Fighting for Freedom

How many today would fight for ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’. The question certainly is appropriate as many constantly claim we have less freedom than ever before (we will leave for further investigation and thought that opinion). It certainly is hard to argue that the burden of government was greater under King George than under our current system. While there is perhaps anger taking people to the polls, there is not a widespread social disruption or anything resembling an active revolutionary movement. Is that an indictment of today’s citizen? Shouldn’t they be risking it all for ‘liberty’?

If we look back to the inhabitants of the colonies in 1775-1776, most did not in that time either. The big losers were the big names. Though some of the big names became the big winners. Supporting independence and liberty was one thing. Fighting for it another.

The population in 1775 was ~2.5M (have seen higher figures). Probably safe to assume 1.25M of that was male and probably 60% of fighting age. Yet, this domestic population rarely stood and fought in any significant fashion against the 50K British troops and their 30K Hessian mercenaries. This foreign population was forced to fight over the entire east coast. Still we struggled.

Washington was not kind to deserters. He was not in general having to turn away recruits. America had difficulties fielding armies. We needed, or at least greatly benefited, from the involvement of France and Spain on our side.

People like to be on the side of winners, but few will fight... for independence... freedom... anything.

All of this was in the time of the enlightenment and revolutions were beginning to spread. Did the cause of ‘liberty’ and freedom not resonate?

Yes... at least at the intellectual level of society. While I believe that plenty of people did read or were capable of reading more complex material than now, I am not terribly certain that the average joe has ever had much consideration for the thoughts of the esoteric. People had to work pretty hard across the board just to eat. Freedom is a word that means different things to different people. Being able to demagogue a crowd is far different than that crowd taking up arms and slogging through the mud for years in a war.

Freedom for some probably meant no king... to others it simply meant freedom to have the British pay for our Indian issues as opposed to us. Freedom for others is more along the lines of FDR's list of freedoms than the Founders.

My bottom line is that I do not think the fact that 95% of people now would not have fought then is any great indictment. Most people rarely fight willingly for any cause. Most people care about food, women, entertainment and beer. As long as you don't interfere too much with those they will tolerate a great deal.

Whatif Makes a Query about Freedom

Another member was questioning the "land of the free" quip used so often in our country. I gather he seems to believe we are not so free. It made me wonder what "free" looks like to others. I imagine there is the usual private ownership of property where the property owner should be free to do with his property as he sees fit. Translated that means no zoning laws ever. Why shouldn't a landowner be able to build an "adult movie store" next to a church? Or a school. Or in your neighborhood. That would be free. Or, why should a property owner not be able to use his property for a landfill regardless of where it is located. That would be free.

So what is free? What would satisfy people? What would it take? No taxes? Never gonna happen. Total property rights? Nada.

But, we do happen to live in a "free" country relative to many other countries albeit our freedom does seem to diminish a bit more by the year. Personally, I feel free enough to suit my lifestyle. I can pretty much do whatever I can afford to do. I can paint my house a shocking pink if I wanted to. I can drive a clunker car around town (not in Singapore--that bastion of capitalism). I can carry a gun most everywhere except to church and the courthouse.

How free is free?

'Free' will often come down to anecdotal exchanges. Between various countries there are certainly variations on what makes for 'freedom'.

I think that the issue with freedom here in this country is that there is no philisophical point where the state does not view itself as having an interest in your choice and an enforceable interest at that. Who you hire (freedom of association); who you fire (the same); how much energy you can use in your TV (California); how you wire your house; what shots your dogs have to get; any and all considerations with your children... really the list is endless because the perogatives of the state are endless.

No doubt that either by culture or statute many things were not as free (and certainly not for all segments of our society) in past times as people might think. However, the state has grown increasingly capable of getting you. We now have database upon database, list upon list, agency upon agency, rule upon rule, law upon law. We are all criminals now. Further the visciousness of law enforcement seems to be on the rise. I have no doubt law enforcement has always had a bully mentality. But it seems now that its most ferocious outlets once reserved for the black population have now spread into the rest of the country and into the schools.

I think Fred Reed points out some of the freedoms of Mexico that come about simply because people either don't care what you do or that the state is too inept to enforce its rules. I have heard the same from a commentator who resides in Italy. The Italians have plenty of laws, but having been blessed for ages by inept govt the people choose to ignore items like taxes. American's only recently seem to be moving more to a total disrespect for the state. Our compliance is high and so our real freedoms less.

So, philosophy and anecdotes. However, if you like to live as a king while being poor... enjoy high definition TV, internet access and easy sex and pornography... has there ever been a better time to live?

How to think

I was asked by the patriarch of my clan 'how I learned to think'. This whole piece is directed at answering that question and is based on the assumption that I am a thinker. I imagine most people assume that they reach their conclusions rationally instead of rationalizing their emotional reactions or simply just having an emotional reaction which then becomes fact. In the event that I could be considered a philosopher after a sort then I would say it happened in the manner I will describe.

Genetic tendency

We are born into a temperament/IQ band. Actually I believe the band includes several traits, but for the purposes of this discussion temperament/IQ is the key criteria. I believe, with no real statistical research to back it up, that probably 70% of who we are is set by this genetic mold. Parenting and input can shift around in the other 30%. This in my view explains why someone who comes from trash parents can succeed and why someone who had the advantages can fail. Some people have the tools without being 'given' them and for others it is a struggle to even convince them to find a tool.

Certain temperament types are more reflective and reserved. Certain temperaments are easier to train and teach.

Early programming

Here is the biggest impact of the family unit. Much of your life philosophy comes out of what you were around during the most formative years. If you are programmed in the Bible, conservative culture etc then it becomes a big part of your own life philosophy. Children tend to stay fairly close to the philosophies of their parents. There is that verse in Proverbs about raising the child up correctly and they will not depart from it when they are old. So, within the core of their temperament/IQ you have now added an internal philosophy which shapes how future information will be processed.

Increasing knowledge and Advanced Programming

Knowledge is not wisdom. It is simply an encyclopedia of facts. It is critical to take in knowledge though. Initially you will take in knowledge that is in agreement with your world view. You likely are in environments that are agreeable to this world view. This could be considered advanced programming. You become a more proficient reader and a stronger writer. The written word is the key to thought. No other format can convey or record at the depth necessary for philosophy. Writing is an expression of the orderly mind. The general quality of your written work reflects the capacity and capabilities of your mind.


Discernment

This is probably the step where the big break happens between those who 'think' and those who 'rationalize' begins. At some point you move out of your shaped environment and butt up against the environments and philosophies of others who do not believe as you do. You take in less controlled information/knowledge. You can be a very articulate and knowledgeable 18 year old (which I was to an extent) but lack maturity and wisdom. The latter need time and experience to develop. Wisdom is the appropriate application of knowledge. You learn to judge the quality of your knowledge and to weigh in the balance between competing claims. You likely still have your own core philosophy, but you are more informed of the competing philosophies and can describe their strengths and weaknesses. You see how your philosophy truly works when taken out of your mental lab and subjected to a chaotic world. You probably experience some degree of disillusionment with yourself in the process. You see that you were never nearly as together as you thought.

Emotional divestment

For any type of inner peace one cannot spend your life emotionally reliant on others having or expressing the 'correct' beliefs. This is not to say that the stakes are not important in some debates and that outcomes do not matter. But society is shaped by aggregate moves in thought even if the catalyst is one man. To become emotionally distraught and involved in every demonstration of another's ignorance or emotionalism is to make yourself the slave to others. You learn to be ok with not agreeing. You have the wisdom to know what you can and cannot impact. You state your case and leave it to their rational mind and the movement of the Spirit to change them. You fully accept that most will not change because they never reached the discernment phase. You can read something of an opposing party and see the complete and utter crap of their thoughts but it is more in wry amusement than in ire. You yearn more for engaging discussion with an adversary than for the cacophony of shared beliefs in an echo chamber. You are less impressed with the fact that someone agrees with you than in how they support and articulate those beliefs. You realize how boring and empty most people are and you cry.

Reading is the key to it all. It feeds everything. It lengthens the attention span. It increases the power of the readers mind. It promotes your own writing skills. And as you age and your ability to readily recall specific facts, the books act as a repository for all your beliefs and thoughts so that when needed you can go and find them again.

On how to think on any given problem... take in relevant knowledge. Focus on the resources that will give you the most bang for your buck in time (experience helps identify these). Pareto does rule here. Read the 20% of the resources that give you 80% of the knowledge. Learn who the stakeholders in a decision/problem are. Take in knowledge of the positions of those who are likely to oppose you. Apply the knowledge to the situation. Wisdom helps guide balancing between 'solving' the problem and solving the stakeholders. When you present the 'right' solution and it is not accepted don't become emotionally invested. You may not have had knowledge of all the limiting factors or constraints. Rarely do you rise up to the level in someone's eyes where it is truly personal. If you are later proven right then accept that in good graces. The facts made the point better than you ever could. You are judged not only for what you know but who you project yourself as.