Humans and Freedom

During a long drive home last night from an event at which we heard Dick Armey and two of his gang at FreedomWorks speak (it was interesting...but mostly a book tour stop)...I mentioned to my friends that, "Liberty is the highest human value".

I said that other values like love, compassion, charity are NOT the highest, because without Liberty, they cannot be expressed properly.

You see, Love, Compassion, and Charity are not merely "feelings". They are behaviors. And without the freedom to act in the world as you wish, you cannot express these values. As "feelings" they are just expressions of an inner desire an inner landscape. Without actions, they don't exist in the objective world. They are merely subjective artifacts.

Does that makes sense?

I said that people—Human Beings—require Liberty to live fulfilled, truly Human lives.

I said Human Beings "NEED" Liberty.

And they argued.

They said human beings only "need" food, water, shelter. They said a "need" is the minimum necessary to keep you alive.

I said they're describing the "needs" of a clam, perhaps...but not of a Human Being, who is not just a biological unit, but has an intellectual and a spiritual dimension as well. And that all three need to be "nourished" in order to produce a true Human Being.

I said that in essence they were saying that even consciousness wasn't a "need".  After all, a person in a vegetative state can "live" for years if given food, water and shelter.

But I'd hardly call that "living".

Now there was one more point I tried to make that neither of my friends seem to understand.

Here's my second point:  All human beings want Liberty!

I contend that most people will choose freedom when they are faced with concrete limitations on their freedom in their immediate experience - even while they may intellectually argue abstractly that safety or security is superior to freedom...talk of things like "freedom from want", or "freedom from danger or risk".

My friends say otherwise. They think most people are sheep and will choose safety over freedom.

I say no [sane] human being will choose a prison cell even if it means plenty of food, water, shelter. Even if we add health care, alcohol, recreational drugs and sexual partners—almost every human being will choose freedom rather than that prison cell.

I would stipulate that some people will initially choose the cell...thinking they made a great deal, but that in the end, they will know they have chosen badly and repent...and seek freedom.

And I think the multi-generationally poor in the inner cities are a perfect example of that. I think they made the initial choice to accept the prison (plantation) cell, with the promise of free food, water, shelter...but are experiencing the rage and frustration of the un-free. I think they are rebelling against their choice, and seeking freedom. They just don't have the vision or the vocabulary to describe it correctly.

Their anger, even if expressed in racial terms is merely their Human Nature exerting itself, and their violence and anger are symptoms of the un-free wanting freedom;  of having accepted imprisonment for the sake of security. It is what many of the arrogant in the Liberty Community consider the quintessential "SHEEP" violently rebelling against their serfdom.

So, yeah, I think human beings "need" freedom, even if they don't know it. They cannot reach their potential, or lead fully human lives in the absence of freedom. And no matter who they are, or how they express their dissatisfaction, they always rebel against tyranny.

Lest anyone misunderstand, there are always exceptions...there will always be individuals who will opt for safety over freedom. But let's stipulate that these exceptions prove the rule rather than otherwise.

The Gunslinger
(Zombie Killer, Waxing Philosophical)