Let’s Get Rid of Freedom and Replace It with ‘FreeSmart’
Who here loves freedom?
Everyone raised their hands, I see. Well, you’re all liars!
Here in America, we’re trained from birth to say we love freedom, but is freedom really what we’re all about? What do you like about freedom, anyway? That you can do whatever you want? Well, what do you want to do? You want to go out to eat? Well, whatever you eat is regulated by the FDA, health inspectors make sure you won’t get sick, and everyone working at the restaurant falls under various laws protecting their jobs and wages.
Do you want to drive? Well, then you certainly need to follow all the regulations specified for government-owned roads while using a government-approved vehicle. Do you want to use some consumer electronics? Those are regulated to make sure their signals don’t interfere with each other, and laws protect you to make sure they aren’t dangerous. And in everything you might do there are lawyers everywhere making sure all are following the rules and working together.
Do you see much freedom there? Maybe not, but then what is freedom? When you boil it down, freedom is people being served rotten food and getting sick and dying. It’s people driving polluting cars the wrong way down a street. It’s consumer goods that kill you while corporations laugh at your misfortune. It’s racist armed militia members not paying social security. It’s polluted lakes and dead baby polar bears. It’s poorly built buildings collapsing on you. It’s homophobic bullies. It’s obese children waddling down the street as they stuff their faces with trans-fats. It’s filthy. It’s chaos. It’s not civilized.
Freedom isn’t what we want; what we want is a civilized society with security and order — place where things work and we don’t have to worry about every little thing because we have a government to worry for us and tell us what to do and make sure we all cooperate.
Think of an Apple product like an iPhone. It runs smoothly and slickly because Apple closely regulates what sort of programs can be put on it instead of just letting anyone do whatever they want with the device. Why can’t society be more like an iPad? It’s a great concept, yet people keep fighting this. And the reason we do it is because we have this weird hang up that we’re supposed to love freedom when in reality it’s the enemy of everything we want.
Why don’t we have universal health care in America? Because people think they like freedom — freedom here being dying without health care. People don’t need freedom to live; they need doctors and medicine. But even those in support of universal health care only feed the beast in the way they argue for it. They try to argue that people will be more free by no longer having to worry about affording health care — only adding to the foolish notion that freedom is important, which causes these conflicts in the first place. This mindless freedom fetish is also what led to the recent brouhaha over the TSA. Hands off your junk? Sorry, but your junk is of national concern. The only reason we can safely fly is because the government is keeping an eye on your junk, not because of freedom.
The truth is in modern society we only get all we want by giving up freedom. That’s how things can be organized so that everything is safe and shared by all. Yet this mindless love of freedom is so ingrained that the most strident progressives don’t want to argue against freedom, even though deep down they know it’s the obstacle civilization must finally overcome. Part of it is messaging; there’s no good term for the alternative to freedom, just things like “tyranny” and “slavery” — loaded terms that we have to get past.
This is satire, of course. Still, I keep hearing a voice from the past saying;
“Alles in Ordnung ist.” (“All is in order.”)
Those saying it later said;
“Wir waren nur Befehle befolgt.” (“We were just following orders”.)
Godwin’s Law be d***ed. Modern “progressivism” is the Gill Fallacy in action.
(Gill Fallacy; The belief that totalitarian methods can be used to achieve good ends. Reference; “Patterns of Force”, “Star Trek; TOS” episode # 52, written by John Meredyth Lucas, directed by Vincent McEveety, first aired 16 February 1968 on NBC.)
clear ether
eon
“Star Trek” drove me crazy at the time, although looking back, I guess it was a potential learning opportunity. It was the ur-Leftist program. Notice the Prime Directive was to not interfere with other civilizations. Notice that the Enterprise crew spent 45 minutes of every show’s hour correcting ‘wrongs’ in the places they visited. If you connect the dots between every ‘wrong’ and every correction you’re left with Sweden, without the homogenous society that allows Sweden to work in spite of socialism. The learning opportunity offered by “Star Trek” was that Hollywood is so perverted, down to the DNA level, that nothing non-Leftist, non-PC, or pro-American, will ever come out of it.
Notice that even in Star Treks Uber leftie future, there were still some right wing realists on board….although they had to re-set their Phasers every time…
Kirk: “alright, set for stun!”
(because I KNOW you SPACE MARINES have it on KILL!)
You’re knocking Star Trek TOS????
Dude, that’s blasphemy.
I keep asking myself all kinds of questions, like: Should I use toothpicks? Which shoe should I put on first in the morning, the left or the right shoe? Should I say “Good morning” to people who don’t share my metaphysical convictions? Should I grow a beard? Is garlic OK? Well, I used to think that Big Brother could teach me, but not really, He doesn’t care for details. Fortunately, now I have the answers to all of these questions, and many many more, since I have become a muslim.
If this is satire, it plays too closely to the very real fascist/socialist siren tunes that have wrecked the nation.
Leftism is essentially the opposite of Right-wing regimes. Leftism is aimed at destroying the existing culture, religion, society. Rightists are extreme defenders of the existing society against attacks (always by Leftists, at some level of seriousness, and from one direction or another). The reason Leftists allow this confusion is because they must at all costs prevent people from understanding that their ultimate goal is always to destroy existing society, which is the contrast with Rightism.
So that would make Leftists of, e.g., the founding fathers and Chinese dissidents?
No. The Founding Fathers sought to preserve the society they grew up in, which they saw being threatened by an over-reaching and increasingly rapacious monarchy which repeatedly refused to grant them “the rights of Englishmen” (see the Magna Carta).
As for Chinese dissidents, they do seek to change their society. The trouble is, Chinese society hasn’t changed since the time of the first emperors. The difference between a Mao Yuan I and a Mao Tse-Tung, or the heirs of either one, is mainly that both lots lack fashion sense. Whether you’re talking the Imperial government, the Nationalists after the 1925 Revolution, or the Communists after the 1948 one, their aims, and methods, are fundamentally the same. And all have used a powerful bureaucracy, and the threat of death against anyone who doesn’t “mind their place”, to ensure that they remain in power. (To see how China got this way, look up the definition of a “hydraulic state”.)
As for who this makes leftists, I won’t argue that it does so out of the Italian Fascists, or the German ones. I will point out, however, that the leadership of both lots began as socialists who later decided they didn’t want to take orders from Moscow, notably Il Duce.
clear ether
eon
Chesterton once said something along the lines of: “The liberal makes mistakes and the conservative prevents them from being corrected.” That may have been true in his day; but things have changed. Now, the conservative simply tries to find a way to make money off the “nanny state” the liberal is trying to build.
Mankind marches inexorably toward Brave New 1984.
You’ve put it all in a nutshell. And it’s a done deal.
“what rough beast, sensing its hour to be born, slouches its way toward Bethlehem.”
Just make the trains run on time, Benito.
Typical liberal propaganda.
Isolate, denigrate.
Is life what we want? Not in the hands of a liberal propagandist. Too iffy. Too many icky fluids. Too many heartaches. Much better to have government control all that, no?
Apologies to the author. After a closer read, the article is clearly satire and pretty well done, since it has fooled a number, myself included. It mimics progressive thought perfectly, but without the dreary soviet overtones you usually hear.
This ‘Sleeper Cell Congress’ will detonate it’s MOAB before the new year. The most successful Jihad on America to date.
“Freedom”? We don’t need no stinkin’ Freedom.
Wow!! Pajamas Media now has Thomas Friedman writing for it. What a coup!!
Perhaps this is meant as satire, and yet in many ways it is perfectly correct. It is only within the structured system of an orderly, moral society and the rule of law that we can be free to pursue our own interests without fear of unjustified violence and rapacity.
The political philosophy of Emmerich de Vattel was perhaps more influential on the American founders than that of John Locke (but not quite so much as the Bible). De Vattel was cited in legal arguments by Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Jay, Madison, and others. His 1758 treatise “The Law of Nations or the Principle of Natural Law” was one of the most-requested reference documents by the 2nd Continental Congress. De Vattel is the source of the phrase “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.”
What does de Vattel say about the purpose of the state? From Book 1 of “The Law of Nations”:
“A nation or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.
From the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests, and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a Public Authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the Sovereignty; and he or they who are invested with it are the Sovereign.”
How is this Sovereignty function best exercised?
“We have seen already that every political society must necessarily establish a public authority to regulate their common affairs, — to prescribe to each individual the conduct he ought to observe with a view to the public welfare, and to possess the means of procuring obedience. This authority essentially belongs to the body of the society; but it may be exercised in a variety of ways; and every society has a right to choose that mode which suits it best.”
Thus political authority belongs “to the body of the society” – the People – and is invested by whatever means the People desire in a sovereign public authority “to regulate their common affairs” so as to provide for the common good.
And what is this common good, what is the objective of this regulation which is to be provided by the sovereign public authority invested ultimately by the political power which rests in the hands of the individual citizen?
“The society is established with the view of procuring, to those who are its members, the necessaries, conveniences, and even pleasures of life, and, in general, every thing necessary to their happiness, — of enabling each individual peaceably to enjoy his own property, and to obtain justice with safety and certainty, — and, finally, of defending themselves in a body against all external violence. The nation, or its conductor, should first apply to the business of providing for all the wants of the people, and producing a happy plenty of all the necessaries of life, with its conveniences and innocent and laudable enjoyments.”
It has been proven time and again that the market capitalist system is the best – the ONLY – means by which this “happy plenty of all the necessaries of life” can be made accessible to all who diligently apply themselves in useful labor, so that each individual can peacefully enjoy his own property. And it is ONLY within a system of the Rule of Law that this individual freedom is possible. The alternative is the tyranny of the violent and unethical over the peaceful and moral.
This is a fact that the American Founders recognized absolutely. What is the very first rationale given in the Declaration of Independence for absolving the United Colonies from their allegiance to the British Crown? “He has refused his assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the Public Good.”
The fundamental problem with the liberal progressive agenda is NOT that it seeks to regulate conduct. It is that these regulations are determined and enforced at the whim of politically-connected individuals and NOT with respect and appreciation for the constitutional rule of law. Public hygiene and medical care is absolutely a legitimate concern of the government. And yet instead of truly promoting universal access to basic healthcare by supporting a free market system and recognizing the social benefit of private charity, this administration has unconstitutionally instituted regulations specifically designed to reward political insiders with power and money. The absence of Law is not Freedom – it is Tyranny. ONLY in a society ruled by laws can individuals be free to act in pursuit of happiness without fear for their life or liberty.
Good points. But to be precise the absence of law is anarchy not tyranny, not that either is desirable. And the progressive agenda would be no more tolerable if it were written into a constitution. The only legitmate function of government that I will ever recognize is to provide for security from invasions of indiviudual liberty by internal and external bullies. That includes protecting the few against the invasions of the many, which is the tyranny of the majority that results from pure democracy; the system of government that we essentially live under today even though our founders sought to guard us against it.
I absolutely agree with you TL on the true function of government. However, I think we suffer from a linguistic disconnect which has been deliberately promoted by progressives.
“Anarchy” meant, originally, the absence of rulers. Civil society is not possible without rulers and I, like you, deplore the idea. In a world without rulers and rules, the violent terrorize the peaceful at whim. This is tyranny. The tyrant commands others to obey out of fear, not out of right. Thus I think that what you call anarchy and tyranny are in fact the same.
Many liberty-minded people today call themselves “anarchists”. They are wrong, and they do themselves and their society a tremendous hurt by using that term. Properly they are in favor of Self Rule. This is not anarchy. It is in fact the polar opposite of anarchy – not “no rulers”, but one ruler for every rationally thinking person.
I also did not mean to refer to the Constitution. I agree with you completely that the progressive agenda would remain intolerable if written into the Constitution. I am not altogether a fan of the U.S. Constitution. Even at the time, many of the authors expressed doubts that it would preserve freedom as they hoped. I think the intervening years have proven beyond doubt that it is a failure.
Instead I refer to the constitution (small c), that is, that way in which a society is most naturally constituted so as to achieve and maintain its best capacity for virtue. Every culture will have a slightly different constitution because the values of the citizens are different. But I think it is safe to say that human beings are each individually sentient thinkers with our own desires and wants and interests which it is naturally proper that we be free to pursue. When I say something is “unconstitutional” I mean it violates this natural law (some would say, “God’s law”) – regardless of what is written on a scrap of paper. The true constitution of a society is written in the hearts of its citizens.
Finally a plug for a great organization. I would encourage anyone in favor of true freedom to check out the Appleseed Project, which teaches the history of some Americans who so desired freedom that they were willing to risk their lives for it, at Lexington and Concord – and teaches the skills they used to prevail against what seemed at the time an impregnable foe.
“an impregnable foe”
They were fighting against women?
No, he said IM-pregnable.
Our so called “free market healthcare” isn’t free market by any idea of a free market. Free market means that there is free competition, the customer makes the decisions. Think Wal Mart, McDonald’s, the competition between the cable companies, the satellite companies, over the air broadcasts. This is “FREE MARKET” in the true sense of the word!
In health care what we have is “MONOPOLY”. A government enforced monopoly that is the exact opposite of a “free market”. This is why health care here in the US costs twice as much as health care in the rest of the free world. Because medicine is correctly seen as being a monopoly run by government licensed professionals who are organized through their professional associations (think labor union), they are able to command incomes far beyond what would apply under free market conditions. In a true free market health care system there would be no prescription laws, no government licensing, no government support of drug companies that are allowed to charge whatever the traffic will bear. These same companies use this power that came from government to charge a price that is twice as high as the prices they are able to obtain anywhere else. Health care is as close to a tyranny as we allow! A true free market health care system would cost far less than what we have now!
Of course the AMA (union for professionals) wouldn’t like that. This is why we have prescription laws, state licensing, everything else that turns customers into “patients”. Customers have choices, patients don’t!
US health care is a very expensive government supported monopoly that draws its awesome income off a captive population that has no other choice! WE HAVE THE EXACT OPPOSITION OF A FREE MARKET HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!
Hmm. Here in australia, we have an even MORE regulated health-care system, with a single-payer model for pharmaceuticals and some pretty tight industry regulation.
And we’re one of those countries that you spent twice as much as per capita, and you get less coverage and worse outcomes.
I hate to mention it.
Thanks, Frank! Until this moment, I had never so much wanted the TSA to touch my junk.
I know this is humor, but I’m struggling to laugh. There are just too many people today who really think this way.
I also found a few smiles here, but not for long. I just know too many people who really really want exactly what this article describes. They are incrementalists however if pinned down on each point would be for virtually everything mentioned.
My first thought on reading this article was, “Mmmmm…dead baby polar bears! Sounds like a plan! What’s the best way to fix ‘em? Steaks and chops? Burgers? Roasted, stewed, or barbecued?”
Devo said it way back in the early ’80s: “Freedom of choice–is what you got. Freedom from choice–is what you want”
I was trying to figure out why this didn’t seem funny at all. Then I remembered that I’ve heard this damn near verbatim from some liberal colleagues. Scary stuff when you can’t satire something enough to make it different from reality.
????
I’m amazed that, apparently, many people didn’t see the obvious satire here.
???
Look up a sci-fi short story called, “With Folded Hands”.
It’s all about Ralph Nader in particular, and the Left in general.
A satire only works when it makes clear that there is something that trumps what is being satirized. This article doesn’t do that. Is it too much to ask a serious writer to make clear that there is a shining light of freedom that begins with the gift of Free Will and under-girds every worthwhile advance in human civilization? Truly good satire would do this with such subtlety that the reader just knows it is so without even knowing how he knew it. This article doesn’t make the cut.
The reason it did not seem like satire is that a majority of people today would (already have) accept the trade-offs. It’s just about that simple. I count myself among that number. I can carve out by own freedoms within all those regulations; and yes, most people would like their meat inspected, security on airline flights, some speed limits etc. Hell, more than half of the freedom lovers here would b*tch like hell were many of those things removed from our society. They have become part of the texture of who we are.
Once we learned that medical treatment could be more effective than God’s will in curing our ailments, there was a seismic shift. Our continental plate started to move back toward Europe.
So … you ARE in favour of people driving polluting cars the wrong way down a one-way street? And you’re ok with companies selling dangerous goods? You would’t care too much if you can’t get a TV signal because one of the neighbours has started using that spectrum for a really fast wireless LAN?
See, the problem is that you’ve taken a perfectly sensible starting position – that somebody needs to arbitrate between person A’s fist and person B’s nose – and then tried to equate with an all-pervasive intrusive government. That’s just obvious nonsense. We can argue about where the balance should be, but any intelligent person must agree that there is a place for SOME government. Private turnpikes were tried – they were a disaster. Unregulated medical professionals? You’ve got to be kidding. You want money? Somebody has to print it and regulate its supply or it’ll be worthless pretty quickly. Do you REALLY want to leave the nation’s defence up to unregulated private militia? That’s not going to get any F-22s developed, or even defend your civilians AGAINST those militia. Heck – you’d lose the first war you tried to fight with canada, and you could probably kiss goodbye to the union (my money is on a split – The United States Of Canada, incorporating all the blue states, and “Jesusland” making up the rest)
As for “there’s no good term for the alternative to freedom, just things like “tyranny” and “slavery””
Yes, there is. Taking your formulation of freedom, the opposite is “anarchy”. The absence of government. The state of nature. Every man for himself. As hobbes would put it, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”
Hear, hear; sounds like common sense to me.
Have you considered a career in traffic enforcement, transportation security, white house communications, or writing material for my brother’s ex-mother-in-law?
To me freedom means limited liability and the FDIC. It means recognition of corporate personhood. It is mandatory education for the benefit of those corporations and shareholders.
OMG, why are you eating those things that are cheap and ubiquitous! You poor people are so irresponsible.
I have heard far too many leftoids just like this column for it to be funny. I find myself reaching for my pistol when I see and read such dreck.
Just because we love freedom doesn’t mean we want crazy things to happen, rather than regulate it for ordered liberty.
I hear the exact smae stupid arguement from libidiots all the time; that if we accept speed limits, surely we need to accept (insert neo-Communist violation of individual rights here)as policy.
Anyone that has read Frank J. from the IMAO days would know this is satire. I think those that are savvy to current politics have a hard time seeing satire in this, but I think the scary part is so many of our fellow countrymen are asleep at the wheel. This would be obvious satire to them, because to them it would be ‘extremist’, no-one says this sort of thing in the open. It would be less scary for us if it were obvious satire.