Source Documents/The Freedom Complex

The Freedom Complex Volume I

Original language: English
Original publication: 4 January 2024
Written by: Christian David Schumacher
Translated by: N/A
License of this version: CC0
Other language versions: Spanish
Link to PDF: PDF
Other links: N/A

CONTENTS

• Preface
• Why Do You Need Freedom?
• Capitalism
• Why Oligarchy
• Progressivism
• Darwinism And Economy
• State Necessity
• A Rural Future
• The Land Problem
• The Logical Fallacy of Libertarian Conservatism
• Buddhism and Religion
• Reverse Utilitarian Theory
• Children and Autonomy
• What Counts As Aggression
• Land Modification and When is it Considered Pollution
• What is Entrapment

PREFACE

Suppose you have a slave-owner who takes the capital made by his slaves and in-turn invests that capital into things that increases his slaves’ productivity, such as better healthcare for his slaves, better tools for his slaves, more homes for his slaves to stay in, more paths for his slaves to transport themselves, etc.

This is the exact goal of the current international governments, however. The government does not do any work, nor do they attempt to earn their capital via profit. They instead make their earnings from robbing the citizens. What makes a government official have the right to not have to pick up a tool, to instead take away from those that do, and selfishly spend it on whatever they please?

The definition of slavery is: “...the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor. Slavery typically involves compulsory work with the slave’s location of work and residence dictated by the party that holds them in bondage.” Now, how does the current government not fall into the category of slave-holders, when they have the ability to draft us and make us fight in wars we have no part in, all for their selfish acts?

Welfarism is a Marxist ideology in which the government takes from the workers and gives to those considered "in need". And those in need can take from the welfare pool for as long as they are of need. And you will always be taken from to put into the welfare pool for as long as you are self-reliant.

The government abhors self-reliance. It needs people to rely on it to gain power. Imagine if you were reliant on something. You need this thing to exist so you would do everything in your power to keep it running. The proletariat is stuck in a dilemma: they have no other means of pulling themselves by the bootstraps because there is no bootstraps to pull. The government is keeping the proletariat down with rules and regulations (like licensing). They are too poor to afford an education, so they can't get a specific license, making them stuck working for employers, and while they work with employers their income is getting taxed, which means that the hard-working proletariat still has to rely on welfare, because if they try to work out of the welfare spot, they get brought down with taxation, keeping them in the welfare spot. It is the fault of the government and crony capitalism; not the proletariat, but the system in which the proletariat tries to get out of the welfare spot, but cannot because of the aforementioned.

WHY DO YOU NEED FREEDOM

You do not have authority over another person's body, and to say that you should is hypocritical. If you were in an authoritarian state that you didn't like, to say that a different authoritarian state should control these people instead is hypocritical because you lived in one not by your standards, but by another, and to say your standards are better is an issue of superiority of morality. What is moral or not does not matter, what only matters is that you do not agress unto another human being.

To say that democracy is not inherently authoritarian is delusional, because democracy holds the collective to have more power than the select individual.

CAPITALISM

Capitalism is the economic system most conducive of freedom. Contrarily, the economic system of socialism states that the fruits of an individual’s labor does not directly belong to that individual, but to society as a whole. That includes arguments such as food, housing, and medicinal care to be considered rights of all people. The problem with this argument, however, stems from the fact that these individuals are considered to be entitled to the fruits of another person’s labor, without that other person’s consent, and that this person is not being compensated for the labor that they produce.

Compensation, in this case, can be defined as the consensual trade between two individuals, sometimes but not always including a third party. What this means is that a medical worker, for example, wants their labor to be compensated with a direct amount of something of that worker’s choosing. If that worker does not get what he wanted for his labor, he has not been compensated, and the person who has benefited from his labor does not deserve the fruits of such labor.

WHY OLIGARCHY

When political power is held in the hands of the few, there exists much more of a free state than when power is held by the populous (populism/democracy). When political power is held by the populous, there tends to be laws contracted based upon the majority opinion. What the problem here is, the populous tends to make bad decisions, commonly favoring security/order over freedom and civil liberties. A concentrated oligarchic rule, however, will be more inclined to choose freedom over security, because the ruling class is too small to occupy itself with the welfare and actions of the individuals.

Imagine an authoritarian populist state. It is far easier for common family and community members to occupy themselves with the actions of each other, since there exists an equal ratio of governors and governed.

Another factor to take in however, is also the common man's ideal rule of law. Since there exists so many ideas of right and wrong, a democratic state would delve more and more into authoritarianism as the populous would find more things to be scared of and vote more laws into place that control more aspects of an individual’s life.

PROGRESSIVISM

Progressivism can be more acutely defined as the decentralization of tradition. Tradition in the past has been largely centralized, that is, families have been central points of growing traditions, and the way tradition grows is usually being passed onto children from generations. Most traditions would be forgotten in the past had it not been for its spread through vulnerable children. Familial and societal values should be abolished in favor of a more individualistic value system in which such individuals form and comply to their own values as they grow and develop.

The modern progressive movement of the 2000's have been largely antithetical to what it truly believes. The belief of upholding individual consent is contradictory to their belief in collectivism, because as i said previously, collectivism is authoritarian because it upholds the collective to make decisions that directly affect the individual, without the individual's consent, and is not something that the individual can just "opt out" of.

That said, the current ideologues of wokeism truly cannot be progressivist, as they themselves practice not challenging multiple status quos the movement is adherent to. Because it is important to challenge a belief if it is truly dangerous to society.

Progressivism is, in the best sense, the challengement of the status quo in favor of more individualistic qualities of a society. Denying such collectivist things such as nationalism and conservatism, in favor of primarily individualist ideas like cosmopolitanism and the progression from such reactionary views that are pushed from generation to generation.

If the goal of progressivism is to get rid of social stigmas, why do its proponents call for social stigmas to be put into place?

DARWINISM AND ECONOMY

Darwinism can be defined as "the survival of the fittest", not as a rule of the strong but rather, in the extreme individualization of the economy in a capitalist framework.

In a socialist society, the economy is ran behind human control. In the free market, however, the economy and the distribution of resources are not ran behind the feelings of a human, but rather by the necessity of which an individual does to better themselves and their livelihood.

This is why most socialist states have failed in the past. The economy is ran in humanitarian terms rather than natural terms. That means that rather weaker individuals are given the resources necessary to survive, when they naturally shouldn’t, and paves way for a relatively weaker society to grow over generations. This is not good for many reasons, one of the most prominent being the unnatural change in evolution: While in a free market survival, individuals would have to adapt to whatever changes that may come to them (in Darwin’s terms, the species most likely to survive are the ones most adaptable to change).

In a socialist society, the individuals least fit for survival are guaranteed to live in an unnatural state of which their needs are met whilst not contributing to the means as to how their needs are met.

STATE NECESSITY

Anarchists see the state as a monopoly on protection and law enforcement over a given territory. This definition holds quite true to the state, but it is important to see the necessity of that statement.

In an anarchist society, the rule of law is not under controlled by one party, but by a set of individual 3rd party law firms, that instead create and enforce arbitrary laws based on each competing firm and their ideal rule of law. And while this may sound ideal since firms would want to create the most lax laws than the rest to out compete each other, This society would still eventually create unjust laws that prevent other people's freedom which will become the norm all around society. That is why a constitution based around a centralized authority would better contribute to a free state.

A RURAL FUTURE

Most of the land on earth has been slowly turned into large urban cities, growing to meet the demand based on the human population. The reason why this is so problematic is that the functions of the organs of the urban state (that being roads, sidewalks, etc.) are centered around one function, and are not flexible. Car-centric cities are car-centric for a reason, that being the wider growth between living place and resource-central areas (that being external entities that house a resource humans need to survive).

A man in an urban dwelling has to go miles to get what he needs to survive, that being his occupation and various shopping centers; while the rural man can step outside and be greeted instantly by his food, and depending on his status, even his occupational services.

It is important to note that the urban cities are also very unstable; they are commonly very densely populated, creating psychological problems in the population due to crowding, as well as being prone to starvation: When natural area is destroyed, it is getting rid of critical conditions needed for life to flourish. Instead, there is existential reliance in the form of government- subsidized agriculture, highlighting the importance that large farms have on the urban population, and the impact it would have if subsidies were to be discontinued.

But subsidies should NOT be continued, as the continuation of them result in more natural land being replaced. instead, it should be taken away with the result being that densely populated areas are starved out, creating push-and- pull factors that result in urban areas becoming less dense, and slowly destroyed over time and brought back to nature.

Food growth is based on a linear scale, whereas population growth is based on a parabolic scale. That means that even if the urban setting is continued, it will eventually reach a point to where the maximum possible food growth is inadequate for the population, thus population growth will have to be curved through authoritarian means.

THE LAND PROBLEM

The coordinated economic model of land is superior to both that of Propertarianism and Georgism. Unlike food, land is not made from human labor. If an individual relies on public property, or private property that they do not own, that individual theoretically has less freedom to be able to try to survive. It is less of a matter of economic communitarianism, since land itself will not let the individual survive, it makes it near-impossible for the individual to have the means to attempt at survival. Since that individual has no land, they cannot make any permanent man-made changes to that land to better aid at their survival.

THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF LIBERTARIAN CONSERVATISM

There are two types of libertarians: those of which believe that the logical conclusion to progressivism is libertarianism, and those of which believe that the logical conclusion to conservatism is libertarianism. I am on the side of progressivism, and will explain my argument as I go on.

The logic of progressivism is to break the status quo – to give people the necessary liberties to do what they wish, as long as it does not hurt another person. The conservative logic is the opposite however: it is to instill a status quo and to not let it be broken, i.e. being made to follow something like this is the direct opposite of individual liberty. Furthermore, conservatism is anti- individualistic, pro-collectivist. It values the familial structure above all else, and believes that the family is more important than the individual, resulting in a dichotomy between collectivistic measures and individual liberty.

Anti-abortionism is a deeply fallacious ideology. Abortion is equatable to not being pregnant at all, and by this logic, anti-abortionists are pushing for the idea that women must carry the burden of childbirth, whether they like it or not. Furthermore, the idea that a woman should be forced to keep the fetus alive until birth is absurd. As long as it (the fetus, in this topic, but can be expanded to include ANY organism) lives in a parasitical state (i.e. relying on existential sustenance, not acquired by them specifically but by another entity, to stay alive) then the mother absolutely has a right to expel the organism from their personal property.

Thus, the very idea of libertarian conservatism is fallacious in the fact that it: 1. Sees the state as opposition to it’s esoteric means, and 2. It itself is a conglomerate of which is antithetical towards its libertarian nature.

BUDDHISM AND RELIGION

We must teach the next generation ascsetic Buddhist values if we are to progress humanity into the future. Obviously, the current brands of Buddhism don't meet the criteria needed to run in this society, an example being that in Buddhism, a common precept is that you cannot harm an animal or person, but this precept would need to be reformed to exclude some forms of hunting and defending yourself. Although it is understandable that this was included as a precept because Siddhartha most likely saw that harming others had bad effects on one's morale and mind, and thought it would get in the way of one's happiness.

Reactionaryism is mostly defined as a way of thinking that considers tradition and feeling before pragmatism and logical thinking.

Religion, most prominently Abrahamic branches like those of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, have had an overall net negative on society and the reactionary way of thinking brought about from generation to generation.

For example, in Islam, disobeying parents is a very big sin. This can be considered reactionary because it puts the parents as the sole arbiter of truth, and that simply denying that case should be heavily punished.

In Christianity, the 7 deadly sins could genuinely be considered good advice for living a good life. The problem with this is that these are categorized as 'sins', which, in the Christian religion, is a path of death and destruction which ultimately leads to eternal torment. Another prime example in the Christian religion is that of rejecting the holy spirit, which concludes unforgivable sin by god.

This is the problem of the Abrahamic religions, where they indoctrinate children into a certain rule-set, and is threatened with internal fear.

These types of esoteric beliefs largely caused a majority of the problems in the past, as well as modernly in generally technologically-primitive places on earth. Because as society progresses, humans start to realize that religion is close-minded reaction that blocked the path for individuality. For there is no god but yourself.

REVERSE UTILITARIANISM PHILOSOPHY

In this argumentation for the reverse utilitarian philosophy, I want to use the argument of “rape is worse than murder”. In this scenario, a utilitarian would consider that the murder of such an individual would be worse than rape, whereas the majority (this being the family and friends close to this individual) feel more detriment than if this individual was raped, as this would, to an extent, only affect the individual in this case. As the utilitarian (better known as consequentialist) argument believes that the effect of the majority outcome is of more importance than the effect on the individual.

I argue for a different philosophy of measuring what is worse, however, by not measuring the outcome of majority. It is rather more important to focus on the individual, in this case, who would actually be receiving the consequences of such acts unto them. Theoretically, rape is worse than murder, because the individual would be suffering more if they were raped rather than if they were murdered.

With this more individualistic measuremental argumentation in mind, we can consider acts around the world that the global states suppress to be morally reprehensible, not against the individuals doing such acts but rather the acts that the state does to suppress acts they do not want.

Consider suicide, for example, which the state considers attempts of such acts to be of mental illness, and enslaves such people into mental institutions when such individual does not consent to do so. Theoretically with this argument in mind, we can see that suicide would be beneficial to this individual, because such an act is something this individual has consented to, and forcefully continuing the life of this individual artificially with the state means that this individual suffers more for the expense of others, whether that be close friends and family or the state.

CHILDREN AND AUTONOMY

The general notion is that children are not old enough to make their own informed decisions, rather the argument being solely of their age or of their ability to comprehend their decisions, therefore the guardian of the child must make most decisions for them.

I believe in the notion that a young child cannot consent to something that requires another individual to make happen. A child cannot consent to, say, being poisoned, by an adult, because the adult is taking advantage of the child’s natural will to follow what an older individual asks of the child.

WHAT COUNTS AS AGGRESSION

The Non-Aggression Principal, created by Murray Rothbard, is the idea of aggression in which no one may agress unto you or your personal property except to response towards initiation of interference from another individual. This aggression comes in two main forms, that is physical harm to you and your body, or that of interference with private property of which you do not own.

We now understand that bringing physical harm to someone else, unprovoked, is breaking of the NAP. But what about something that a person does that is not directly targeting you in the first place, but still indirectly harms you? There are two distinct variations of indirect harm, one that I believe does violate the principal, and one that does not, and that concludes the separation of resource scarcity (of which the byproduct of taking such scarce resources is not inherently in violation of our principal, but still is harmful towards other actors in need of this resource) versus the initiation of environmental and spacial action (of which the byproduct IS in violation of our principal, and harms others in the process, and includes something of which is not made from human labor).

Let me go into further depth about our second variation of indirect harm. Suppose if someone has a machine that is located on their own property, and their property is neighboring another property. And suppose that this person’s machine is loud enough that it causes physical bodily harm towards it’s neighbor. This person would be in direct violation of our principal, because it is not the lack of a scarce resource that the neighbor is being damaged from, but rather that of loud sound, one that the person who owns the machine does not necessarily need to survive, nor need to produce in order to survive.

Another example, which pertains to the notion of it being from human labor, would be a well being poisoned. if the builder and supplier of the well poisons the well, and people get sick from the well (as long as it is not entrapment), then the builder is not in the wrong, as he used his labor to both build and supply that well, of which nobody else owns said labor.

Let me explain the first variation of indirect harm. Suppose someone lives in an area that is sparsely populated with animals, of which upon hunting, creates food in order for this person to survive. Naturally, other people start to homestead in that area, and now this person needs to compete with the others in order to get food he needs to survive. The problem with this however, is that even if the others do eventually kill off all the animals, they are not in violation of our principal, because they have naturally

Large-scale, heavy pollution of the light, sound, and environment would be considered an initiation of environmental and spacial action, of which violating our principal, because it is not a physiological need used for survival, and it indirectly harms the process of the human body, concluding indirect aggression unto a populous. Environmental pollution is inclusive of this, too, which I will go into now.

LAND MODIFICATION AND WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED POLLUTION

Pollution can be defined as the presence or introduction of a thing into an environment that concludes harmful or poisonous effects unto organisms that live in such environment. But first we must create a definition as to what harmful or poisonous effects conclude unto such environment.

Of course just a change in how the environment operates cannot conclude a polluted environment, as saying that a built cabin in the middle of the woods concludes to a polluted environment would be absurd, so we must also create a distinction between natural change in environment versus harmful change to an environment.

A polluted environment usually incorporates man-made waste into such equation (hence why it is considered violation of our previously-mentioned principal of non-aggression), but the extent of which it changes the environment must be given an approximated method of determining whether it is considered pollution or not, because the building of a house and the presence of toxins in the air both present a change in the environment, and both do include the probability of indirect harm (such as in our house example, in which the house covers up a number of grazing opportunities for primary consumers, thus lowering the overall population of animals in the area), and we can see that one does conclude direct physical harm towards other people and animals living in the region, but the problem lies into where to draw the line.

WHAT IS ENTRAPMENT

Going back to the well example in a previous paragraph, if a builder builds a well in his own private property, and gives no information as to whether or not the well is poisoned, then the builder cannot be in the wrong, because other people have drank his water without his permission, and thus they have aggressed unto him and therefore violate his rights.

However, if, say, the builder builds this poisoned well on public property, or markets this poisoned water as safe to drink, then this falls under the case of entrapment because he is purposefully trapping people into a legal means of using his labor, and he is in the wrong.