Libertarian freedom vs State permission

The ideal of Libertarian freedom has never been a reality. Even the Freedom so talked about is no longer a reality, if it ever was -- instead, we act by permission. The State allows a scope of actions which can expand or contract depending on the needs and desires of the State.

We are not free to control the fruits of our labor -- the State, through government, decides how much it takes from our income. We are not free to start any business we want to start -- the State decides, through government, which businesses are allowed and what types of licenses are required. If I own a thousand acres of land, I'm not free to do what I want to do with the land -- the State decides, through the government, what's allowed and what's not allowed. If the State, through government, does not allow certain actions, then I'm forcefully prohibited from taking those actions, even if the actions I take do not violate the rights of others. And, soon, I will not be able to not buy insurance without being punished by the State, through government.

If you stop to think about all the restrictions on what actions we can take, you'll get a good picture of how freedom is not a reality, and that we can only hope for more permission from the State, through government, to act in ways we believe are conducive to our interests.

It took our co-operation to get to this point. The American people have gradually allowed the State, through government, to eradicate freedom and establish which actions are allowed through permission from the government authorities. Since we did this to ourselves, we can undo it, if we want to undo it. Or can we? Is the State so powerful, with so much control over a government which has a monopoly on coercion, that it can squash any effort to establish libertarian freedom? This is an important question.

What if the present limited government movement grows to a large majority, and after we've elected new representatives who've been given the message that we expect them to limit government and establish libertarian freedom, they do not follow through? What if the majority protests and creates a third party, and this third party is blocked from gaining power, or gains power but sides with the statist system and does nothing meaningful to limit government power? And, then, what if we take the advice of the Declaration of Independence and demand that this government be abolished so that another can be established in it's place?

Would the State resist this popular movement and force itself on the majority of Amercans who no longer want the present system of government in power and want to dismantle the State? I don't know, do you? It's a rhetorical question.

Big Bang -- Absolutism vs Natural Rights

Absolutism has dogged freedom fighters at least since the Renaissance, in large part due to the unification of power into the hands of the State. Regardless of whether the form of power is monarchy, oligarchy or democracy, the State has become giver and protector of rights. The natural state of man as a free entity born with the right of self-determination is no longer applicable as individuals are born into servitude to the State. The State is now burdening unborn generations with debt and obligations which will be forced on these future generations with no need for their consent.

The State philosophy is that its institutions are what allow individuals to live and survive, therefore the State defines the rights of its subjects. No longer is government a limited service of the people, by the people and for the people, operating only as long as we consent to its legitimacy, limited to protecting our borders, policing and providing a means for dispute resolution in courts -- government now has absolute control, and it allows a measure of freedom as it chooses, with the understanding it can restrict this measure of freedom when necessary. This makes individual rights irrelevant.

If the challenges from the states regarding insurance mandates fail, it will be clear that government can exercise any degree of control and coercion it desires. The government has de facto control over us all. By circumventing Constitutional limitations through clauses related to the public good and interstate commerce, government has effectively bypassed the original limitations, just as government did in the 30s and other times of crises or urgent need for change. This sounds hyperbolic only because the government has yet to use its full power -- but the stage has been set by the precedents, and all it will take is a crisis deemed severe enough that it calls for drastic measures, measures which might not be repealed after the crisis. We're following the historical script when other movements of freedom stalled out and allowed the return of dominating forces. This is nothing new, but it's not inevitable. The Big Bang of liberty can spread, but it takes more than the laws of physics -- it takes diligent individuals unafraid to live free.