Decide for Yourself

{This article is now complete}

As another year concludes, I feel the urge to explain how I came to be an advocate of self-government. I did not realize at first how personally revealing this article would end up becoming. Though, I am glad to have this opportunity for self-reflection, and I hope it is a compelling look at my past.

I suppose it all went wrong – my indoctrination to mainstream thought – because my parents were not of one mind. Especially on the bigger questions of life, I was free to decide for myself. Of course my parents each hoped I would turn out like them; parents do that. Usually, people are raised in homes with a prevailing set of views on life, morality, spirituality or government. In fact there are religious and political forces that advocate indoctrinating children in these areas. They claim it is irresponsible not to impose some sort of preconceived belief system on children. And perhaps, they are right, after all, I am the product of such an "irresponsible" home.

Images of rebellious youth are charming, as with Vietnam era hippies coming from conservative homes, followed by a resurgence of conservative youths in liberal homes (as personified by Michael J. Fox on television’s "Family Ties"). Yet this model does not represent most people, and even when it does, it is usually just short-lived youthful rebellion. Most people are products of their upbringing. It seems natural and even healthy for each generation to believe itself more "enlightened" than the previous one. Yet, I find that many view life in much the same way their parents did, with that being the sole justification for their perspectives; they made no conscious decision. This is especially true where strong political and religious affiliations are concerned.

I too was a product of my home, but not because I see life the way my parents and older siblings did. Instead they served as an example that, despite all of the claims to moral superiority, the opposing popular views on life are not necessarily superior to each other. They are locked in a struggle for power and are thus forced to make never-ending, uncomfortable compromises of their own ideals. I was in a unique position to consider the strengths and inadequacy of each, the truth and hypocrisy of both sides and decide for myself.

And yet, it seemed that I was destined to be a liberal, and indeed, I still have great affection for socially progressive goals. For the longest time, most everyone in my life leaned left of center, including my sisters, and all of my friends and social circle. I was born in St. Andrew, Jamaica in early 1964 and raised by my parents and two sisters who are 9 and 11 years older than I am. When my family moved from Jamaica to Buffalo, New York, in November 1968, my sisters were almost 14 and 16; the older one had already started attending a Junior college in Florida, and was not as active in raising me after that. Nonetheless, all three women were a significant influence at the height of the women’s movement. So I had memorable exposure to and feel great affinity with socially progressive ideals.

On the other hand, there was my dad representing a very traditional, and often imposing conservative viewpoint. Overall, the ladies had the advantage, both in numbers and because my dad was cast in the role of authoritarian, the bad guy – a role he filled without apology. While my father was strict and often heavy-handed with discipline, he was no more imposing with his ideologies than the ladies were. So, I got a relatively balanced look at both sides. Neither side was particularly vocal around me with regard to political philosophy, and I only recall a few politically revealing moments during my childhood.

I was about 10 when Nixon resigned, which was disturbing for me, as he had been president ever since we moved to the US. I was aware of McGovern’s bid for the presidency in 1972 and understood that Nixon could be unseated. The Watergate hearings were on TV every afternoon when I got home from school, and I remember having been convinced that Nixon must be a bad man. I even parroted something derogatory about Nixon to a neighbor, who felt it necessary to remind me of some good things Nixon had done. Even so, by the time he resigned, I had come to think Nixon would always be president. During the 1976 general election, I remember my parents arguing over whether they should bother going to the polls, because my mother’s vote for Carter and my father’s vote for Ford would nullify each other. They ultimately did go to the polls.

By the 1980 elections my parents had been divorced for 2 years. My mom and I were on our own in Chapel Hill, NC, not far from my sisters’ homes in the Triangle. I was halfway through high school and struggling to assert my independence. Though, except for occasional visits with my father, that struggle was only with myself. My mom made a deal with me after the divorce. She said that we were both free from my father’s confining grip, and at the age of 14, if I had not already learned the difference between right and wrong, she probably could not do much about it. The deal was simple – don’t screw up, be respectful, maintain her trust in me, and she will have no reason to impose restrictions. She handed me the reins to my own life, along with enough rope to hang myself. But she was always there when I needed her.

That was a pivotal moment in forming my views on self-governance, personal responsibility and accountability. Innocent until proven guilty – What a fresh idea! That was certainly not the premise in my father’s home, where "better safe than sorry" was the order of the day. Even with all of that freedom, it was easier to choose among prevailing preconceived notions than to seek or innovate a third way. I ultimately decided that conservatism, much like my father, was the dark side and jumped on the liberal bandwagon. A public school education did nothing to disavow me of this notion, and reinforced it in both blatant and subtle ways.

But I was mistaken about liberalism, at least as executed by modern democrats. I equated liberalism with the nurturing and empowering attitudes of the women in my family and conservatism with my father’s overbearing ways. This view was particularly easy to justify during the administrations of Reagan, then Bush, the father, much as it is today with Bush, the son. Yes, for a dozen years, it was easy to blame all the ills of the world on the Republicans. If only the Democrats could be put in power, we would all be safe again… and Free. In 1992, this wish came true. For the first time (and perhaps last), my pick for president won. Now everything would be different, I thought. By mid-1993, Clinton had been in office only a few months, and it was already clear that nothing was going to be different, at least not in the ways I hoped.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

During the next couple of years, I was what the Advocates for Self-Government call "politically homeless." As I approached the age of 30, I was finally awake to the realities of politics and government. The democrats were not there to undo anything the republicans had been up to; there is no branch of government dedicated to repealing the meddling of past administrations. The democrats would not loosen the grip of the right hand around our necks. Instead, the left hand would simply tighten its grip. That’s when I came to understand how morally bankrupt our system is. It is an artificially complex version of the same barbarism it claims to be preventing. Might is right – that is the basis for our so called "government of the free."

No, in my mind there was nothing about either major party that represented me in the slightest, especially when it came to the moral basis for their actions. It seemed that there were endless things people should be free to do that are none of the government’s business, and yet are forbidden by one side or the other; that’s all it takes. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Where was my benefit of the doubt? Why is it presumed that I am not to be trusted, and restrictions are necessary? Why must my liberty pay the price for the misdeeds of those who came before me? None of the political powers were building a society like my mother’s open, tolerant and empowering home. The game is rigged to keep us all in my father’s overbearing home, where we are dependent on arbitrary rules instead of our own moral compass, where there is no trust and freedom takes a back seat to "better safe than sorry." I have no interest in a coloring book filled with someone else’s pre-conceived line drawings that I must color-in neatly between the lines. I want a blank pad of paper that does not restrict the amount of creativity, ingenuity and energy I can put into our society.

Then, sometime in 1994 or 1995 I made a wonderful discovery. I was not alone. There were others who felt the way I did. I remember it well. I was at one of the mega-sized flea markets at the fairgrounds in Louisville. A couple was selling very unusual flip-flops that had no thongs or straps and stuck to the soles of your feet like a sticky note. That’s all they were selling – one of those "amazing product" booths. But, in their booth they also had a modest little stack of 3x5" placards, printed with the World's Smallest Political Quiz. That is how I discovered that libertarian views were compatible with mine. For the longest time that was one of very few noteworthy connections I had with libertarians; this was at a time when I was just starting to become Internet savvy, and I did not spend much time surfing for political commentary. I did vote for Harry Browne and others on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1996. It was not until the 2000 presidential campaigns that I started considering the world of libertarian viewpoints in depth.

In the years before then, I continued to refine, primarily through self-reflection, my commitment to advocating a voluntary society. I am not much of a recreational reader, so I was not influenced by writers like Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein or economists like Friedman and Hayek. I had never even heard of Harry Browne before 1996 and was not aware of other libertarian radio personalities like Neal Boortz and Larry Elder. The closest thing to libertarian influences in my youth included Neal Peart’s lyrics to the songs of the rock band Rush, such as "Free Will," "Tom Sawyer," "Red Barchetta" and many others. The music of Frank Marino & Mahogany Rush (not the same as Rush) is also very important to me. Frank expressed a freedom orientation in many of his songs, particularly in "Try for Freedom" and "Free" (the connection is subtle, isn’t it?). Only during the last few years have I started reading libertarian classics such as Rand’s Anthem, which inspired Peart’s lyrics to Rush’s epic song "2112." It only took me twenty-odd years to get around to it. Just this week I finally read Heinlein’s libertarian classic The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

I have come to find that my experience in self-discovery is not typical. The works of popular libertarians are very influential. For decades, Rand’s Atlas Shrugged has been winning converts to Objectivism and libertarianism and still sells by the hundreds of thousands. To me, reading such libertarian works is like finding kindred spirits, rather than being instructive of new ideals. Not surprisingly, I did it the hard way by cutting my own path, but there were benefits. I am less attached to and less likely to refer to the works of others as authoritative. As a result, I hope to hold myself to a higher ideal in making rational arguments and taking principled stands. I hope to add a distinctive perspective to the marketplace of libertarian ideas, revealing and emphasizing what should be self-evident to all, in my own way. Perhaps by recording my philosophy and sharing my story, someone else will find his or her way back to the simple truths of life that we consider essential.

Have a Great New Year!

Freedom from Religion

{I touched on this topic in my last article, and this is as good a time as any to build on that discussion.}

There has been much fuss over the years, and with growing traction among public officials, by those who believe they have a "right" to be protected from religion in virtually any and every way. If you read and understand my views on rights, then you may already see where I stand on this one. I believe you have a right to worship or not worship as you see fit. That is about the limit of it.

I am concerned with all natural rights, not just those few captured in the US Constitution. Still, I am glad that the framers added the "anti-establishment" clause. This clause was an awkward way of saying what I put plainly above: you have a right to worship or not. In the Bill of Rights, many of our rights are stated as limits on government. As a result, the wording of the first amendment is a distraction from the underlying rights it protects. We should focus on our individual right to worship as we see fit. Instead activists focus on trivial and normal interactions between governing bodies and long standing religious traditions. Until our government uses force to prevent or compel the public to worship, our freedom of religion remains intact. As with the right to bear arms, it would have been clearer to state the rights plainly and simply rather than expressing them as limits on government.

However, the framers took this approach with good reason. They had just won our freedom from rulers who established a state run religion. It was not possible to hold certain public offices and civil service positions if you were not a member of the Church of England. We are not talking about a child in a public school who wishes Merry Christmas to other students. We are not talking about hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in a lobby. We are not talking about the word "God" on our currency. The first amendment prohibits state run churches, because it is natural for such churches to take away our voice in government. This would be unacceptable whether on a local or national level.

The founders naturally focused on limiting government rather than on outlining our rights. Yet that’s exactly where they went wrong and bollixed the whole thing. Over the last few decades the idea of anti-establishment has mutated. Perversely, many now believe it is their right to be free from religion, and government must protect them from religion, no matter what its form and no matter what its origin. This overzealous "separation of church and state" crowd claims that both public and private individuals cause them great harm with simple gestures like wishing them a Merry Christmas (of course I rarely hear complaints about wishes for a Happy Hanukkah or Kwanzaa – but that is another story).

And yet, I understand why the freedom from religion faction reacts so strongly. I place the blame on equally zealous, often fundamental, religious groups, and not because of any connection with government, per se. It is because these churches create enemies within their own ranks, who turn sour on the entire idea of religion. The emotional pain, guilt and destruction of self-esteem inflicted by insensitive religious groups is coming back upon them. Using the deadly force of government is a way for the disenfranchised to express their anger and resentment towards organized religion. For them it is not about protecting the integrity of our country; it is about persecuting churches in retaliation for the pain they feel.

Does it trouble me that wishing "Merry Christmas" might tear at someone’s unhealed emotional scars? Certainly it does, but I did not create those wounds, and there is nothing malicious in my spreading the joy of the season. I won’t be so crass as to tell these injured souls to get over it; I do understand their pain. I have had my share of unpleasant experiences with religion, both from a young age and again, more recently than that. Even so-called "progressive" churches have managed to foster feelings of betrayal and resentment in me. Nevertheless, I can’t imagine telling someone she must not express her religious freedom within view and earshot of me. The same goes for expecting civil servants and public officials to suddenly neuter themselves spiritually as they perform their duties. One should not have to yield her natural right to worship in order to serve the rest of society.

This may sound crazy – I am not making this up – there are those that expect all public officials to behave as atheists and to conceal all spiritual beliefs and religious affiliations in order to hold their positions. Limiting participation in government to apparent atheists is no better than if religious extremists were to hold all public offices. It requires that individuals disavow their own religious preference and instead present themselves as atheists. That is no different than what the British did leading up to the American Revolutionary War. British citizens had to publicly disavow their own religion and present themselves as members of the Church of England.

I realize that this argument holds no water for some atheists, especially the sci-theists discussed in my last article. They think everyone is better off without religion. To those folks, religion is idiotic, and asking someone to disavow all religion is just being sensible. However, it is still an imposition of one group’s religious perspective on others, and it is wrong all the same. I also realize there are minority religions in the United States that believe religious neutering of public places will "level the playing field." That nonsense will end abruptly the moment some civil servant or public official is told she cannot publicly celebrate Hanukkah or wish anyone a Happy Kwanzaa or bring a copy of the Koran to work.

The anti-religion bunch is attempting to cast their right to freedom from religion in the same light as the right to life. With our natural right to life comes an obligation to protect our lives by not taking unnecessary risks. Certainly, we ask governments to aid in protecting our lives from aggressors, but the primary obligation is ours. If we behave in a devil-may-care fashion, it is no one’s, not even government’s responsibility to save us from ourselves. When it comes to religion, I never heard of anyone who was denied the right to his own beliefs because a clerk at city hall wished him a Merry Christmas or because a copy of the Ten Commandments was hanging in the lobby.

Any comparisons between government protecting our lives and protecting us from public expressions of faith is ludicrous. Anyone who is so easily harmed by exposure to Christmas displays or the Ten Commandments is doomed to a life of "victimhood," and will die a thousand deaths before the end comes. The only way to adequately protect such delicate individuals is to keep them safely locked away as wards of the state. To me, that is preferable to making the rest of society as antiseptic and spiritually void as a state hospital.

I know that sounds harsh. And no, I do not advocate that we actually lock anyone up. Yet, except for the sci-theists and minority faiths, my personal experience is that much of the anti-church faction consists of tortured souls with painful religious experiences, who are more in need of emotional healing than in need of government protection. Perhaps my bad religious experiences were mild by comparison. Perhaps, I am blessed with greater emotional resilience. Perhaps I have achieved greater closure with my religious past. Or perhaps I simply believe it is immoral to punish all religion for the wrongs of a few churches.

That being said, I send to all of you my love and best wishes for emotional and spiritual contentment during this most appropriate time of year.

I Don’t Know

Neutrality as Spirituality

Jolly Chriskwanukkahstice to all! It makes sense to me that as you try to carve up traditions, people just roll them altogether again. Despite all the demands for cultural identity and drawing attention to our differences, ultimately we are all very much the same. We all desperately need to believe in something.

Spirituality is another area where I have thoroughly staked out the middle ground. You see, I am neither a true believer nor an atheist. When it comes to the questions of what lies beyond our physical existence, I have an irrefutable answer – "I don’t know." Sure, I have feelings I can’t explain and desires to touch a greater consciousness, at once so simple, yet it lies far beyond anything that can be captured in writing. What that is exactly, again, I do not know. Someone once called my viewpoint "honest agnosticism". This is because, while I am conscious of my limited being and limited capability to understand, I don’t use that as an excuse to close my mind to the possibilities. I still yearn for truth and answers to the deepest questions of life (this is where the religious types perk-up, sensing an opportunity to save a lost soul).

Sure, my lack of commitment to a particular viewpoint on religion puts me on the "needs saving" and "will burn in hell" rosters, if you talk to the serious religious types; I’m no better off with the pure science folks. Their reaction can be just as alienating. I think I get credit for not being deeply mired in religious dogma, but I disappoint them when I won’t deny the existence of God outright. I would no more deny the existence of God than I would profess with certainty that I understand the nature of God or what God’s intentions are for my life.

Over time, it seems inevitable that science and technology will meet nearly every human need, but I doubt it will ever adequately answer even the most essential questions like, "Why are we here?" and, "What consciousness exists beyond our physical being?" And let us not forget, "What is the difference between right and wrong?" but we’ve discussed that one enough for now. No, my neutrality isn’t enough for die-hard atheists, many of whom seem as devoted to scientific process as any of "the faithful" are to religion. I call them sci-theists, because they get from science all of the comfort and reassurance that religion offers so many others.

You see, the sci-theists do know. They are certain of everything. In fact, they are damn certain that there is no God. You could say that they are as certain that science will give them all of the answers, as the deeply religious are sure that their path will lead to revelation. So, once again, in religion as in social philosophy, I find myself caught between two deeply divided schools of thought, neither of which sees room to allow for neutrality. You’re either all-in or all-out. There are of course those odd few who are able to fully reconcile religion with science and are deeply invested in both views on existence. They are all-in on both camps, and I suppose I am all-out.

I don’t mind really. I can take comfort in being consistent. For me the choice over doing A or doing B always includes the choice not to do either one. Sadly, that third choice is too often unconsidered, and also correct. So I tend to advocate that third way; you could say I am a champion of the "wait and see" choices. And when it comes to blind faith in religion versus blind faith in science or a combination of the two, I think my way has just as good a chance of yielding all of the same answers, at least to the most important questions.

For me, neutrality is a form of spirituality in itself. A close comparison in terms of popular philosophy would be a basic form of Taoism ("dow-ism"), well summarized in the following definition:

"…4: philosophical system developed by of [sic] Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life and noninterference with the course of natural events…"

[ per WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University ]

I genuinely believe that shedding our attachment to the physical world and material possessions can bring us peace. Much of our emotional and psychological pain arises from unfulfilled expectations of ourselves, our loved ones, our society, even of life itself. That is really what both religion and science do for us; they give us peace of mind that we won’t have to suffer and the reassurance that everything will be okay in the end.

My reassurance comes in knowing that the universe does not revolve around me, and that I am not responsible for its trajectory. Like my momma used to say, "I am gonna leave the world pretty much the way I found it." I do my work and then let go of it, hoping for the best and not discouraged by failure. I can control only the means – that is, myself. If I live with respect for the natural rights of others, then I have lived ethically and morally. These themes of diligence, tolerance and consistency between means and ends are common threads not just throughout many of the world’s religions and philosophy, but they resonate in environmentalism, psychology and elsewhere in scientific circles as well.

So why all the bickering over the holidays? We are all largely looking for the same things. I am not a Christian, per se – though my wife Pat and I have been attending services at a Friends Meeting House (Quakers) off and on – I still celebrate Christmas. Should I be offended because there is not some officially recognized celebration of East Indian traditions at this time of the year? On the other hand, as an agnostic, should I be offended by every public display that has the slightest religious overtone? That’s just silly. I am not diminished should someone wish me a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy Kwanzaa or a Joyous Winter Solstice (perhaps the sci-theists can share this one with the pagans – it is after all a holiday based on celestial movements). It is all part of assimilating into society with each other. My East Indian, West Indian, Scots-Irish and Germany heritage all co-exists quite happily in me. What harm is there in us all celebrating life together in unity, just once every year? This is a time for coming together, not for tearing apart.

Let us come back together again, and share in the Jolly Chriskwanukkahstice Season, in love and tolerance for our differences and in celebration of our similarities.

Namaste
_________________________

Note: As of the initial publishing of this article, neither the term Chriskwanukkahstice nor the term sci-theist returned any matches in a Google search. They should be fun for a Googlewhack.

What Is Right?

I. The Basics

These are some of my favorite things…

• Safe food and water
• Information and education
• Meaningful employment
• Health
• A sound home
• Security

These are undeniably basic necessities, and life would hardly be worth living without them. We should work to ensure that everyone, everywhere can meet these needs.

Yet, no one has a right to any of the above.

That’s right. No one has a right to any of these seemingly essential elements of what we call life today. You may think I have lost my mind, but I challenge you to read on. First, clear your mind of all of the trappings of our modern world, and consider life on its most basic level.

II. The Desert

The band America said, "In the desert you can remember your name…" and all the better since at times and in places, all you have is your name – your identity – a point where you cannot strip down human existence any farther. Every one of our basic rights is represented in that stark mode of existence:

• The right to live
• The right to speak freely
• The right to worship or not worship as you see fit
• The right to associate or not associate with whomever you choose (if there are others in the desert with you)
• The right to be left alone – right to privacy
• The right to work towards improving your lot in life
• The right to whatever property you can earn, invent and secure without initiating force or using fraud to take it from others
• The right to defend your life and your justly acquired property using any reasonable and appropriate means available

These rights hold true from the desert to the metropolis and from the dawn of time to life among the stars – and beyond. They are essential, inalienable, or if you like, god given. Regardless, we are born with these rights and must demand that nothing infringe upon them – no person, no business, no government, no social program – not without our consent (voting and losing is not consent). These rights must be more than a line in the sand. They are the mark of a civil society.
I have been told that a desert or island scenario is irrelevant – that it is not valid to compare a harsh isolated existence with living in the developed and powerful societies of the first world today. I do not see why. These are truths – the building blocks of every valid, moral and ethical relationship among people. No matter how complex a superstructure rests on this base, it will crumble if this foundation is weakened. Perhaps we call them natural rights because you have to get out of the city and back to the core of our existence to see the truth of them.

So let’s stay in the desert for just a little while longer. Imagine that two people now cross paths in the desert. What are the just boundaries of their interaction?

Is it acceptable for one…

• To kill the other?
  -- No, that is murder.
• To gag or use the threat of force to silence the other?
  -- No, that is assault and oppression.
• To force the other to stop worshipping or force him to worship in a particular way?
  -- No, that too is assault and oppression.
• To foist himself on the other?
  -- No, that is harassment.
• To forcibly or surreptitiously search the person and effects of the other?
  -- No, that is an assault and a violation of his sovereignty and dignity.
• To subjugate and limit the choices and movement of the other by force?
  -- No, that is slavery.
• To take by force or fraud the provisions of the other?
  -- No, that is theft.
• To prevent the other from protecting his life and property?
  -- No, that is to be an accessory to murder, assault or theft.

No, it is not acceptable for either to violate any rights of the other. If we cannot agree on these principles, I fear that human existence will never be peaceful. These basic rights do not change when a third person arrives on the scene. They each may agree voluntarily to pool and manage their resources through democratic or other processes. If two agree to collaborate and the third does not, the two may have enough power to force their "solutions" on the third. However, their might does not give them any special or additional rights just because of their sheer numbers. Nor does the third forfeit his rights in the face of overwhelming numbers. It does not matter if there is a fourth and a fifth or if there are ten billion of the same mind, with just one outsider – all of his individual rights are just as natural and valid and should be protected.

III. Benevolence

But back to the first two… Let’s suppose that the first one has nothing but a shirt, jeans and boots; the second one has the same, plus a full pack with enough provisions to last for several days. Neither knows how deep they are in the desert. In this scenario, the first person does not suddenly earn special rights to the provisions of the second, just because she is in need. Likewise the second does not forfeit the right to her provisions, just because of her relative advantage.

You may justly say that due to her advantage the second has a moral responsibility to assist the first. Yet that is a matter of conscience. It is not morally superior for a powerful, unbiased third party, i.e., the mythical benevolent dictator, to intervene with force to take from the second and give to the first. The second has done nothing wrong. The second is not responsible for the circumstances of the first.

Such redistribution could mean death for both rather than allowing one to survive. The first may be so inept or unfit that she will die in the desert, even if she takes all of the provisions from the second. The second may be better suited to survival in a harsh environment and her provisions may be just enough to sustain her. No one has an all-divining eye to see the truth of these or most any circumstances. There is no perfect, benevolent dictator who can guarantee desirable or optimum outcomes. For this scenario, one might produce an "equality of outcomes" – a seemingly popular notion these days (Karl Marx would be proud). While I agree that ensuring death for both is equal, it is neither desirable nor optimum. Some would disagree; some openly advocate and prefer equal oppression to allowing freedom for some to fail while others succeed. I cannot comprehend such a mindset. The only "field" that can justly approach being leveled is that of our essential rights.

We are accountable to ourselves, our peers and our maker to be charitable people who take care of those in need. Helping people in need has no moral value, if those helping are coerced with threats of force. True charity must be conscious and voluntary. Even charity that is prodded by social pressure and guilt has greater redeeming value. Even if it lacks a generosity of spirit, at least it reflects a sense of accountability and social or moral responsibility. At least it does not invite violence; we always risk violence when we resort to force.

Yet there are countless numbers who are betting on the benevolence of an overarching society. They want to voluntarily pool their resources and use democratic process to manage them, helping those in need and at the same time building infrastructure that benefits everyone in ways that are ubiquitous and too numerous to measure. That is how villages, towns and cities come to be.

IV. Metropolis

I think that song had it right. We do forget our name, our essence, our truth, when thrown to and fro amongst huddled masses. It is easy to forget that not everyone has what we have, and that even our most basic needs can never be guaranteed as rights can. It is easy to forget that we could easily have nothing tomorrow: no job, no health care, no home, no car, no food, and no security. It is harder to take away natural rights than material needs. You see, natural rights can only be taken by something called a criminal – oh, and governments can take them too.

Still, we are impressed by the throngs of humanity and we convince ourselves that, at least as a species, we are immortal. The social engineers, politicians and scientists, who all know what is best for us, know that we will be better off when we are united towards the same goals – and by god, they will tell us what those goals are – so just shut-up, dig-in and pull your weight. Everything will be decided by benevolent committees. You won’t have to think for yourself or pursue your own goals, or even know the difference between right and wrong. Just follow along. We will all be complicit in every crime and ostensibly in every achievement too. In reality, blame will be shared by all, and credit will go to the committees, along with our thanks for their sound guidance.

There seems to be a common theme pervading the favored social, political and scientific avenues of thought on the future of our species. Even in the most egalitarian and hopeful visions of the future, as with the "Star Trek" television and movie series, we will be united in common purpose, and we will shed our focus on personal gain. We will cease to act as individuals and becomes cells in a larger organism. There is no denying the prevalence of such sentiment.

And strangely, if such a grand vision had to be accomplished though force, I know it would fail. Instead, I suspect it will succeed precisely because we will relinquish the freedoms afforded to us by our natural rights, willingly. We will yield them in exchange for having our every need met and for the promise of safety. All of our needs and none of our rights. Wow! Surely, some of you are saying that sounds pretty good. "What a deal! All I gave up were my rights. I wasn’t even using them." Me? I will take my chances and gladly fight and die to keep my rights.

Certainly, enough will yield that the few holdouts, like me, can be easily marginalized and criminalized. This grand society will come about because we are intoxicated with the comfort, power and technological achievement that only a rich society can offer. In fact, I know someone who says that people will only shed their focus on personal gain when everyone can have anything they could ever need, just like Star Trek.

V. The Replicator

You might suspect that with a name like mine, I would be a big fan of Star Trek. After all Captain Kirk’s arch nemesis was ("Wrath of…") Khan Noonien Singh. Does that make me my own worst enemy? Well, I do like the series and even own a couple of collectibles, but I’m not exactly a trekker or even a trekkie. For those not familiar with Star Trek, I will explain. You see, they have this gadget they call a Replicator. This technology of the 24th Century can create most any physical object practically out of thin air.

So, in the world of Star Trek, everyone can literally have anything they would ever need. The same technology imagined for the Replicator also manifests itself in "holodecks". These are entertainment rooms that go beyond virtual reality to create concrete physical environments with lifelike interactive people, and all can be programmed to our dreams and desires. You can bet that the only time anyone ever leaves the holodecks on the Starship Enterprise is when their rationed time runs out or their shifts are starting (or the Romulans are attacking). If you could spend a few hours a week fulfilling your every fantasy, there is probably no end to the subjugation you would endure the rest of the week.

For now that is pure fantasy, but even the modest technologies of our time are beginning to lull us. I see the malaise setting in all around us. When I speak out to reclaim my rights, people don’t understand why I won’t get with the program, why I won’t relinquish my rights in exchange for the comforts offered to me. The argument seems to be that if I benefit from society in any way, then I turn over my destiny to the majority who get to decide what rights will be traded for what comforts and protections. It is all or nothing.

No, that’s not true. Nothing is not an option. There is no way out. There is no paying your own way or carrying your own weight. You cannot exist amongst the rest of society without being forever in debt to it. For some, like me, this is unacceptable. We demand that life be voluntary and that our freedoms not be relinquished except by our direct individual consent, which we will not give. We do not consent to the will of a simple majority. Again, voting and losing is not consent.

And for those of you who might say, "Well you can just leave, if you don’t like it," I say that is not an option either. For now I suppose it is still possible to find pockets of freedom in communities that do not consider you inextricably entangled, each with the other’s fate. Yet, for any socialist, communist or Marxist society (pick your flavor of collectivism – they all taste the same to me) to succeed, it must be all encompassing. It must resist any dissent. It must not allow anyone to escape its grasp. Total dominion is the goal of all such collectivist schemes. The reason is simple; people with talent, creativity and initiative are oppressed in societies that demand mediocrity. And that is what collectivist societies do. They are systems of oppression that produce relatively equal outcomes by limiting both failure and success.

The other day, a friend aptly pointed out that there is plenty of room for collectivist communities in a libertarian world, but there is no room for libertarians in a collectivist world. I have no doubt; eventually there will be no refuge from the tender mercies of a society united in lust for comfort and safety. Our only choices will be to comply or be crushed, but I am looking for a third option. I want to opt out.

[Look for me to discuss "Opting Out" in future articles. – Kirk Narinder Singh]
___________________________

I think this fella was trying to say some of the same things but drank too much coffee and got a little testy. I may be brewing up a rant of my own...

• Modern Bill of Rights

I almost forgot. This is an excellent opportunity to share a link from the International Society for Individual Liberty. It is a 10 minute Flash presentation (1.01 Mb, 3+ minutes to load by dial-up) and is available in other languages directly from the ISIL home page. Please support them if you can.

• "Philosophy of Liberty"

Tiger by the Tail

That’s what I seem to have grabbed when I started this blog. How do you reach out to people in a meaningful way and not take it personal? That’s a tough one. As my last post revealed, I am passionate in defending our rights and freedoms. And while I won’t ignore challenges to my integrity, I don’t want to be distracted by clashes of egos either. I certainly hope that pieces like my last screed are rarely needed. Though I must admit, folks seemed to love the drama of it all.

Now, I suppose I could rail against the night, posting away and inviting no feedback, but what good is that? Sometimes the greatest clarity comes in defending the positions you take. On the other hand, I don’t want my blog to turn into "Southern Indiana Bulletin Board #8719". So, I guess I will have to look for a happy medium. For the most part, I hope to convey my passion while being reasonable and constructive. Then perhaps the comments will be about people building on an idea.

If I can accomplish one thing with this blog, it would be to calm everyone the #%&! down. Look, I freak out about life too. The world seems to be hurtling at us, non-stop, 24/7, but it really is not so bad. I promise you that even if it's not all okay, it will be okay. Okay?

You don’t want a perfect world. You might think you do. The drama around my last post is proof enough. I could have farted around in this blog for months, staring at my own navel, without generating half that much interest. I think it’s natural for us to thrive in response to challenges, and that’s precisely why I am fighting against those who are conspiring to make life idiot-proof.

Don’t get me wrong. If you want to play it safe, you should be able to do so, while accepting all of the restrictions that come with playing it safe. However, it is wrong to foist your personal restrictions on others against their will or make them carry the burden of your risk tolerance – both mental and physical (i.e., allergies, lung disease, etc.).

So, when it comes to choices like exposure to second hand smoke, playing it safe may mean staying home or visiting non-smoking places. Outside of the countless public and private organizations that voluntarily cater to your needs, it is wrong to force private individuals and businesses to guarantee your well being. Some will. Some won’t. Do business with those who will. If a bunch of people can agree to be together, smokers and non-smokers in the same space, that should be their choice. That is called freedom of association. It should apply in business as it does for the individual.

If you choose to be safe (and smart) and wear your seatbelt, why is it necessary for you to force the same restriction on me? Children? Sure… but me? I know, I know, the argument always derails at this point, where it turns out that my increased likelihood of injury costs all of society, even if I am insured or independently wealthy. But most people like me -- we are anti-parasites. We don’t want your handouts. We’ll gladly pay as we go, or go without. We may even prefer dying early to life in a gilded cage, and when we do accept your charity, we expect to look you right in the eye, and pay our respect for your generosity, and never assume that we were entitled to it.

No. I don’t want an idiot-proof life. I don’t want to be denied the pride I feel, in the knowledge that I could have screwed up – but I didn’t, not today… well not too bad, anyhow. Am I glad that there are people in the world who want to take care of me (rather, people who don’t strenuously object to having money deducted seamlessly from their paycheck in order to pay for others to take care of me)? Aaaaahh… Yeah, I suppose. Nice people are, well, nice. If it seems like people are not generous anymore, it is only because they don’t have to be. Our elected officials have largely taken that burden away from us too.

I believe there should be some kind of connection between those giving and receiving aid. That connection can be as simple as empowering individuals to voluntarily support worthy causes, so they have a conscious connection with their choice. I want to do away with a cynical system where this connection is lost and people feel entitled to be supported, with no sense that they have a debt of gratitude to pay to those who support them. Feeling gratitude toward people investing in your present and future is far more empowering than feeling the world owes you something. If we leave people to care for each other instead of working towards a centralized, totalitarian solution that can account for everyone, will people fall though the cracks? Yes, and people fall through the cracks today, exactly because we don’t have a centralized, totalitarian solution – not yet.

But have no doubt. Only such extreme measures can create the idiot-proof world that is dreamt of by so many. Having a safe and peaceful society is not enough; for some, it must be voluntary too. Dream a little dream for me.

Dream of unending challenges to come…

Run Your Own Life

This post is a response to a local blogger, NA Confidential (NAC), who commented on a where I was quoted in the Jeffersonville Evening News last Tuesday. This is following the city council's final passage of the smoking ordinance the day before. Here is my quote from the paper and NAC's response:

“I would appreciate anything you can do to turn the power back to the people to run their own lives.”

NAC says: Mr. Singh is invited to present any available evidence to indicate that people in general are capable of running their own lives, at which point we’ll be happy to consider the various Libertarian proposals to dismantle the state and institute anarchy. Until such a time, is it humanly possible for there to be a spectacle more deliciously ironic than chain smokers merrily protesting limits on the spread of their disease-wracked addiction?

____________________________

Dear NA Confidential,

I am responding to your crass comments, not because I see any point in reasoning with you, but because your hypocrisy, cynicism and fear mongering should not go unchallenged. Yours is the standard behavior for bullies, and as such, I will not engage you in ongoing debate. However, I now have my own blog and will continue to make the case for a rational, voluntary society.

First and foremost, I have no intention of offering "evidence to indicate that people in general are capable of running their own lives," as no evidence is needed. Among, the most basic of our rights and freedoms is the right to run our own lives. Rights are not earned by proving our proficiency with them, and the rights of all are not forfeited just because some behave recklessly.

It seems you believe that people in general are incapable of running their own lives – except, of course, you. I take it you are the pillar of our community, and that you are so capable and responsible that your business was among the first to institute a non-smoking policy, thus leading the way and setting an example for others – Not!

Unfortunately, rights and freedoms, like muscle, atrophy when not used. The more that elitists like you "save us" from our inadequacy, the more you create dependency on your institutionalized solutions. I realize that dependency is fine by people like you, whose contempt for the average guy is apparent. For you most people are just idiots, who should shut-up and do what they are told (as long as that includes buying your beer). Sadly, there seems to be an endless supply of those who prefer being told what to do and comply, rather than being accountable for their own choices, good and bad.

Finally, you prey on the fears of those who depend on "the system" by suggesting libertarians wish to kill their sacred cow – as if a culture of intolerance for individual choice and dependency on a welfare state made our country great. I have no wish to replace order with chaos – no libertarians do. We prefer voluntary solutions to compulsory ones. Government solutions are by their nature compulsory and rely upon the threat of force; this makes them anything but noble or charitable. Far too often, our society uses force when force is not needed. This trend is creating an ever more authoritarian society.

We are working to reverse this trend before government becomes so powerful and intrusive that reclaiming our personal autonomy is no longer possible. You see, we have a radical idea: we believe in the inherent goodness of people and trust them to run their own lives.

BTW -- Many of the protesters were non-smokers. Among the 10 or more adult libertarian supporters known to me at the rally, at least 8 were non-smokers like my wife and myself. And while I am sure there were some smokers in the crowd protesting on the basis of a "right to smoke," all of the business owners and libertarian oriented folks were protesting on the basis of property rights.

First Articles

I am long overdue in starting this blog. There are so many thoughts bottled up in my head looking for an outlet. Recent events around a smoking ban here in Jeffersonville, launched many freedom lovers like myself into action, and this is a good way to build on that momentum.

While I am a libertarian and advocate of self-government, I suddenly realize that I am also conservative, in the sense that I believe in humility. We are all truly blessed. And while I understand that I have skills and talents others don't have, I still feel life is extremely easy for all but the extreme edges of our society. Even that fringe is better off than many children around the world who are grateful for a handful of rice. Instead of gratitude we just demand more, and it is always at the expense of and destruction of choices for others.

People will say that it is easy for me because I had advantages. If you call a work ethic, self esteem, and a sense of accountability advantages, then I would agree -- only families and involved neighbors, out of necessity, can supply these attributes -- no social program will ever suffice. I squandered and rejected every socioeconomic advantage that my father burned midnight oil to give me. I never fit any mold that he or society expected me fit. I have stumbled through life with no real purposefulness, and without trying very hard, I ended up with more than I ever imagined having. This is partly because I was taught to be happy with whatever I have.

Growing up in middle and upper-middle class homes, I learned that creature comforts do not bring happiness and peace; such comforts did not make our home happy or peaceful. Respect for others, responsibility for ourselves, dedication to establishing peaceful and voluntary associations, both business and personal -- these seem be much more important than luxuries like dining out on my own terms.

To start things off, I am including extended versions of letters to the editor that I submitted to the Courier-Journal (Louisiville, KY) and The Evening News (Jeffersonville, IN) regarding the smoking ban. I submitted highly abbreviated, 200 word versions of these articles, and both were published with few changes on Saturday, November 12th, 2005. Despite our best efforts, the ordinance passed, divided along partisan lines and is currently awaiting the Mayor's signature.

__________________________________

... Business Owners Rights
(title of abbreviated version in the CJ)

*** Full version (368 words) ***

Jeffersonville may pass a smoking ban. This shows how our affluent society tends to spoil us. You will upset some folks if you suggest that the issue is not about the rights of consumers. "Of course it’s about MY rights. It’s all about me!" Ask where the property rights of business owners figure in, and it’s like you are suddenly speaking a different language.

We have been so coddled for so long, we mistake luxuries like eating out for rights, so we whittle away at the essential rights of some while imagining new rights for ourselves. We demand to be served on our own terms and never consider that the people who run these places are free too, and are not obligated to do anything in particular for us. To say otherwise is to say people in business are slaves – there to serve our selfish interest.

After the War Between the States, former slaves were promised land in the understanding that their so-called freedom meant nothing without property. That is also why they were later booted off of those lands. Property is the fruit of our labor. To infringe on property is to steal the fruit of our labor and turn us into servants of the state – these are called serfs and slaves.

Most of us are just working folk and do what we are told every day. So what do we care if businesses have to bow to the whims of a few council members? That’s a common view. "Business" is demonized today. Yet, this is not a conspiracy by evil rich corporations to profit from our misery. This ban largely affects small local businesses, run by your neighbors; you will find many of them behind the counters of their restaurants and shops and hopefully at the next city council meeting.

You would not (I hope) come into your neighbor’s home and tell her that she cannot smoke. Please give your neighbor’s business the same respect. Realize you are a guest who is privileged to be served. And if you don’t like the food, or the service or the smell of smoke, don’t go whining to the city like a spoiled child who didn’t get his way.

__________________________________

Enter At Your Own Risk
(title of abbreviated version in the Evening News)

*** Full version (297 words) ***

The Jeffersonville City Council may pass a smoking ban. Supporters will supply all sorts of reasons. They will speak of imagined rights to dining out, while ignoring the essential property rights of business owners. One justification that has real traction is "public health".

Public health justifies forced dumping of fluoride into the majority of water supplies. My brother-in-law, a retired government biochemist, says it is the most successful public health program ever, that it nearly put dentists out of business. Some in the scientific community disagree with the NIH and doubt the safety of this wholesale 1-size fits-all solution. Others say it was fancy footwork to repackage and sell fluoride laden industrial waste while protecting industries from liability claims. It seems odd to dump tons of a highly regulated chemical just to get a few pounds of it to the children who may need it, but I don’t know who is right.

All I know is what is right for me. Public health is a dangerous notion. It lets a few people decide what is right for everyone. They will sound informed and well intentioned like my brother-in-law. And many welcome lifting these burdens off their shoulders. It means not having to live a cautious, informed and responsible life.

Public health removes your responsibility to weigh life’s risks for yourself. From a health standpoint, no one should become a fire fighter. It’s just too risky. But the risk of not having fire fighters is worse. No one’s forced to become a fire fighter and no one’s forced to enter restaurants. We can each vote for non-smoking establishments with our dollars and our feet, without the tampering of the city council.

Think of restaurants with smoke like you would a burning building. Enter at your own risk.