FREEDOM 4 (of 4): OF THE FREE (v1.0)

[Michael Salamey]

Freedom is one’s context for ownership and control over one’s life.

Without a context for defining logical boundaries for the existence of Freedom, we do not have freedom. Rather, we have Anarchy.

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, by clearly delineating what Freedom is (and is not), we actually increase access to freedom.

Many times, I have seen couples argue over having too much or too little freedom; marriages can disintegrate the matter. Even counseling can fail to rectify a gap that seems to be between ideologies in a relationship, but is actually an unseen disagreement over the context for how the relationship should go.

Most couples I have met share a fundamental (but unacknowledged) belief that marriage is the opposite of freedom. Popular media reinforces this stereotype in nearly every sitcom on television.

Men are characterized as indentured servants to their biological drives—the stereotype of married men is that when they see a young, attractive female, they check their brains at the door and become bumbling, drooling hormone-slaves with little self-control. They pine over scantily-dressed bimbos and undress with their eyes any pretty woman that passes by. Women share this stereotype—“girls’ night out”, or the gaggle of prototypical housewives visiting a male strip club and becoming bumbling, drooling hormone-slaves with little self-control.

These stereotypes create or reinforce other stereotypes, and many couples do become stereotypical, but that is not because the social conventions are true. To the contrary, couples become stereotypes because they have not created freedom in their relationship (no context for ownership and control of their lives), therefore they fill the empty mold that has been surreptitiously cast and presented to them.

Some married men, I think, find solace in strip clubs because these men believe strip clubs allow them to be free of the constraints imposed by their (probably unhealthy) relationship. Surrounded by topless dancers and alcohol, men are “free” to be “men”. It is interesting to note men never want to be seen in a strip club alone. They must go to strip clubs with other men; arriving with an entourage somehow sanctions their behavior through collective bargaining (a man frequenting a strip club alone is usually considered creepy or pathetic—another stereotype). These same conventions again hold true of women, though clearly male strip clubs are not as numerous as female strip clubs—in this case, simply replace the words “strip club” with “dance club” to witness the equivalent paradigm and socially aberrant behavior.

(Note: Upon reading this, my wife astutely pointed out women at dance clubs often behave worse than men at strip clubs. At strip clubs, rules are clearly defined: you do not touch the dancer. Dance clubs encourage increasingly erotic touching, rubbing, bumping, and caressing under the premise that as long as some clothes stay on, it is okay…)

The irony is that to avoid the stereotype of marriage, both single and married people decrease their freedom, to spite it. Marriage (or a committed relationship) naturally increases freedom. Marriage itself is based on an agreed framework (a context) for managing the relationship. Consider how much more freedom healthily married couples have to trust each other, for example:

• In terms of secrets shared— Would a typical single woman tell the casual lover she picked up at a club about her having been molested as a child?

• In terms of romantic behavior— Is a single man likely to ask someone at a bar if she will play dress-up with him and exchange spankings? (Note: I suppose it depends on the bar but I think you get the inferred meaning.)

• In terms of financial information— Would a single man or woman confess salary, credit score, and savings account balance information on a first date?

In long-term committed relationships, trust increases over time and so does freedom. Marriage in the proper context is a gateway to freedom, not a sentence to life with “the old ball and chain”.

Freedom applies to almost any principle involved with how you and I live our lives.

I receive regular mailings from credit card providers informing me of changes to my account or privacy agreements. Letters like these are never presented as requests for permission to make such changes, even though they affect (more often than not, negatively affect) my control and ownership over my money and alter the terms agreed to when I accepted their credit card offer. In essence, I am duped into giving up, inch by inch, the context for freedom that I originally agreed to. It is worse than creeping infringement on my freedom, though, because it is part of an insidious (and insidiously normal) way of doing business, promulgated by nearly all corporations.

There are many other casual ways which I give up my freedom. For example, I can not remember the last time I read every word of an End User License Agreement (“EULA”) when I have downloaded a piece of software, subscribed to an on-line service or ordered a product from the web. EULA’s are designed to discourage people from reading them. Buried in lengthy jargon inside the EULA is the explanation of freedom you are giving up. The truth is as simple as it seems—if they explained what I am agreeing to in straightforward regular language, I would likely not agree and not accept the purchase or the “free” product. Instead, like most people, I scroll to the bottom, click the “Agree” button and move on.

I have been trained nearly all my life to relinquish my freedom without much pause.

My parents train me to believe the best way to succeed is to find a steady job and do whatever the boss demands. Not acquiescing to the whims or wishes of so-called superiors is tantamount to choosing a life of homeless streetwalking.

The government trains me to believe government has absolute control over the accumulation, value, and distribution of any money or asset I have earned. Returning to a Gold standard, creating an alternate system of trade, or refusing to acknowledge a false standard is tantamount to revolution and will likely result in imprisonment (or worse).

My friends and family train me to believe I must submit to their social norms. Choosing not to celebrate Christmas, deciding to elope, or putting my happiness before others is tantamount to being a social enigma, or worse, a social pariah. Attaining freedom goes against nearly all of my social training.

Freedom is one’s context for ownership and control over one’s life.

The wording of my definition is important. The only acceptable alteration to this definition is the replacement of “one” with “my”:

Freedom is my context for ownership and control over my life.

Freedom is not my friends and family’s context for ownership and control over my life. It is not everyone else’s context for ownership and control over my life. It is certainly not the government’s context for ownership and control over everyone’s lives. Indeed, that is unconstitutional.

The Constitution itself is the greatest context for Freedom created for any society. The value of the republic of the United States of America lies within the framework and boundaries set for every man’s freedom, including those set for every man that works for the government.

Therefore, the significance and strength of an effective Libertarian message is in its power to motivate, inspire, and engage people to understand and vigilantly protect the context of our Constitution.

The Republican/Democrat duopoly has done a remarkable job of alienating alternative solutions to the problems they create. To find success, third parties like Libertarians must overcome the context in which they have been framed by the duopoly (Libertarians, the Green Party, and others are seen obscure, fundamentalist sub-cultures holding onto archaic ideals). The surest path to a Libertarian White House victory is to create a new context that aligns would-be supporters and provides a commonly understood mission and compelling story.

Americans want to be Americans; they just do not know what it means to actually be American—to stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way (to coin the phrase from the old Superman comic books). The “American Way” has become the “Socialist Revolution” in every sense but name. “Justice” has become a twisted mockery of individual and constitutional rights. “Truth” has been buried under revisionist history lessons and media play for generations—most Americans do not even know the Pledge of Allegiance and the President’s Oath of Office were never to include any reference to “God”. Worse, most Americans do not understand the significance of such a seemingly benign corruption of American political language. They do not understand the implications of losing Freedom because, in their lifetimes, they never had it.

Without a Libertarian Party to protect legitimate values and freedoms created by the Founding Fathers and preserved in the Constitution, there will be no individual rights left to defend…because Americans will no longer be individuals. In a Socialist nation, no man has an inherent right to the pursuit of his happiness. We all become our brothers’ keepers and the only freedom left is the freedom to be a slave.

Libertarians may be the last, best hope for America—the “Land of the Free.”

—Michael James Salamey

[Michael (L-MI)]

Great work, I mean that, I cannot wait to distribute this to people and see what their reaction is. I have to admit that the way you brought all of this together was done really well and you have done a great job in getting the point accross.

Kudos to you my friend