual dependence and belief in the righteousness of authority makes me feel old, and curmudgeonly. Being a closet optimist who sees and believes in human potential, I do have some hope but first ...

Whosoever insists that 'democracy' should be achieved by majoritarianism and maintained by force is blind to the fact that, once any mob secures power, regardless of its socio-political lean, even those who were the engine of change become subjects to the newly concentrated power. Sharing beliefs with the ruling group simply means that violence — always done to those who hold different ideals — is viewed with glee but it is still coercion, whether achieved by legislation or not, and it can turn 180 degrees in a heartbeat. As the State consolidates power and a monopoly on force individual freedom disappears degree by degree. In ten years I wonder if anyone under sixty will even know what the word means.

I like to believe that this nation was founded on the ideals of free speech, freedom of movement, belief, association and assembly, regulated and maintained by open discourse and individual autonomy and voluntary relationship. When no man or entity can impose ideas on any other man or group — when power is equally apportioned among individual citizens — speech may be freely shared and broadcast, beliefs freely pursued and expressed, and mutually beneficial groups formed with no permission needed. Such freedom comes with a price tag.

Sigmund Freud said, “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.”

Some synonyms for responsibility are obligation, duty, commitment, and accountability and damn if these things don't require work, critical thinking, and the courage to ask questions. Freedom and autonomy are hard. It's easier to do as one is told, to put responsibility in another's hands (disregarding the notion that accountability is handed over at the same time). Perhaps this is what I find so disheartening right now, that too few understand freedom, what it means for an individual to be free, to decide for themselves as individuals rather than going along with identitarian groupthink or compelled behavior … more liberty is ALWAYS better, but only if you know what to do with it. What might we do on our own, if we had the courage to make our own lives, to be ourselves and do as we feel, creating our own individual identity? And if we make our own lives, will we have the courage to teach and share with the generations coming behind us? I hope so.

I'm a late-Boomer, older, and also not fixed or firm, able to change ideas, careers, location and social circumstances but one thing I cannot change is my resistance to being told what to do. This has not always served me well but asking questions consistently has. I have always been “against” something but my resistance was never truly revolutionary because I was conditioned in ways similar to whatever social group was around me. To paraphrase Krishnamurti, I was a prisoner revolting for better food and conditions while remaining within the prison. I thought outside of one box right into a different, equally confining box. I once wrote that, “by taking control of ourselves we reduce the power others have over us,” but realized quickly how difficult it is to know and understand and steer ourselves. Until we can that autonomy remains out of reach, while the algorithms, and the powerful voice of the influencers and the politicians retain control.

From my aged position it appears that recent generations have grown up being told what to do — lured and shaped by nudges and algorithms, celebrity worship and the shockingly overwhelming power of suggestion — and assured that this is freedom, democracy even. They respond, perhaps consciously, but it seems more likely they can’t get off the path their social and political environment confined them to. No one ever suggested the possibility of stepping out of the mainstream — that it IS possible — so they’ve never considered the possibility of swimming away from the conditioned flow, separating themselves from the school, going their own way even if they don’t know what it is or where it may lead.

On one hand, such casual, semiconscious obedience discourages me and on the other, I forgive them because they never had a chance. No one showed them their chains. I was fortunate my mentors told me I could resist, think for myself and taught me how to do so. The generation I see never understood what they were giving up with each click, each convenience, each easing of their responsibility or reduction of risk. The trajectory of current beliefs, education and condition was instilled into hearts and minds when they were too soft and plastic to resist. Sadly, the concept of questioning that arc or momentum went out the window when teachers excised the Socratic method to keep students from feeling upset or less-than in the eyes of their peers. But if we seek only comfort and safety, if we don't ask questions, we won't ever grow and nothing may change. Sometimes the artists among us may sound a clarion call to trigger awareness and possibly, action.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

― Frank Zappa

I remember a time when rock and roll meant resistance, when it was anti-establishment instead of go-along-to-get-along lip-sync in the service of corporate predators and influence peddlers. These days even the rockers who made their bones resisting, who shouted, "Fuck You," and fought out loud for the freedom to go their own way are parroting authoritarian monologues, declaring that obedience to The Man's directives be mandatory while still collecting royalties on the records that shouted and encouraged resistance. "Fuck you, I got mine." Same as it ever was. We expect it from politicians but not from the musicians we believed were speaking for us when our voices weren't loud enough to be heard.

When Gene Simmons suggested that compulsory vaccination and mask-wearing be enforced at the point of a gun it proved he could not now, and probably never should have been, an enduring voice of the anti-establishment music scene. I mean, seriously, from a punk rock point of view he was corporate as fuck by the time he started selling out arenas so why would an independent thinker listen to him now? He aligned himself with Stern, Penn, Colbert and Schwarzenegger — freedom-lovers all (winking face emoji) — who believed vaccination should be compelled ... by force, physical or otherwise. When Jello Biafra and Al Jourgensen started shaming and blasting anyone who didn't toe the Party line on vaccines and social behavior, well, that's when I knew Punk and its mythology was dead.

These days we're caught between the Scylla and Charybdis, between Temptation and Coercion, with shiny things seducing us toward compliance while hard and jagged rocks or social suffocation await us if we choose the other way. And that's just on the internet. Real world freedom is threatened anytime government tells us what to do, or forbids us to do, think or say … and compels same with threats, penalties, and force.

As an example of such overreach, 'independence' sounds exactly the same as 'independents' and the latter often engage in voluntary working relationships in order to maintain the former. Labor laws that compel such independent contractors (gig workers, truck drivers, construction workers, etc.) to become employees or unionize to protect them from “exploitation of labor” is decidedly anti-freedom. Surely, such exploitation has occurred, but this has never been an issue for true independents who exercise some self-discipline regarding debt, appetites and expectations so are not dependent on predacious working conditions.

Government infringes freedom by forcing consumers to purchase a product or service they do not want, e.g. electric cars, electric stoves vs. gas or wood, licensed Cosmetologists vs. any competent practitioner, Mandatory Hookup vs. proven independent solutions, etc. Sometimes a license or permit is a simple money grab that provides no actual value, which is understandable because ... government. Sometimes the licensing protects a particular industry, exposing evidence of the state-corporate collusion, but generally, at least initially, regulations may be sensible practices born of tragedies. It's tough to argue against electrical code or fuel storage and disposal rules but the current rush to protect any and everyone from all risk, physical and emotional, real and imagined, incentivizes the presumptively responsible toward dictatorial, freedom-infringing practices. As Ludwig von Mises opined, "once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."

Authorities encroaches upon freedom by restricting individual behavior that only affects said individual, or a group of consenting individuals. I understand the concept of government intervening to mitigate such risks as may not be immediately obvious to the risk taker (childproof container caps comes to mind) but there's a huge difference between trying to prevent unintentional injury and proscribing voluntary engagement in behavior presumed by authorities to be risky. This is usually accomplished through licensing, fees, permitting, and access-regulation. Of course, the law of unintended consequences has a say here so whenever prevention and mitigation measures are imposed a certain degree of risk-compensation will occur; one may drive faster when wearing a seatbelt or knowing an airbag to prevent serious injury or death is present. John Adams (University College, London) declared that, “protecting motorists from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving,” and some evidence suggests that wearing a helmet while skiing or snowboarding protects the rider in certain ways but the illusion of safety results in greater risks being taken, aka homeostasis happens. But I digress.

Airbags, anti-lock brakes, seatbelts, proximity warning alarms, automatic high-beam activation, helmet laws, etc., imposed in the name of increasing safety, all reduce awareness, sensitivity and competence. Humans will rise or fall to the level of the bar; when an activity requires no skill or awareness that standard shall be met, and the long term consequences produce a less competent, less aware society that is more dependent on the 'wisdom' and protection of the State. Maybe that's the point. Reducing choice, regardless of intent, necessarily restricts freedom and I'm afraid we will destroy freedom by chasing the facsimile of it.

I want everyone to live as free and wild and open and hopeful as possible, and I want to do the same. Vigorous and open debate helps us become less wrong as a species and culture, over time. When we restrict free speech we become less resilient, less able to address and adapt to the genuine hardships imposed upon us by life. Compelling speech, silence or behavior is anti-freedom. If a law is passed that supports the group to which you belong it may appear to increase freedom but when anyone's depends on the restriction of someone else's I have a problem with it. If words are silenced or become felonious because they make someone feel a certain way, well, we have an even bigger problem.

State censorship leads to totalitarian control. Always. History is rife with examples but, as British critic and artist, Alexander Adams said, "the activists of today heedlessly erase history they haven’t yet learned to read," and while this is slightly out of context, that certain bad aspects of history are being repeated and welcomed supports his theory about current ignorance. Freedom begins with freedom of speech, of assembly, and belief. If the State, in collusion with social platforms and technology corporations, intends to verify the purity of thoughts and beliefs before permitting their distribution (in the interest of security and preserving democracy) then total suppression of unacceptable speech is not far behind. And once they can control what you may say they are closer to controlling your livelihood, your mobility, and ultimately, your thoughts.

I want to change that. I believe we can turn blind eyes toward possibility, and tune ears to potential. We must lift lips from the teat and train muscles to change circumstances rather than using them to reinforce vanity or the false appearance of capability. Good, viable ideas always prevail over bad ones but only if we are free to talk about them, only if we may speak without risking retribution from those who fear words and ideas that are not aligned with their own.

We must act against the suppression of free speech no matter how uncomfortable the words we hear might make us. Regardless of the predictions made about where inexpert or conspiratorial or religious ideas and words will lead us as a society, placing the authority to restrict inalienable rights in the hands of self-serving political leaders leads to a historically-proven dead end, littered with dead human beings. And that is not a prediction.

We can’t keep reacting out of fear because when we restrict whatever behavior we cannot abide, we unconsciously create a world that can actually hurt us (too). We must first find the courage to resist and maybe turn the tide, and second use that courage to take back control of our own lives and work towards something higher, something better, where individual freedom becomes the means of limiting State power.

@boriquagato