The Assault On Liberty | Libertarian Society Singapore


“I tell you what freedom is. Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one’s door open and not fear that one would be burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone; freedom is not having to avoid certain subway stations after night falls. Freedom is knowing our children can go to school without fear of drugs, or being mowed down by some insane person with a gun. Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, and we can excel for the individuals that we are – the freedom to accomplish. Freedom is living in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, knowing that our ability to get things done is not going to be limited by our ability to pay someone. Freedom is fresh air and clean streets, because nothing is more inimical to our liberty of movement than being trapped at home because of suffocating smog.” – Calvin Cheng"

There is a cancer in the body of human knowledge.
The notion that coercion creates “freedom”, a contradiction of our times, is spreading fast. Much like a tumor, it destroys by default, metasizing pre-existing knowledge and leaving nothing but remnants of destruction in its wake.
The concept of liberty is under assault from the irrational.
“Why do we need to be free?” seems to be the common question of our age. “Who gives a damn?” is another.
If there is one word in the world today that requires definition, it is the word “freedom”.
It is often claimed that liberty has failed; that man must be chained or he will destroy himself. On the other side of this anti-freedom stance, there are also some apologists who state outright that freedom is not desired, but that it is necessary. But all their theories and speculation reduce to one thing: what exactly is freedom and it’s relation to the human being?
If one would to take a moment to consider and to look inside one’s self, one would know that he is a sovereign being; that despite the claims of the eugenicists and the euthenicists, a person is fully in control of accepting and of deciding his own values. In that regard, a person’s mind is beyond the control of other men.
Since that is a metaphysical fact, an attribute of men that is present within all men, it is reality that men try to battle against in their claims of anti-freedom.
Such people choose to ignore cause and effect – They look at the gun assault cases in the States, and they instinctively think that it was freedom that caused it. Like the ancient primitives that thought that it was lightning that caused the thunder, such a notion is almost like a veil that they choose to cover their eyes with, a self-afflicted blindness of the mind. Does liberty automatically lead to violence and self-destruction?
An violent anarchist is someone who believes that mankind is a mere “brute” in nature, and that in order to survive, the rules that he has to follow is to eat or to be eaten. Such a person actively subscribes to the notion of altruism, that men have no choice but to destroy each other to achieve well-being. If that were the case, then the medieval world propagated with feudalism should have been a Golden Age.
But that was not the case.
If one chooses to support freedom and a person’s right to life, one chooses to endorse Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not the concept of “acting as you wish”. It is ruled by the fundamental notion that a person has the right to his life and the property that he earns. Libertarianism thus is ruled by one fundamental principle – the principle of justice. It declares that no man has the right to rule another, and that men are not divided into slaves and masters; that each person, is morally right to pursue the happiness that is essential to his life. Does that mean that the destruction of others fuels his goals? Could it be that a rich businessman gets rich from the destruction of his clientele? Politically, Libertarianism states that the government has no right to stake a claim on the produce of one man’s efforts; that a government is not to infringe a person’s rights, but to protect them.
Economically, Libertarianism manifests itself as laissez-faire Capitalism; directly translated into hands-off Capitalism. In such a system, each individual is respected as his own. His profits and losses thus reflect prominently and directly on the choices he makes. Reality by itself is absolute. Whether he succeeds in his efforts or not, the beauty of such capitalism is that the person that makes these choices deserves his results, be they profit or loss.
Without the interference of government (price-setting, price-gouging, subsidies), a person is unable to arbitrarily set prices. Observe the case of Martin Shkreli, who is being attacked on all ends because of his massive increase in prices. In a free society, such an irrational choice severely limits Shkreli’s income; it effectively destroys him. Since capital itself is limited, Shkreli’s damage is only limited to himself.
But what happens when the government intervenes?
When the government, in an effort to reduce prices, acts to subsidize medicine (or whatever field it arbitrarily decides to), what it does is actually destabilize the market. A person like Shkreli could not possibly survive in a market dictated by the law of supply and demand. A government interference, with the strong arm of tax support, is the only explanation as to why Shkreli can game the system.
A government does not produce goods, it merely consumes. It has a few essential roles – roles like policing, the army, courts. These jobs, in accordance with the fundamental nature of men, only serve one purpose: that is, the defending of one man from other men. A government who has extensions beyond that purpose proves to be a detriment – such is the price of governmental interventionism hampering the market.
More importantly, endorsing interventionism is disastrous on a moral level. It is the force of mandate, taking from one group and giving it to the other. A government like that acts like a pendulum, swinging in favor from one group to another, trying to placate them into submission. Who can tell what goes in the mind of a smiling, winking bureaucrat? It is because that men have to compete with each other for such “favors”, that it does not endorse goodwill amongst men. Would it come as a surprise that our culture today believes that men seek to destroy each other for profit? Would it come as a surprise that selfishness (that is philosophical selfishness) is touted as an evil today?
Reality does not provide a person with immunity from his choices – should you encounter a tiger and sacrifice yourself, it is not other men that would provide their flesh in protection. A government, acting on force, negates that reality, it demands that some men be serfs and some men be kings. It demands that one to pay for the consequence of others.
What men need is not the “freedom” to evade the consequences of their choices. What men need is the freedom to think, to act on what their mind decides to be true and correct.
An article like Calvin Cheng’s is not that significant, since there are always dissenters. What is significant, however, is that there is no voice raised in defense of a man’s fundamental nature. The straw man he has built is not representative of liberty, but rather portrays a different kind of “freedom”, the freedom from the responsibility of having to make the choices of one’s life – the desire to coast like some drifter in the crowds, hoping for the crumbs left by the great achievers.
Man is born free – to demand that he live otherwise is to demand a revolution against reality. It is freedom that a person must defend; if his rational happiness is his absolute and ultimate goal.
Axact

Libertarian Society Singapore

We believe that freedom and liberty is a moral right. The role of the Singapore government is not to run the economy and run our lives, but simply to protect the rights of Singaporeans. Find out more on various social media avenues!

Post A Comment: