More on Freedom

Nov 14, 2015

More on Freedom

Dan writes:

By what criteria can a person that doesn’t already (think they) know how the universe works determine if a particular act increases or decreases freedom for the whole?

***

Some issues, like murder, seem clear while some, like forced/mandated insurance, are not and I am unable to pick up the common “thread” that SHOULD, logically, run through ANY/ALL issues that lie on one side or the other of the principle.

In example how does it decrease the freedom for the whole for me to exercise my freedom to steal my neighbor’s sheep?

EVERYBODY is going to kneejerk say it OBVIOUSLY decreases the freedom of the whole but specifically how?

It increases my freedom to eat mutton tonight and decreases his – that only impacts me and him, NOT the freedoms of this (nebulous) “whole”.

JJ

There are two keys for insuring maximum freedom for any group.

The first is the Second Key of Judgment and the second is the taking into consideration what the will of the majority is concerning what is necessary for maximum freedom.

Let us say that we have before us a large number of groups with a wide range of consciousness. Let us also say they can be labeled between one and ten with ten being the highest state.

The maximum freedom for group one would be much less than a group with the rating of ten. Group one would have to have many black and white rules, group two less and group three less still until we get to ten which would need few if any rules as the Principle of Freedom would be a part of their consciousness.

The leaders of each of the ten groups would have to tap into public opinion to determine the least amount of rules and laws needed so they could tap into maximum freedom and efficiency.

Now let us examine your question about stealing the sheep. Let us say that you and the sheep owner are the only two people in the area and no one else is affected by anything either of you do.

Yes, if you steal the other guy’s sheep you will increase your freedom to possess the sheep and eat mutton while the owner loses this advantage. Looking at it this way it seems that the net gain and loss cancel each other out.

Looking at freedom this way completely misses the principle. The Principle of Freedom is not concerned with possessions. He who has more possessions does not have more freedom (as far as the principle is concerned) than the one with few possessions.

The Principle of Freedom revolves around our freedom of action to obtain possessions or whatever it is we want to accomplish, do, say or think and to be able to keep those accomplishments without threat to life, limb or loss.

Person A’s goal was to own sheep and it took him a reasonable amount of labor to raise the sheep in question. The freedom that was diminished when person B stole the sheep was the freedom to enjoy the benefits of one’s labor. The thief had no labor involved so he could not steal this for himself. He could not steal the sense of accomplishment that was had by the legitimate owner.

By stealing the sheep the thief gains no skill or satisfaction of a job well done whereas the owner loses the results of his labor and his goals to grow his herd are diminished. There is loss by person A and little or no gain by person B.

The scriptures tell us that our works follow us to the next world, but our possessions do not. This is because real freedom lies in freedom to do fulfilling work and not in possession of physical things. He who has freedom to effectively labor at that which he loves can possess all he needs for happiness.

Now let us suppose that these two people were a part of a group. If person A reported the theft to the group then the feeling of safety and the ability to feel secure in their possessions would be diminished for the whole. There is less freedom in a group with a thief in their midst than a group with no thieves.

Setting up laws and punishments for theft will help to secure the freedom of each individual to work toward their goals of obtaining and securing their possessions. The freedom to work without undue restrictions to fulfill and keep your desires is essential to the Principle of Freedom.

The goal with the Principle of Freedom is then to insure that all have maximum freedom of action, speech and thought rather than possessions. Needed possessions naturally come to groups who support maximum freedom.

You mention freedom related to gay marriage, speed limits and mandated insurance.

The core question behind these and other issues is this. Does this law, regulation or action secure more freedom than it takes away?

The answer for those in groups having a lower consciousness is in the eye of the beholder and not seen clearly. These groups will have many laws thinking they are enhancing freedom when they are really restricting it. Even so, all kinds of rules and regulations are necessary for lesser evolved groups so they can slowly learn what real freedom is and to esteem it of high value.

Laws that seem satisfying for a group of low evolution would be intolerable for a highly evolved group.

When a true gathering of lights occurs the needed laws to insure freedom and safety will be much less than the counties of the world today as the laws of justice will be written in their hearts.

“Some birds are not meant to be caged, that’s all. Their feathers are too bright, their songs too sweet and wild. So you let them go, or when you open the cage to feed them they somehow fly out past you. And the part of you that knows it was wrong to imprison them in the first place rejoices, but still, the place where you live is that much more drab and empty for their departure.”

–Stephen King (From “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption”)

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Series Navigation

Healing 109Two Types of People