Technology Made The Whole World A Prison

Listen to this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Today, people are less free than ever before. All people, everywhere in the world, are now bound to the control of a government. No one is free from the say of another person; not even the remote vagabond or the hermit.

It is only with the advancing of technology that the fascists are able to monitor and control everyone, so tightly. While we enjoy improved communications, entertainment, and automation, our slavers can tighten their leashes and enforce their will, in its entirety.

In the past, different forms of slavery and rule existed, but there was always space to keep away from such things, and keep to your own small & remote community. Today, even empty deserts and remote forests are under the "rule of law."

Click here for Youtube video.

We now have a culture of laboring for others, most of our waking hours, and being inside small rooms during. In opposition to it, there is the Rewild movement.

Ecovillages. Permaculture. Organic Agriculture. No movement is attending the issue of freedom. They all try to improve on our current life style, without addressing the source of the problem. That no one can live as they wish, without answering to another - the government.

Only Rewilders intuit the need to be free of these coerced bonds between people. That being born does not mean giving consent to what those before you have decided.

Reviewing Murray Rothbard's FOR A NEW LIBERTY

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

The book was a disappointing read. He devalued the argument from morality, calling the NAP "recognized rights", which literally means nothing.

Click above to read more about Frederic Bastiat.

He also used an array of, "Look at how well they are doing," examples. Meaningless finger-pointing, without an actual argument, and sometimes even at horrid cultures - such as the Mormons. ><

And hours of talk about the failures of the State isn't an argument, either!

It is useful to understand the evils of the State, in order to fend it off. Yes. But an entire book entailing each horror and act of ignorance, does not disqualify Statism; there is no measurement of a system being insufficient. We can only measure whether a system is logically consistent, and whether it actually represents its users - the people.

Sadly, seeing the ignorance & violence in society today, I am hard pressed to claim that contemporary Statist society does not, in actuality, represent the people. A victim is only a victim, until they start willingly cooperate with & support their violator. Then, they the victims become violators, too.

Freedomain Radio by Stefan Molyneux

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Stefan is the only person I know that is laying down, for all of us, a modern-day philosophical foundation, derived from the best works of thought of previous generations. And he also practices what he preaches!

The core of his ideology takes from Anarchism, and the practical value of Capitalism. On the one hand, no person must ever be forced against their will - other than in self-defense, and on the other hand, the best approach to financial success is through free & voluntary trade.

The 47 year-old Canadian host of Freedomain Radio.

Surprisingly, even now, almost ten years into the existence of the podcast, Stefan only has three team members: Mike, James, and Stoyan. This leads me to think that the endeavor, while beneficial to millions of viewers, and true in its' ideology, is an impossible mission.

There is much evidence to say that almost the entirety of his audience treat the show solely as entertainment. The show is run by donations, at an estimated request of $0.5 a podcast, and even BitCoin is accepted.

However, it appears that less than one-percent of the audience actually donate anything. At all. Even much less than one-percent, if I have the right impression.

Ironically, Stefan, similarly to Dr. Phil, also puts emphasis on achievement through work; something he had experienced extensively in his own life. This goes in stark contrast to the likelihood that most of his audience are either living on welfare, or like many young adults in dysfunctional economies, living through their parents' funding.

Why is the Freedomain Radio so important?

Stefan is a radio-show host, author, and public-media spokesperson. He addresses & practices topics such as BitCoin, Relationships, Morality, and Liberty.

Renowned for talk shows and call-in shows.

I have personally enjoyed a better understanding of these topics, by being a listener and participating community member. The amount of positive feedback from listeners is vast, so there is no doubt that this is a good endeavor.

So, how come Stefan does not grow his business?

The show is not a charity! However, its' current business-model is a sort of honesty box. Sadly, most people are not honest, even if they want to be, and so this strategy is too futuristic - if we assume future people to be more honest.

I look at history, contemporary societies, and modern advancement, and intuit that only successful business-models actually make a positive long lasting impact. Charismatic and socially-adored people, who have not managed to also go beyond normal finances, usually impact a generation, and then lose relevance; because people aren't satisfied with ideologies, only.

People want success. Moral success is part of it, but morality is meaningless without sustenance & prosperity. A true leader leads on all accounts; moral and economic.

I would guess that Stefan will eventually expand his business model to include the [paid] training of more philosophers, who can mimic his success, and continue the cycle of benefit to themselves, and to their audiences.

I hope he does that earlier, rather than later.

On Moral Agnosticism

Click here to download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Ayn Rand, the 20th century philosopher and novelist, who coined the term Objectivism, spoke of the avoidance of moral judgement by one person on others:

Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 82–83.

We lose our personal integrity, when we deny the existence of morality. This is our own belief in ourselves: opinions and emotions. Our ultimate natural intuition. This denial is equal to naming ourselves liars. It is often correlated with dismissing our own opinion in favor of someone else.

Self-trust is not about being right or correct. It is about having a clear set of priorities in mind. All decision come from and rely on the self. If the self is dismissed, then no critical thought is allowed. Without the benefit of critical thought, we cannot come to conclusions. We then must either wager or rely on others.

It is the responsibility of each person to choose. Without choice there is no free will. Without choice there is no learning and correction. Choices are always based on our inner morality; what we decide is good or bad.

Would you care for an uneducated life?

Freedom Versus Liberty

Am I free to do as I wish?

No. The answer is always no. There are degrees of freedom to every person, and these are defined by natural and social pressures. A person cannot be completely free, and just the same a person cannot be completely without freedom. We always have a choice, even if that choice is not to our liking.

What is liberty, then?

Both words mean freedom, but liberty is used in connotation with persecution and defense. To have liberty is to be without persecution. To have no unfriendly forces putting pressure on your choices. We can either be with liberty or without it. Unlike freedom, liberty has no degrees. A liberated people have no enemies forcing their choices.

Can I be both free and liberated?

Yes. While we cannot force our enemies into surrender, and thus changing their opinions of us, we can find ways to make their efforts not worthwhile. Being liberated from external social forces, by design, now we maximize our freedoms. Being free means to feel that your most important choices are your own; including daily actions, social interactions, professional work and self-care. A liberated people can continue to design their environment, so that not only liberty is kept, but also that individual freedoms are enhanced.

How can a people enhance their freedom, then?

Just as we would put a fence (a physical negative incentive) to keep aggressors at bay, we would also put social rewards (a social positive incentive) to encourage non-aggressive behavior within our friendly circles. The former, making unwelcome outsiders feel that handling the fence is not worthwhile the catch beyond that fence. The latter, making valuable friends and family encouraged to behave positively by rewarding them constantly - not by agreement, but by emotional reward.

A romantic fantasy...

Free to live as you wish with all that you need,
while kept Liberated from aggressors in a remote and inaccessible place.

Why I Have Never Chosen To Become Politically Active

There is no person out there, who is completely satisfied, with how others live their lives. I am sorry, if this sounds a bit confusing. Let me rephrase...

While, all people have many things in common; eating, drinking and the sort included, no person ever lives exactly like another person does. Never the less, we all share the private task of self care, and sometimes, we even help each other with that. It is a simple trade, in which one person helps another, so that they could fairly ask the same treatment, in the future.

Our tools of the trade, in a manner of speech, are sympathy & empathy. If I have suffered or enjoyed the same thing another person is going through, then I can empathize with them. Likewise, if I can relate, in my mind and imagination, to the suffering or joy another person is experiencing, then I am able to sympathize with them.

When a group of people, even an entire nation, stand behind a representative, they are collectively sympathizing. They are generalizing their views of wrong and right, suffering and joy, in order to turn their ideas and emotions into actions and reality. That is to say, that they are enforcing their own opinions on others.

Whoa, now! What did I just say? That they are "enforcing their own opinions on others," is it? Yes. You heard me right. They are not "collaborating, in order to help others and/or themselves." Neither are they "joining forces in order to achieve a task that cannot be achieved by the small and few."

The first scenario, of collaboration, demands that they are all actively involved. The second, of managing a greater task, demands that the task at hand can only be achieved by grouping. Neither of these represents politics.

In politics, a person gives up their own choice of action, so that another person can act on their behalf. Also, most tasks are those that the person does not wish to get involved with, not because of its' dimensions, but rather, because of its' nature. Not every person feels comfortable being a judge or lawyer, for example.

 

So, why have I never chosen to become politically active?

If I were to join politics, I would, in both principle and action, be asking people (see, "strangers") to either grant me my wishes - if they supposedly match their own - or, to make others stop from denying me my wishes - again, if it matches their own wishes.

In other words, I would be asking the masses to support the enforcement of my own personal wishes, over those of others. Sadly, that will never match into how I view things. I am not proud enough to insist that I am on the right, more so than another person, in general; nor am I righteous enough to lower another person, simply because they make different mistakes than I do.

While, I may choose otherwise in the future, I am not able to do so, until I find justification that stands under my personal judgement. Naturally, this article does not answer the "How do I...?" part of getting my own wishes to come true; but, at the very least, it does clarify my moral grounds. Without those, I may be powerful and almighty, but I would never be able to look myself in the eye again.

This article has been influenced by debates between different philosophies, including the recently enthusiastic Libertarian political movement.