Why Are Liberty And Rights Important?

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Liberty and Rights are the most, if not only, important issue we should be addressing as a species today. We should be addressing it with the utmost scrutiny of our logical philosophies, and those who should be studying these issues should be the utmost of the intelligentsia of all schools and nations. Religion itself is a silent edifice on the popularity of this topic only because it opposes it in its doctrine of guilt for original sin being their excuse for having to "buy back" one's way into heaven through good deeds. Free will, it is argued, led mankind to make our choice to commit this initial crime. Thus, the control system of modern theism is to not only be excluded from any input in such a proper debate, but should be considered the utmost enemy of any and everyone who would seek to study this topic in its full depths. For many, this may mean breaking from their religious conditioning by embracing "Luciferian" religious doctrines as Lucifer rebelled against God and is somehow thus a symbol of mankind's free-will. This is, of course, still only a form of weak theism, but is at least a step down the correct road to logical atheist anarchist solipsism. It is wisest to, while alive, realize there is no God to help or guide you personally, and that there is, likewise, no government whose laws can benefit or protect you, in this present existence. Everyone must fend for themselves in the end.

Given such a condition of natural anarchy, however, human society does not instantly break apart into violent riots and immediately degenerate into a cultural wasteland surviving in conditions equivalent to radioactive fallout in a nuclear winter. Unlike many of my fellow rational anarchists, however, I do not favor the idea of the "uninformed and irrational masses" of "sheeple" who remain "asleep" and who yet need to "wake up." I believe the majority to be intelligent enough, based on their very survival, to invent a better system if the existing model fails, even in a catastrophic total system crash, which is possible only in a situation alike an "extinction level event" (comets, super-volcanoes, crustal displacement, global nuclear war, etc.). I do not believe we are doomed by any means, although we may yet prove to be at present at "peak humanity" or the top of our evolutionary curve prior to beginning to lose dominance on the food chain and de-evolve into different sub-species. If the capacity for human intellect is unleashed, we will definitely thrive and advance into more effective forms of society and more efficient models of government.

This is why the topics of Liberty and Rights are so significant at this exact juncture in history, and why you can't turn on the television set nowadays without hearing either a self-professing "Libertarian" complaining about the status-quo, or else a status-quo supporter calling all Libertarians "terrorists." Luciferian or not, the pro-Liberty movement is on the rise, and this is a sign of the shift in humanity toward greater intelligence and greater evolution of our species, and away from their opposites - our dumbing down and de-evolution into sub-species. The pro-Liberty movement, that considers the "right to be wrong" (the only known proof for the existence of liberty as a natural property) an innate condition of our species existence, especially those who go so far as to add "endowed by our Creator" (meaning inherent by act of the theist deity itself, regardless of the shaming dogma of the religious institutions in its name) are outright attacking the notion that "all people are stupid herds of sheep, easily misled like lemmings, and as domesticated as cattle." In regards to the popularity of complacency, "Libertarians" may, rightly, be considered "terrorists" and "enemies of the state."

It is important for our species to discuss these topics now because we, as a species, are at a moment when the opportunity arises to ask ourselves, collectively and on a global scale, not only "what comes next" but "what can we learn now from the mistakes made by our ancestors throughout history?" All empires have ended one way or another eventually so far. No empire exists now that has existed since the beginning of history, no matter how much one may argue in favor of a modern, ultra-elite, secret cabal that practices ancient rituals to Babylonian deities - this does not mean there is a public emperor of this cult who totally controls a global government as an empire. The personal beliefs of the Pope aside, "fallen is Babylon the great." Thus, the lesson is do not emulate any of their tactics in their quest for dominance, and in fact do not emulate their purpose causing them to follow this "road to nowhere" at all. The only rational foreign policy is to apply the "golden rule," known as the "non-aggression principle" among modern scholars. This is why, if politicians sought the "best interest" and survival of their nations, they would realize that peace leads to prosperity and that war-expenditures on weapons of mass-destruction do NOT, as is too commonly claimed today, stimulate economic growth (any more than does a military draft "create jobs"). The mistake of all empires has been that they sought to become empires in the first place. Imperialism itself is wrong.

Thus, if the empowerment of the concept of "government" over the minds of mankind is considered, as it rightly should be, a hindrance to our evolution rather than a help, then the opposite of this form of "psychic empire" would offer improvement to our present conditions. If the opposite of statist authoritarianism is considered "Libertarianism," then making the argument in favor of "individual liberty" being an "inalienable right" should be our highest duty as humans for our own species survival.

However, an individual's right to liberty is still, in the short run, only an expedient to the improvement of conditions for the species in the long run. The ends justify the means in this case, because the ends are just and the means are harmless. If an individual screams liberty at the wall of the state, they may be martyred, but no effect will occur. The life of Christ gives ample testimony of this logical conclusion. However, if one goes about one's life ignoring statism, and avoiding imperialism's influence on their lives - either by offering to benefit them or by posing a threat to them - one can manage to maximize one's own level of sovereignty over one's own personal time. This, in turn, should be considered the goal of freedom: personal liberty should be seen as a guarantor of an individual's (intellectual as well as labor-power based) productivity. If one follows the course of "Libertarianism" as defending the right to be a lazy, ignorant coward, one may be fighting for the right cause in the right way, but one will ultimately lose the argument on account of one's own apathy toward the fight itself.

This is why Liberty and the Right to Liberty should be considered the most important philosophical debate we can be having right now in human history. One's individual liberty should be seen as a more important commodity than one's own survival. To part with one's free will should be considered a worse crime than murder. To compromise personal independence should be considered suicide.

Likewise, all issues should be argued from the stand-point of a "Libertarian" philosophy: Is the "bill of rights" out-dated? It should be expanded. Why do we need the right to bear arms? To defend our right to live free against anyone else imposing on us. Why do we need the right to privacy? Because when people are left alone, they feel more free and are thus more productive. Why do we challenge the use of drones in surveillance? It impinges privacy. Why do we oppose the use of UAVs making tactical strikes against national "enemies"? It impinges other nations' sovereignty, and it creates more enemies. Why do we oppose the consolidation of authority by the executive branch? Because power corrupts; the proof is the low moral calibre of the average Pope. Why do we oppose the torture of detainees in the "war on terrorists"? POWs are guaranteed human rights under the Geneva convention. Why should we honor national contracts if we do not even need a government at all? Proper government can exist, if voluntary and non-violent. How can government exist if it is not needed? Government exists to stimulate economic growth; anything beyond this is an over-reach of its power. The basic law of government is as a business, that: if it can't make money, it can't survive. If the government provided services to the people, taxation could made publicly voluntary, and the state could still prosper. If the government squanders their mandatory taxation paying for increased military security for themselves, as has been the case lately here in the USA, then it is bound to fail regardless of how many junk-bonds it can sell to the closest central bank. There is nothing wrong with a certain amount of government, in the minds of most Libertarians, if it only uses "state force" to maintain market stability by arresting and punishing economic criminals, such as con-men politicians and counterfeiter central bankers. This model may essentially turn modern government on its head, however the next logical step in this progression of thought-process is, even more importantly: "do we even need any form of government at all?" The answer is no we do not.

And, as vast as it may seem, the course for the downfall of all forms of non-voluntary hierarchies of social-interaction has been plotted for at least the last 2,000 years to end not much longer after now. Roman Catholic Christian monotheism, long falsely claimed to be the religion of the pantheist Roman Catholic Popes - those latter-day Caesars over a "psychic empire" of global Christendom, has long foreseen the downfall of the Christian monotheist straw-man, and the eventual revelation of their true religion: deistic atheism and amoral survivalism.

Once the whole of mankind realizes that it is not material wealth, but the luxury of surplus time it affords one for personal-improvement by contemplative meditation and study (rather, "Liberty" defined), that is the desirable outcome from both hegemonies in government and the economic middle-class, then there will be little we cannot accomplish as a species.

PEACE.

- Jonathan Barlow Gee

Tuesday, July 9, 2013.

Tallahassee, Florida, America.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

"copyrights" are called so falsely. You cannot have a natural right to limit the ability of everyone else ever alive after you to make copies of your data, because doing so is contrary to all possible reality. You have more of a right to be "insane" than you do of imposing "copyright" restrictions on all pirated data users equally and fairly.