What does it mean to have freedom

What does freedom mean? My last post centred on ‘knowledge,’ and referenced the message given by ‘The Allies of Humanity’ in three books by Marshal Vian Summers. Although I correlated a passage from that website with my book, Law from Within, that does not mean I endorse the full ‘message’ given by Summers. Two key anomalies appear in his message. Both relate to freedom and knowledge, and each is related to the other.

  1. The State, versus individualism, or privileges versus rights. I.e. Individual rights versus collective permissions.
  2. That knowledge and spirituality serve self, primarily as the tool for serving others. To whom does one’s life belong?

Let’s examine these in turn.

Is freedom a privilege?

First, in his book, The Reality and Spirituality of Life in the Universe, Marshall Vian Summers states: ‘Freedom is not a right in the Universe, it is a privilege.’ Granted by whom, we should ask? Let’s first define freedom.

‘Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.’ — Ayn Rand

Think about that. What is the most vital and crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the fundamental principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion. Our survival requires that those who think, so to live, be free from interference by those who choose not. Thinking, and rational action are what we each do. Since we’re neither omniscient nor infallible, we must be free to agree or disagree. To be free to cooperate or to pursue our independent course, according to our rational judgment, means that freedom is the fundamental requirement of our mind. The fact that we ‘live’ immutably confers our free right to live.

Freedom as entitlement

A privilege, by contrast, is a special advantage or immunity, made available or granted only to a particular person or group. Where did the idea that freedom is a privilege originate? It began with the notion that freedom means no constraints whatsoever, none! Once accepted that freedom is unconstrained ability to do whatever one chooses, including to initiate blackmail, coercion, harm or violence, it seems necessary to regulate human behaviour. The political result is action by permission only, or ‘freedom as a privilege.’ Such ‘freedom by permission’ requires that we act within limitations. That is license, not freedom.

Freedom as a privilege

If indeed freedom is not a right, how are we to understand The Declaration of Human Sovereignty, as mentioned in my last post, resulting from Summers ‘message’?  It declares the right to sovereignty. Stop for goodness sake. How is the ‘right to sovereignty’ possible, while ‘freedom is a privilege?

Freedom to contribute to the state

Now let’s address the second question. Who is the ultimate beneficiary of knowledge and spirituality, and not its recipient merely?

From The Allies of Humanity, as reported by Summers, it seems that life in the universe premises on nations, nation-states, or ‘worlds,’ i.e., ‘collectives.’ Summers talks of freedom and free nation states.

‘Free nations in the universe value the individual and take advantage of the individual’s talents and natural inclinations. That is the great difference between a free nation and a nation that is not free. In all cases, however, in higher social orders, dissension, conflict and an individual’s destructive tendencies are limited and, in many cases, greatly suppressed. The great difference is the valuing of the individual’s innate capabilities and supporting the individual to participate in society based upon the contribution of those innate abilities.’ —Marshall Vian Summers

Please re-read the first and last sentences and be not mislead by clever wording. It is one thing for individuals to voluntarily contribute to a free society, which can exist without a State. It is quite another for a State to take advantage of individuals by conscripting subservience. In this case, the nation has a (corporate) life of its own, and we have a duty to uphold it. So we are slave to the state. It remains that unless we are free as individuals, we really are not free at all. No such things as free nations, or free states consisting of subservient citizens (slaves), can exist.

What are an individual’s destructive tendencies, furthermore? If indeed we have propensity to particular actions beyond our control, then free will is a myth. If however, we have full control of our lives through free will choice, then innate tendencies are the myth.

More than anomalies, these two confusing matters represent contradictions. Such cannot exist. Check the founding premise of both sides of the conflict, and one will be wrong.

Freedom to be responsible and accountable?

Separation from the coercive power of the State does not mean anarchy (without rule), or unconstrained ability to do good or harm as we please. The flip side of freedom is respect for the right of all others to be free. It is mistaken to believe that respect is a ‘duty.’

The reverse is true. Upholding others right to their life is the only guarantee of our own. Respect for the freedom of others is not a duty to them; it is foremost respect for our own, and theirs. Few people understand this point. The misunderstanding arises from the idea that concern with one’s interest is selfish because it tramples other’s interests or life.

Respect for others does not constitute trespass. It upholds. So if respecting other’s right to their lives endorses our own, and both represent emancipation, then moral constraint is jointly moral. No one suffers. Any (granted) privilege that denies or interferes with this condition is reprehensible, immoral and unlawful. It is not ‘freedom,’ even though it be legal.

Natural Justice

Freedom and respect are inseparable, two sides of one coin. The Natural Law of Justice states, ‘innocent, natural individuals are free. Proven trespassers of natural law, are outlaws, perpetrators of deliberately enacted transgressions.’ This law and others are described in Law From Within,  and my new book Conscious Dynamics, now at the printer. Refer also to the Commission of Justice.

Back to Blog Index

One thought on “What does it mean to have freedom

  1. Excellent clarification Ken, when so much authoritarian rule is about removing our rights bit by bit, legal statute by legal statute. This is how we unwittingly have been enslaved to ‘perform’ for so called ‘state benefits’ ..which is not freedom at all. It becomes more obvious that words are deliberately twisted around to confuse and disempower us.
    Your book, Law from Within, certainly shows how we must understand the power of how our minds work; that we learn how to each truly embrace our individual natural law rights.
    By harnessing dynamic powers within each of us, we are able to use these inherent gifts to choose and act, not only responsibly but joyfully.
    To be so enabled (quite easily from your shared methods) will allow us to lead happy, balanced lives, as creator intended, with respect of same for others in their choices.
    Working with others freely from within, based on this empowerment, is the way forward for humanity. Thanks again Ken!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six + 20 =