This is a follow up article on my last article, titled, FREEDOM DOES NOT MEAN ANARCHY: Deja Vu “OVER YONDER” LANGUAGE.
The article was actually about how we talk, but do not communicate, because we have a difference in the understanding of the language. There is confusion in simple words, therefore it’s not always easy to convey a thought, idea or meaning. The “double-think, double-talk” mentality has been used for many years now.
It has been used so effectively, the average person does not really understand the meaning of the word Freedom. It’s not attainable, if its not explainable. As a way of living one’s life, how can you expect to live in Freedom, if you do not understand what it means?
I define Freedom as “self-responsibility and self-control,” no more and no less than just that. In order to live and exist, it is absolutely necessary to own property. I have written a number of previous articles on this subject. You do not own that which you do not control and in order to own anything it must have a boundary. Personal Freedom and private ownership of property are so inextricably tied to-gether, one cannot understand one without understanding the other. It’s my position that ownership of property is a total concept.
I write about Freedom and ownership of property for expression of ideas. I hope that my writings might prompt another individual to stop and think about their Freedom or the absence of it, to better understand what is taking place in this society in which we all live.
I always welcome any comments from my readers, whether in agreement or disagreement. I spent many years studying The Philosophy of Freedom, and had many teachers. Mine was simply a discovery of what it actually means. To understand Freedom there is a moral imperative to understand the difference in Principles and Value Judgements. One is Objective and one is Subjective.
What I have discovered on my journey is a great deal of misunderstanding about freedom stems from a misunderstanding about the definition of ordinary words. It’s ok to argue, but ludicrous to argue when we perceive diametrically opposed definitions of a word used in the argument.
I’m certainly not surprised when I receive comments of opposition on the position I pose in my articles. And such is the case on my position, “Freedom is not Anarchy.” The Commenter supports Anarchy, and I oppose it. His stated position is this:
“Freedom does not mean Chaos, but does mean without rulers, Anarchy means I govern myself, so I need no one to rule me.” Further, “Only Anarchy can exist in Society without feeling a compulsion to know everyone’s business and control it.”
Quoting the reader further, “I realize the dictionary has a lot of ‘Chaos’ mixed in with its definition of ‘Anarchy’ but that is not what I mean.”
When an individual takes the time to read my writings, and further bothers to comment, pro or con, mostly likely there are others who feel the same way but do not take the time to respond with a comment. Consequently, with reference to the above position, there are probably others who feel the same way. Therefore I decided to respond in this article.
First of all Freedom, does not necessarily mean the absence of Chaos. When one seriously assumes “self-responsibility” in this war of ideas one may often times find themselves embroiled in a dispute that entails a battle, which may result in chaos. To assume self-responsibility does not mean peace at any price. And may necessitate a stand when ones’ individual Freedom and ownership of property is threatened or under attack.
Secondly, by definition Anarchy means absence of government, lawless confusion, political disorder, or general disorder.
In this connection, if one accepts the definition of Freedom as being “Self-responsibility,” it means one accepts this form of government, self-government, which is not the absence of government. It is Sovereignty of ones’ self, rulership over ones’ self – not the absence of rulership.
Anarchy does not mean Freedom, it’s the antithesis of it, i.e., the absence of government, including self-government.
Standing up for ones’ individual Soveriegnty and property Rights is not anarchy. It’s protection of that which belongs to us. And protection always works. At the point it doesn’t it’s no longer protection.
Accordingly, I find the writer’s stated position unacceptable to me. However if one wishes to intertwine and mix up definitions to suit themselves, they are free to do so. In my opinion, it’s confusing and nonrational. One cannot pitch Freedom and Anarchy as being commensurate with each other; it’s an inconsistency which does not fly in the face of reality and rationale.
The understanding of the true meaning of Freedom is not that complicated. It only appears to be when convoluted with different terminology coiled around other words of opposing meaning. You can’t put a square peg in a round hole.
Admittedly, Anarchy means without rulership, however, Freedom does not mean without rulership. It means one has rulership over themselves. How can one exercise self-responsibility unless they are in charge of themselves and have self-control?
LET FREEDOM RING