The Principle of Freedom Part 3
Let me quote from a previous article:
“Just as the one who was deceived into thinking he could not walk. discovered the truth, and now wants freedom in an extended area so will it be with you and me. If we attempt to restrict freedom outside of our ring-pass-not then the time will come that we ourselves will find our own freedoms restricted. If we attempt to restrict freedom within our ring but in an area where we have no personal interest then the time will come that an area of interest for ourselves will be affected.”
Let me elaborate on this a bit:
Remember the story of the guy in NAZI Germany who tells of witnessing various groups of people around him being hauled off by the authorities and no one stood up for them? He himself was silent as he had no affiliation with the troubled groups. Finally, he says they came for him and when they did there was no one left who could speak up for him even if they wanted to.
This is the way it is with freedom also. If we are concerned only with our own little freedoms in our own little areas of interest then the freedom we have will be short-lived. It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and this is indeed true, but we must be vigilant for all freedom, and not only for our own liberty in a limited area of interest. We must be prepared to defend the principle of freedom for all lives within their areas of interest as long as that free expression does not take away more freedom than it gives.
And that is the principle of freedom in a nutshell. The principle of freedom will generally be manifest if one consistently asks this question:
Will my action increase or decrease the freedom of the whole?
Using this criteria we see that the burglar violates this principle for even though he feels free to break into your house and has increased freedom from stealing your TV, the overall decrease in freedom for the whole is much greater than his little increase.
If you teach a friend to surf the internet you are adding to his freedom even though he loses a little free time doing other things. There is an overall gain for the whole and thus the principle of freedom is in play.
The problem with maintaining freedom is that people have two basic definitions of it or ways of looking at it.
(1) The first group sees freedom as an increase in benefits (usually temporary) to either self or an affiliated group, even if it involves an increase of restrictions and fewer freedoms to the many.
(2) The second group sees freedom as a lack of restriction, unless that restriction is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom of decision and action for the whole.
The problem is that the first group are in heavy illusion for an increase in benefits for the few takes away from freedom if the reception of those benefits comes by way of force, or the taking away of the freedom of many to increase the freedom for the minority.
Let’s take a real life example.
Currently (written in June of 2000) many individuals, plus state and federal governments are pursuing and suing the tobacco companies for money and benefits thinking that these benefits will give them greater freedom within their sphere.
At what price are these benefits?
Price One: An increase of taxes on the product which is a tax increase for many poor people who smoke.
Price Two: An increase of restrictions for the tobacco companies.
Price Three: If critics get their way the tobacco companies will suffer financially with a loss of thousands of jobs and the creation of a black market producing a tremendous increase in crime.
Objection: The tobacco companies deserve what they get because cigarettes are bad for you. We may take away some of their freedom, but that will be good for everyone. In fact it would be a big help if we made them illegal. Think of all the health benefits everyone would enjoy.
This is where the great illusion comes into play that provides the most powerful of tools for the Dark Brothers and is in harmony with their own philosophy which is:
“Force people to do good.”
To make smoking illegal would wind up doing more harm than good. Educating people on the health problems caused by smoking and changing public opinion so it is no longer cool to smoke is a much better long term solution.
Keep in mind that the dark side have their own definition of good and it always involves lots of benefits for those at the top of the food chain.
And what is the motto of the Brotherhood of Light?
“Promote understanding and then trust people to do the right thing.”
Now I have not smoked since I was around twelve so the subject of tobacco has little to do with me personally, but I am concerned because the increase or decrease of the freedom of a part does affect the whole and I am a part of that whole.
To force the tobacco companies out of business and thus force the consumer into a more healthy lifestyle is to encourage the path of darkness. Remain always vigilant against those who advocate force to produce an increase of benefits.
Let us group some examples of how forcing people to do good has failed in the past.
Example 1: Most notable is that the Soviet Union used force in an attempt to create equality for its people.
Result: The incentive to work was taken away and the nation went bankrupt.
Example 2: During Prohibition the United States government attempted to force its citizens to not drink alcohol.
Result: Crime was manifest where before there was no crime and mobsters like Al Capone arose and created havoc on the nation. Millions of people continued to obtain alcohol by illegal means. The situation became so intolerable that the law was repealed.
Example 3: Forcing wage and price controls in the late 70’s so evil businesses would not increase prices.
Result: Prices continued to go up, interest rates skyrocketed and there were shortages of many products.
What happens when we promote understanding and trust people to do good?
Individuals will apply the principles of health on their own including quitting smoking and going on a better diet.
Individuals will move toward a real equality and have much incentive to produce.
Individuals will begin to take responsibility for their own lives instead of working to “beat the system.”
The war between light and dark as it plays out in present time on this planet is between the philosophy of maximum freedom and maximum control at the expense of freedom..
We could also say that the war is between those who gladly receive the mark of the beast through control by authority and those who seek to escape the mark.
Drawing the Freedom Line
One of the main problems with the understanding of freedom is that the correct exercise of this principle is not black and white.
For instance we can’t say that he who loves freedom will never use force because force is sometimes necessary to insure freedom for the whole.
The force of the Allies against Hitler was a prime example.
Reasonable force to keep our communities safe from crime is another.
You can’t say that he who loves freedom will live a life completely free from discipline, constraints and law.
Justified law (which always involves some type of limitation) if made for the benefit of the whole will give more stability and freedom than it takes away.
Discipline limits a person in certain areas, but has the advantage of expanding freedom in other desirable areas.
Constraint, such as keeping drunk drivers off our highways, is a reasonable trade off for the added safety it gives the majority.
The trouble with many people who influence society is that they are extremists. For instance, those who make the laws may like the praise they receive from making laws to keep drunk drivers off our roads so they sit around and daydream of what they can do next.
Well maybe the best thing to do next is nothing. Maybe they have done enough. Even if this is the case, such schemers are not happy and they start dreaming up more constrains “for our own good.”
The theory of these mislead souls is that “even if one life is saved our solution is worth whatever discomfort millions will have to endure.”
Here is an example of this anti freedom philosophy at work:
In the late 70’s during the gas shortages they reduced the national speed limit to a maximum of 55 MPH. Now this law was so extreme that I doubt that one out of 100 driving the freeways of the country obeyed this silly rule, but what irritated me about these do-gooders was what happened when the gas shortage was over and citizens wanted to repeal the law. Many of our lawmakers refused, not to save gas now as we had plenty, but to save lives. Some thought that if we could even save one life by forcing millions of the rest of us to drive at 55 that the law should remain as it was. This thinking prevailed for about ten years until Senator Symms from Idaho introduced a bill raising the limit – thank God.
The funny thing was after the law was passed, the freeways deaths decreased in many states including Idaho. One reason, I am sure, is that there was much less frustration for drivers.
Then what really got to me was that even though there were iron clad statistics showing that raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 was harmless many still wanted to impose the lower speed limit “for our own good” because of “what might happen.”
Now what is wrong with the reasoning that it is OK to restrict the freedom of millions to save one life?
This is a great feel good statement that has a strong effect on those polarized in feeling, but what is wrong with the reasoning here?
The answer should be obvious, but for the astrally polarized it is not.
June 8, 2000
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE