March 24, 2004

Each person has their own idea of the composition of liberty – what it means to them personally, as well as how they think that should be effected in regard to their relations with others in a social or political venue.

The subjective base, arising from personal experience, knowledge and understanding, and varying from person to person, does not mean that people should allow themselves to be murky or vague in their understanding, nor bend with whatever breeze happens to be blowing. Nor be unwilling to share their view with others, both clearly and confidently.

Henry David Thoreau wrote: “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” And, being chronically out of step with his fellows, Thoreau struggled to express his views on what kind of government would command his respect throughout his life.

This does not mean that every man or woman will have the same vision, nor the same definition. It does not mean that every person will, by the effort of expressing their vision, get their own way in the end result.

It means, as we are a species with diverse backgrounds, experiences, religions, and opinions, that we can hope, by expressing our visions (our “wish list”), to make a contribution that may affect, stimulate or persuade others of the sensibility of our vision in some part.

No single individual is going to get it “right” for everyone else. Nor is one vision going to encompass the breadth of everyone else’s wishes and visions.

As history, and our own present society, demonstrate only too clearly, many people envision rather silly things when it comes to political ideals, even on a platform of “liberty.”

The objective of making our individual visions clear is twofold. The first and most important is to understand, ourselves, what it is that we believe as clearly and precisely as we can manage. If we’re not initially very clear on this, we may benefit by peeking over the shoulder of someone else, who has thought about it (for him/herself) and expressed it. But we’re still responsible for our own vision, and how it seems to us. This matter of personal research runs into the second part: to share our visions (ideas and definitions) with others.

This second part is tricky because, obviously, I am different from you, have different personal experiences, educational experiences, and have researched different aspects of life – we all make different choices and have different priorities. And no one of us has it all neatly taped, measured and put in a box labeled “perfect understanding of the universe.” Although, as a matter of pride and confidence, we probably have boxes that are labeled “my perfect understanding of how the universe works (1,143rd revision thus far).”

When we express our vision of what liberty means to us, we do not intend to impose it on anyone else, de facto or de jure. That would hardly be consonant with anyone’s idea of “liberty,” which is rather the opposite of forcing anything on anyone. (At least I hope that’s part of your basic understanding of liberty, but, well, ahem ... it does seem that way to me.)

Thus, when we express our vision, we are in the process of sharing it. Of saying, “Hey, this is what I came up with – what did you come up with?” We want to expound our view (once we figure out what that is), and we want to continue to ponder the views that other people have come up with – whether these are neighbors, dead philosophers, sci-fi writers or any other human being who has experienced some aspect of existence that we might be a little shy in ourselves.

On the other hand, when we express our visions, we do mean to stand by them. It’s not just “oh, anything goes, whatever you feel like, I don’t really care.” And in expressing our vision, we aren’t running around being nicey-nicey, and avoiding stepping on other people’s toes. Because this is, to the best of our understanding, what we stand up for – and are willing to die defending, if necessary.

A vision of liberty is both personal and, precisely because it is personal, and comes out of our own experience and understanding (and research and study), it is important to us. We don’t mean to ram it down anyone’s throat, but we do know what we are talking about from our own vantage. We are each experts in regard to our own understanding. Our vision may not be true for everyone (that is likely to be impossible anyway), but it IS true for us, and we will stand by it, defend it, discuss it, argue it, explain it, and perhaps even pontificate a bit (if we are allowed such latitude, which is only likely to be the case if other people are not willing to form their own views, are wanting someone else to give them answers, and are wanting to follow a leader ... which won’t likely result in liberty but, ah well, that’s another matter).

I have a lot of respect for people who can express a clear view of liberty. I may or may not agree with their visions and definitions, but I almost always come away with a better understanding of my own views in consequence of this exposure.

I am not offended, when reading someone else’s views, if they are confident that their view is correct. This confidence in themselves and in their vision is admirable. Even cockiness and defiance can be accepted when someone steps up and says, “This is what *I* think.”

If they claim that it is the only correct view, then I suspect they are muddled in the basic concept of what liberty is (according to my interpretation), but I still listen to what they have to say. Someone with that much confidence – perhaps a messiah complex – might easily have something I haven’t heard or considered before. Or they might be a huckster selling snake-oil. Sometimes, you need to hear them out.

But there is another matter to consider when confronted with confident visionaries. Not necessarily that they seek to impose (force) their vision on others, but that they have been exposed, possibly through some unique personal experience, to an understanding that transcends normal views. And, through research, study and experience, they may have some truly rare insights that can help to illuminate the concept of liberty in some strange and unusual manner.

Such people may be truly daft or truly visionary, but to many of us they will appear to “speak in tongues” instead of speaking like the rest of us do. They may also, by their personal vision, be trying to force not their vision, but their communication – to break the barrier of the strangeness of their insight, so that you may see it, examine it, ponder it, and, freely, accept or reject it on its merits by your own judgment.

Historically, this is a common liability to anyone who stumbles upon a great idea – an idea that breaks with convention, tradition, culture and accepted paradigms – an idea that may be profound or silly, but which is so different that – “Oh,” wails the struggling philosopher, “it cannot be expressed or explained! It is beyond my abilities!” But he will try anyway. And, historically, it may be worse for him if he can explain his vision, than were he to remain tongue-tied.

Most of us are somewhat fixed in our conventional, accepted norms of seeing things within our cultural framework (a framework which goes back thousands of years in its rigid ordering of things “thus and so”). In his effort to explain, he will stumble many times, being misunderstood this way, then that. And, lifting himself up, he will go on, because his vision compels him to do two things: one is to enlighten, assist, and enable his fellows on the premise that, in his estimate, this vision is a valuable piece in the puzzle we’re all working on. The other thing he is compelled to do is get the damned thing off his shoulders. For, as any philosopher knows, a vision is a terrible burden to carry alone – and, if not shared, if not communicated, may as well have not been given or grasped in the first place. For he does not imagine this insight was intended for him, alone. And, in the case of political liberty, what good would such a vision be to one man only? Ha! Indeed.

In our overviews of history in high school, we may have laughed at the silliness of forcing Galileo to recant, at making Socrates take hemlock, or at the many instances where great visions were suppressed by people who feared to consider that the earth was not flat, was not the center of the universe, was not ruled by gods and demons, or was not created in six days.

But after every paradigm-shattering development – which was strenuously resisted by every right-thinking person in society – after it was reluctantly accepted, people closed their minds over the new paradigm, and moved forward with their confidence in the universe restored and fixed once more. Regardless of how “enlightened” we become, as a species, we never stop doing this, as individuals. We need a fixed understanding to be able to function at all, and, even if we endeavor to keep the door open at least a crack for further advances, that crack will often become filled-in and sealed in a very short time.

Visionaries and innovators are not welcomed by the species. Justifiably. It is easier to ignore, misrepresent, ridicule, discount, burn or imprison them, than to consider that there might be a different way of seeing things. We’ve made some headway in regard to science and technology, but only in narrow channels. Orthodoxy exists to consolidate and fix things “just so.” Innovation is disruptive, annoying and inconvenient. Especially innovative ideas.

There is a popular notion that we, as an enlightened society, are open to – and actively seeking – new, innovative ideas ... in political theory, in architecture, in engineering, in medicine, in education, and, yes, even in ways of formulating and implementing liberty (which seems a lost cause without such efforts).

But this is not true.

The history of the planet is a constant demonstration that people do not want innovative, paradigm-breaking, barrier-breaking ideas, theories, understandings, inventions and visions.

In the past 100 years, at least five innovative, proven cures for various forms of cancer have been actively suppressed by the U.S. government, in concert with the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry. Alternative forms of health care and remedies are being actively buried by force and by legislation every day. ((For an excellent historical overview of medical paradigms, see Wade Frazier's The Medical Racket.)

This is not an exception for either the culture nor for the species. It’s what human beings do – to protect their own frame of reference, their understanding, and their view of the world. It also protects power structures and vested economic interests, but these are but trivial manifestations of the species-wide desire to maintain a status quo that is our personal reference-base for day-to-day living.

We say we want liberty, health, benevolence, peace or any other humane, sensible condition for existence on this planet, but, truly, only if it’s not inconvenient or upsetting. It is much easier to wish for such things, as idealistic goals, than to flounder about trying to get a handle on a new paradigm that breaks through the barriers and allows us to actually achieve such things. We wish for such things within the current, existing, time-worn and moth-eaten framework, but be damned if we’ll change that framework (which is mostly what is preventing such goals from ever being realized).

Everyone has a personal vision of liberty, based upon their own experience and knowledge. Most of these are very realistic visions within the present worldview. I maintain that the worldview is incompatible with liberty and, hence, that most visions, however idealistic, are not practical as such; i.e., they will continue to fall-short because they will continue to be thwarted by the contrary framework or worldview, which remains unchallenged.

There are other visions that are unrealistic in the sense that they are incompatible with the present worldview, but which are not necessarily impractical. Some of these may be breakthrough understandings. Truly visionary stuff. Others may be tinsel and sawdust.

I suspect that a visionary – if he is not a knowing, cunning huckster – who has been given some illuminated understanding that he is grappling with and attempting to communicate, may, himself, be unable to evaluate the merit of his vision. Is it a real breakthrough, or merely tinsel and sawdust? It is hard to evaluate this when the feedback is not to the point, but is in defense of the status quo. If he continues to be resisted or ignored because his ideas are challenging, then he will continue to push his view against the status quo. And his persistence can easily be seen as stridency.

If the barricades of authority relent to examine his vision, they may offer sound council as to the merit of the vision, but, the risk for them and the rest of us, is that if merit is found, they have already opened themselves to being overrun by a paradigm that breaks the barrier. So, oftentimes, the battle persists even when the idea is really meritless in the first place, simply because some plucky little guy thinks he might have the key, and the gates of orthodox are sealed expressly against such possibility, regardless of merit.

The person who is trying to force a particular view of liberty may, additionally, be stuck in some paradigm of “power over others,” which is typical of the present cultural framework – and very common in academia, think-tanks, and institutions of all descriptions. We are familiar with such pushy, authoritarian, “know better than you” hi-jinks in the realm of libertarian ideas. Most of these self-proclaimed “experts,” still command fairly large audiences, because virtually all of them network within the framework and do very little to challenge the framework, or, thus, in my view, to actually advance the achievement of anything remotely like liberty, which would crash that barrier.

And thus, a visionary may nor may not be seeking to impose an idea of liberty, as the one true path, so much as to communicate to others the parameters, needs and requirements of liberty, such that changing the framework is a concomitant part of achieving liberty.

Anarchocapitalists do this to some degree and in some manner, but they have frequently been co-opted by institutional authoritarians. And the institutional authoritarians are heavily invested in the framework. They fan the flame of anarchocapitalism to intentionally prevent the achievement of liberty ... a ploy to divert and derail serious challenges to the framework. Then they turn around (with all these anarchocapitalist orcs by their side), and denigrate anyone who proposes liberty – as a challenge to the barricades of authority – as pretentious, rigid upstarts to be ignored or squashed, thus perpetuating the species’ ten thousand year evasion of liberty.

The view that an individual has of liberty can fall on either side of the authoritarian barricade. Most of them, I believe, are within the walls, supporting the walls, and idealistically wishing pigs could fly.

A vision of liberty that challenges the walls of authority is like something from another planet. It speaks the language of power-brokering awkwardly and ineptly. It speaks the language of fantasy and wishful-thinking stupidly and clumsily. It stumbles repeatedly. It seeks nothing more than to be heard, but is tongue-tied. It gropes for tools of expression that are just out of reach, like a young child who has been mocked, ridiculed and laughed at, trying to explain something to a smug, self-righteous adult, and finding it difficult to find the words to express an idea that could register, if the adult would overcome his hubris enough to listen.

If you believe in liberty, know what you believe. Initially, you may find the formulation of these ideas in the expressions of others. Well and fine, fashion your understanding from whatever source you can manage. But, past the research stage (which, admittedly, is ongoing), you should be able to express your own understanding of liberty in your own words, without referring to a book, or without saying, “well, uh, like he said.”

Every time someone airs their view of liberty, your understanding is going to be challenged. And re-thought. That’s a pain in the butt, but it’s good to be challenged. And it’s good to stand on firm ground, once more. If someone, says something that seems muddled, you can express your view, to help them clarify their thinking. Not that they would need to accept your view, but just to give them a different vantage, and, at any rate, if they process it, the next time they express their view, it will likely be less muddled, although it may still be nothing like your view.

But once is a while, someone is going to come along with a view that is completely out of step with all you have encountered in your quest to understand liberty. They may come from another country – or another planet. They are not going to see your framework from inside the scaffolding, as you always have, but from the outside. And they will see you running around after such things as liberty, health, peace and benevolence in a contorted maze that blocks every effort to achieve such things. If you are lucky, they might be so rude as to say something about this anomaly, which seems very glaring and obvious to them. You may not be able to see what they are even talking about (damned fur’ners, completely off-track!) But, if you are lucky, you might be able to hear them.

In the end, this may not be such a great deal, considering the implications. Perhaps it would be better to just ship them back where they came from. And forget you ever encountered their weird ideas – if you can.

“Visions? Paradigm shifts? Break-through innovations? Malarkey! We’re doing just fine, thank you very much.” {Gee, I wish I were living wherever you are, but it’s clearly not in America, 2004, unless statism is your god.}

I guess my main point in this exploration of personal ideas of liberty, from varied and innovative sources – and our various schemes of resisting new ideas from offbeat sources – is that, although I am clear and confident in my vision and understanding of liberty, I don’t have all the answers. Certainly not for other people. But also not enough to close my mind to other, new understandings. I may have much, but I definitely need more ...

How about you?

Richard Rieben is a world traveler, house remodeler, and sometime author and philosopher. The thesis of his manifesto, Reciprocia, is, briefly: “Sovereignty is the base; reciprocity defines how to make it work.” Aside from harping incessantly on the theme of liberty, he leads a fairly normal life in middle America, where he grapples with communicating with the natives.

Richard’s books are available through the publisher, berapapress.com, and through amazon.com, bookstores and other outlets. His internet articles are featured at takeliberty.com. He does not blog. Comments may be e-mailed to: richard-at-reciprocia.com.

Archives

Tips for Making Liberty