• Why Are We Afraid To Be Free?

    Email Print
    Share

    Why
    are so many of us preoccupied with the subject of "freedom,"
    and yet seem so unclear about the conditions essential to its existence?
    The one question that dominates the inquiries I receive from others
    is this: "what can we do to bring about a condition of freedom
    in our lives?"

    It is encouraging that such questions are being asked, and with
    far greater frequency than was the case in my young adult years,
    when the prevailing concern in the culture had more to do with devising
    "plans" by which state power could be used to refashion
    people and society into forms desired by various ideological interests.
    Still, the question is almost always misfocused, for the inquiry
    is generally framed in terms of how other people's thinking,
    or institutional systems can be changed to bring about a
    greater degree of individual liberty.

    Let me begin by distinguishing the concepts "freedom"
    and "liberty." Freedom is a state of mind that
    is not in conflict or contradiction, a mind that has integrity
    (i.e., is integrated into a consistent whole). Liberty
    describes a social system in which free men and women live and cooperate
    with one another. Because their minds are free of conflict, their
    relationships with others tend to be peaceful and respective of
    one another's autonomy.

    Does any of this describe our current world? How many of us have
    minds that are free of conflict? Since most of our holidays have
    long been co-opted by the state in furtherance of its interests – even Independence Day has been turned into a celebration of state
    militarism! – our minds are subjected to a steady iteration of how
    those who have fought in wars were "fighting for our freedom."
    But is this true? Those who have been conscripted to fight on behalf
    of the state were not able to defend their own freedom: how
    can they be said to defend the freedoms of the rest of us?

    One who is fighting is in conflict. One who is in
    conflict is divided, seeking to satisfy incompatible ends.
    When we are fighting, we are, at best, seeking some sense of integrated
    wholeness, by playing out the contradictions in our lives
    that pull us in different directions. Can one whose very being is
    so divided, struggling to reconcile the inner antagonisms that have
    turned so many of us into the "normally neurotic" persons
    who comprise our modern world, be said to be "free"?

    One way in which we seek to harmonize the contradictory nature of
    our thinking is by corrupting the meaning of the words we use to
    describe and communicate with others our understanding of the world.
    As George Orwell reminded us, the corruption of language is essential
    to the success of all political systems. If we can delude ourselves
    that "war is peace," "freedom is slavery," and
    "love is hate," we can ease the sense of incongruity of
    which our unconscious minds struggle to remind us. Whether we choose
    to face the fact or not, the corruption of language is really
    the corruption of our own minds.

    Look
    at how Orwell's message continues to play out in our thinking. The
    Air Force's "Strategic Air Command" motto, "peace
    is our profession," is straight out of 1984,
    just as "affirmative action" programs remind us of the
    amended principle of Animal
    Farm
    that while "all animals are equal, some are more
    equal than others."

    I recall, as a child during World War II, pictures of American soldiers
    giving chocolate bars to children whose homes and neighborhoods
    had just been destroyed by these same soldiers! This same phenomenon
    is taking place in the "war" against Afghanistan: U.S.
    planes drop bombs on Afghan people in order to kill them, and then
    drop food, medicine, and other goods as "humanitarian assistance"
    to those victimized by the bombings! Are these but awkward efforts
    to bring our contradictory beliefs into some apparent consistency?

    We have been raised to love and respect one another, while religious
    holidays remind us of the importance of "peace on earth."
    At the same time, we have become conditioned, by school systems,
    to be obedient to those in authority, a message that is reinforced
    by motion pictures and television programs extolling the virtues
    of wartime "heroes" and peacetime police officers. With
    our assistance, the institutional order has trained us to be conflicted
    persons, so riddled with inner contradictions as to make a life
    of integrity impossible as we seek to satisfy these expectations.

    The conflicts inherent in such contradictory premises immediately
    reveal themselves when a young man is conscripted into military
    service, and ordered by military authorities to fight and kill others
    that the state has defined to be his "enemy." Having been
    told that he should be obedient to those in authority while, at
    the same time, adhering to his own principles of proper behavior
    toward others, how is this young man to reconcile such contradictions?
    After World War II was over, the allied forces endeavored to synchronize
    such contrarieties through the "Nuremberg trials." In
    punishing German government officials for their atrocities – while
    carefully insulating American and British officials for their
    wrongs to humanity – the state employed psychological "projection,"
    a device by which some condemn others for their own felt sense of
    moral or ethical shortcoming. We seek integrity in our lives not
    by ending our inner contradictions – an act that would call into
    question our prior learning – but by deluding ourselves that our
    undesired qualities can be transferred to others, who we
    can then target for punishment. It is this practice that the state
    carefully nurtures and mobilizes in wartime.

    As President Bush and other government authorities prattle on about
    how their self-proclaimed "permanent" war will produce
    "enduring freedom," we should remind ourselves of one
    of the most important of history's lessons: wars invariably restrict
    freedom, they do not enhance it! Wars increase the powers of
    the state, a truth borne out in Randolph Bourne's classic phrase
    "war is the health of the state." The American Civil War
    greatly expanded the powers of the state, both in terms of how the
    war was conducted and the role played by the federal government
    thereafter (see Richard Bensel's Yankee Leviathan). World
    Wars I and II also extended state power and diminished individual
    liberties, as did the so-called "Cold War." While the
    ostensible enemies in wartime are foreigners, the real foe
    to be subjugated is the state's own citizenry. It is the
    extension of domestic control, and the reinforcement of the sense
    of obedience by its own people, that most interests the state. Who
    do you think the increased military presence in America is designed
    to control?

    If you doubt the tyrannical nature of all wartime practices, observe
    the Draconian measures already put in place in this country
    by the Bush Administration, and those additional restraints upon
    our lives now being proposed. Observe, as well, the facility with
    which so many Americans have permitted their thinking to fall in
    line with the mass-mindedness upon which all statist systems depend.
    Echoing the mantras of various government officials, 71% of persons
    alleged to have been polled expressed support for the "assassination"
    of Osama bin Laden, rather than a public trial. A trial might, after
    all, reveal that bin Laden had no involvement with the September
    11th attacks, and to simply assassinate the man would
    save the Bush Administration untold embarrassment. Like any lynch
    mob, those who have whooped themselves into a mass-minded frenzy
    don't wish their prejudices confused by factual disputes!

    If it is our desire to live as free men and women, we must abandon
    our habits of looking outside ourselves for answers. It is
    to our own minds, our own fears, to which we
    must have resort. To be "free" is to live without division,
    and yet the state – as well as other proclaimed authorities – insist
    that we obey their mandates. To the extent that we must choose between
    pursuing our own interests and obeying others, we
    are internally divided into conflicting purposes.

    How do we end such divisive thinking other than by confronting,
    and ending, the contradictory thinking that has produced it? Can
    we understand that trying to overthrow the state, or to reform it,
    or to select less-demanding leaders, will not end the thinking that
    has produced it? Neither is the answer to be found in science fiction
    or utopian/dystopian novels, in which efforts are made to deal with
    freedom in the setting of imaginary worlds, thus relieving
    the reader of the responsibility of doing so in reality.

    It is the existential depths of our own beings that we need to explore
    if we are to discover the meaning of freedom. When we are prepared
    to do so, we will begin to discover some important truths about
    ourselves, one of the most important being that we are, by nature,
    self-controlling beings. I, alone, can energize my will and my body
    on behalf of purposes to which I must choose to act. The fact that
    political systems must resort to violence – and the threat of violence – to persuade us to obey their directives, is the clearest evidence
    that neither they, nor anyone else, can control our actions.

    Because we are self-controlling beings, we are also responsible
    for our actions. This is not a moral or ethical proposition, but
    simply a causal one: I am responsible for what I do because
    I am the one who controls my actions. By the same token, to
    the degree we seek to control the lives and property of others,
    we help to foster, in their minds, the illusions that they are not
    responsible for what they do.

    Is it any wonder that, as the state has increased its regulatory
    powers, micromanaging the ever-finer details of our lives and social
    behavior, such efforts have been accompanied by the modern phenomenon
    of victimhood in our society? If I believe that I lack freedom
    over my own actions, and do not enjoy decision-making control over
    myself, why would you not expect me to exhibit irresponsible
    behavior, and regard myself as the "victim" of
    some faceless others?

    Why do we continue to think this way? Why are we so fearful of looking
    deep within our own souls and confronting both the creative, loving,
    joyous nature of our beings, as well as those "dark side"
    traits that we would prefer to project onto others?

    The answer to this question lies, I believe, in the nature of freedom
    to integrate both "self-control" and "self-responsibility."
    We tend to fear freedom, because we have a dread fear of
    being responsible for our actions. Walter Kaufmann coined
    the word "decideophobia," by which he referred to the
    fear we have of making decisions in our lives. What we fear the
    most in a sense of responsibility is not so much that we
    might be answerable to others, but to our own judgments.
    The Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, expressed the point this way:
    "It is impossible for that which is free by nature to be disturbed
    by anything but itself. It is a man's own judgments which disturb
    him."

    Freedom is a state of mind that each of us must discover for ourselves.
    In so doing, we will find that there is nothing that anyone in authority
    can do to make our world more peaceful orderly, or free. There are
    no institutional reforms, or ideologies, or more fashionable gurus
    to save us: such thinking only continues our sense of irresponsibility.

    I have often asked – as have some of my students – "if I were
    completely free, how would I live my life? What would I do differently
    from what I now do?" Let us suppose that the education of children
    is an important purpose in my life, and that I have been spending
    my time trying, without success, to reform the government school
    system. Suppose that I now determine to start my own school
    for children, to operate it according to my judgments as
    to what methods and curricula are important for children, and to
    ignore the bureaucratic mandates of the state's education hierarchies.

    If taking the responsibility for my actions – which would
    include committing my own resources, rather than trying to
    persuade the state to confiscate and employ yours – is what it means
    to be free, is it not clear that if, today, I begin conducting
    myself in such a way, that I would thus be free?

    Some may respond that I am only playing "word games,"
    but such a reaction ignores the fact that we have twisted ourselves
    into the kinds of contradictory, anti-life, conflict-ridden people
    we have become because of "word games" others have
    helped us learn to play at our own expense. If you wish to end such
    practices and to discover the life-sustaining freedom that inheres
    within you, you need do no more than confront, in your own thinking,
    the means by which you have cooperated in your own psychological
    crippling. Having done so, you will be able to cast aside your institutional
    crutches and walk away from your self-confinement. You will then
    experience the liberating insight so beautifully expressed by the
    late F.A. Harper: "The man who knows what freedom means will
    find a way to be free!"

    November
    27, 2001

    Butler
    Shaffer [send
    him e-mail
    ] teaches at the Southwestern University School
    of Law.

    The
    Truth Needs Your Support

    Please
    make a donation to help LewRockwell.com tell it,
    no matter what nefarious plans Leviathan has.

    Email Print
    Share