A better dream of freedom

It's amazing how often you'll hear an idea for a new law from someone who claims to be in favor of freedom. Of course, usually these self-proclaimed sons and daughters of liberty have already been elected to office, so they've already made some adjustments to their views of what freedom is.

It's still true that the US of A is a place where you can criticize The Powers That Be without being shot or imprisoned — most of the time. Of course, you can't do it in the presence of the Big Boss. Yikes, shouting "You lie!" to the emperor while he was giving a speech. That sort of thing just isn't done.

America is the place where your rights are fully protected as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights — like the right to smoke-free air, the right to free health care, and the right not to be exposed to someone else's religious beliefs. Your property is your own to do as you please with it — as long as you get the proper permits and inspections and pay the property tax. You can travel at will all over this great nation — after your person and luggage have been examined and ransacked. Unlike past empires, we have no ambitions to impose our will on conquered territories — pay no attention to the hundreds of military bases established all over the world.

Some of us have a better dream of freedom: "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor ... advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else." I know, good luck with that. I still think a society based on that principle would be a lovely one to live in. The tricky part? By definition no one can be forced to live that way.

For some time I've been working, in fits and starts, on a novel about the creation of such a society — even put out a couple of chapters I have since set aside. The novel is starting to come together at last. No promises, though — I've done that before and missed the target.

That's not my main point today, anyway. Rather, it's just a reminder to beware of anyone who proclaims a devotion to liberty while advocating for a new restriction on liberty. Yes, I know I'm reminding you to beware of people you encounter pretty much every day. That's how pervasive the assault on freedom is. That stuff about "eternal vigilance" isn't far from the truth.

But in the end, the Zero Aggression Principle is about a very personal kind of freedom. You don't have to wait until some utopian society is created. You simply live it. And no one can take that away from you.

ZAPing the drug war

It seems the fiscal and human costs of the War on Drug Users are finally starting to ease themselves into the public debate. Consider this column by a fellow named Bernd Debusmann, a Reuters columnist.

Are the 305 million people living in the United States the most evil in the world? Is this the reason why the U.S., with 5 percent of the world’s population, has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners and an incarceration rate five times as high as the rest of the world?

Or is it a matter of a criminal justice system that has gone dramatically wrong, swamping the prison system with drug offenders?

One would think drug legalization would have occurred to The Powers That Be as a good thing some time ago. A sedated, contented populace is easier to manipulate, after all. (Just look at our Ritalin-infested schools.) Instead billions of dollars and thousands of lives have been wasted on violent intervention and incarceration over the year.

The problem has always been that giving individuals the power to decide for themselves how to treat their bodies runs counter to the instincts of the average politico. And the average individual figures he/she can be responsible but is not so sure about the neighbors, or "those people" down there in the inner city or out there in the sticks.

But that's the tradeoff: If you want the freedom to live your life as a responsible adult, you have to concede that freedom to other individuals, to deal with their own triumphs and mistakes on their own terms.

It's the Zero Aggression Principle in action: As L. Neil Smith puts it so succinctly, "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else." If you wish to be free, you must be willing to respect others' freedom.

Would ending the drug war create a nation of zombies? In TPTB's fondest dreams. More likely there would be abuse and sad stories, just as ending alcohol Prohibition has led to drunken morons getting behind the wheel or committing other stupid and deadly acts. But the vast majority of responsible adults don't abuse alcohol — and it's been a long while since any alcohol distributor gunned down a police officer or a rival distributor.

Personally, I get all the sedation I need from a couple of beers a night and the idiot box. But other people like different substances and different preoccupations. More power to them — and I mean that literally.

A question of rights

Reading this blog in a vacuum, one might conclude I have drifted away from writing of late, when I've just been writing elsewhere. I want to import one post that I tossed into the fray over at Sunni Maravillosa's place in a lively discussion of whether rights really exist or whether they are asserted in a process akin to blind faith:

It seems to me this question of rights boils down to the fact that the only actions I can control are my own. I can persuade or enter into contracts or (if I was someone else) attempt to do it by force, but in the end I can't make you respect my rights or property.

That's why the Zero Aggression Principle is so important to the free life. The more people adopt ZAP, the more likely it is that agreements will be honored and exchanges will be peaceful - or at least nonviolent.

The concept of rights presents a neutral, immutable appeal to a third party in conflicts - if we've agreed on what those rights are, we have something to gauge who's right and wrong. But it requires agreement on the basic principle.

I'm a Christian in part because I believe Jesus asserted ZAP when he said all law is summed up in two statements, one of which is "Love your neighbor as yourself." (You can accept the other statement or not; I do.) I'm a Browncoat in part because I believe in the words Joss Whedon put in Malcolm Reynolds' mouth: "I got no need to beat you; I just want to go my way."

I happen to think we'd all live better lives if we adopted that philosophy, but if I demand it, it won't work. I can't make you do anything. I can only try to persuade.