From act@zilker.net Thu Nov 17 13:48:47 1994
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:30:08 -0600
From: act@zilker.net
Reply to: samsbest@zilker.net
Subject: What Freedom means to me!

     Some of you may have seen this before.  For those of you
     who have not -- I cannot recommend this reading strongly
     enough!

     Feedback is welcomed.  Flames are not.


                             FREEDOM'S REWARD
                             by Alfred Adask

Reprinted with permission from "AntiShyster", POB 540786, Dallas Texas,
75354, (214) 559-7957, annual subscription (6 issues) $25.

      When I went through my divorce, I suffered a more extraordinary abuse
than I had ever imagined possible.  Was I unjustly incarcerated?  No. 
Beaten?  No.  Tortured?  Not physically.

      It was much, much worse:  I was "given" standard visitation with my
children:  two weekends a month, no more.  Which is to say that, by law, I
was prevented from seeing my own kids twenty-seven days out of every month. 
I was prevented from helping them, educating them, laughing with them and
loving them for 90% of their lives.  I can do all the bad I want (and at
times I have), and nobody in government gives a damn.  But I was denied
meaningful access to my children, and in that, I was prevented by law from
doing that which I knew to be right.

      That "abuse" -- that denial of the opportunity to do Right -- was the
most brutal, bitter, unforgivable experience of my life.  It's also one of
my most profound lessons.  After eleven years, I think I finally begin to
understand that the essence of Freedom is not license (license allows you
to do wrong) -- "Freedom" is the power to do that which you know to be
right.


                           THE ESSENCE OF GOVERNMENT

A recent TV documentary discussed how much arctic tundra had been destroyed
in the former Soviet Union by irresponsible oil drilling techniques.  Ap-
parently, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles of fragile arctic
environment have been contaminated by crude oil spills.  Who's responsible? 
The former Communist government of the Soviet Union.  Which is to say no
one is responsible.

As I considered the Russian experience, I began to see that the essence of
government, all government, is the avoidance of personal responsibility.

For example, look at the murders of Sam (age 14) and his mother Vickie Wea-
ver up in Ruby Creek, Idaho, in 1992.  Our Federal government tried Randy
Weaver (Sam's father, Vickie's husband) and Kevin Harris for the killing of
a government agent (they were found innocent).  However, no government
agent was tried for shooting the boy Sam (in the back) and his mother
Vickie (in the head while she was holding a baby in her arms).

It's no mystery.  The names of the government's killers are known.  But
there will be no trials, because government refuses to accept respon-
sibility for its actions.  Government doesn't try government agents for
killing civilians anymore than "Bloods" (a Los Angeles street gang) tries
fellow "Bloods" for killing Crips (another L.A. street gang).  The issue is
not one of morality, or justice, it's one of membership.  Us against them. 
Will government try fellow government agents for murdering two civilians? 
No.

How 'bout Waco?  About ninety people died, including four government storm
troopers and over 80 Branch Davidians (many of them women and children). 
Our government tried eleven surviving Branch Davidians (civilians) for the
murders of the four government agents, but who'll be tried for the fiery
deaths of scores of civilians?  Anyone?  Nope.  Why?  Because the issue is
not "justice for all", the issue is "privilege for a select few" -- member-
ship in government.  Just as the Bloods do not try fellow Bloods for killing
Crips, our Federal government does not try "its own" for murdering
civilians.  Us.....   Against.....   Them.

Big government's avoidance of personal responsibility goes far beyond the
relatively few, but dramatic, instances of civilian murders.  Who's re-
sponsible for buying $200 toilet seats for the military?  $500 hammers? 
Who's responsible for the national deficit?  Or Watergate?  Who, for that
matter, is responsible for killing President Kennedy?  And who's re-
sponsible for the $500 BILLION Savings & Loan loss that will have to be
repayed by the American taxpayers (the same folks who were robbed in the
first place)?

And the answer is (ta-dah!) "No One"!  Ya know why?  Because the respon-
sible parties in virtually every case are government employees and of-
ficials, and the fundamental purpose of government is to avoid all personal
responsibility.  They call it "sovereign immunity", judicial immunity",
"executive privilege" and a dozen other names.  But almost always, the
government refuses to be held accountable to the People.  In large measure,
government means the escape from personal responsibility.

The escape from personal responsibility is not only available for govern-
ment employees, officials, and politicians -- it's also available to
private (meaning government-approved) citizens.  Look at corporations: 
these "legal fictions" are created by government for the express purpose of
allowing corporate owners and employees to act without assuming the risk of
full, common law, personal responsibility.

How 'bout government welfare programs?  To some extent, every welfare re-
cipient is living without the full personal  responsibility of supporting
himself.

"Special interests" of big business and the wealthy are likewise freed by
government from the onerous task of earning their living on a "level
playing field" in the free market.  They are "licensed" (and from Black's
law dictionary we find that license means given "Permission by some
competent authority to do some act which, without such permission, would be
illegal.") or given special privileges that protect them from the difficul-
ties of lawful personal responsibility.

Even Congressmen specifically exempt themselves from their personal respon-
sibility of obeying their own social legislation (like Civil Rights anti-
discrimination laws).  And consider our beloved "licensed" lawyers who, on
average, loose 50% of their cases, but can't be held accountable for being
incompetent.  Again, these quasi-governmental officials are characterized
by licenses and special privileges which always mean reduced personal
responsibility.


                    A CONSEQUENCE OF CENTRALIZED POWER

"Power" is the ability to act effectively.  As government grows, power is
siphoned off from individuals and concentrated in the hands of fewer and
more distant bureaucrats, officials and politicians.  As government grows
more powerful, the People are increasingly inhibited, restricted and tied
down like Gulliver by the red tape of an army of Lilliputian bureaucrats.

This inverse relationship between government power and individual power is
intuitively obvious:  as government grows more powerful, the people become
less powerful.  As individuals loose power, they not only lose the ability
to act in ways that are harmful, they also lose the ability to act in ways
that are beneficial -- even when they see things that should be done.

As government grows more powerful, only government can act, and you,
therefore cannot.  If you can't act, then obviously, you can't be held
responsible either.  In fact, I suspect that the terms "personal power" and
"personal responsibility" are virtually synonymous; you can't diminish (or
increase) one without doing the same to the other.  So government's growth
not only reduces your personal power, it also reduces your personal re-
sponsibility.  Therefore, government power is inversely proportional to
personal responsibility.

This inverse relationship between government power and personal respon-
sibility offers an important insight into the essence of government and
perhaps even life itself.  I'm no Biblical scholar, but don't Judeo-Chris-
tian faiths ultimately advocate personal responsibility?  Aren't we to be
judged by God some day?  Won't that judgement hinge on some measure of
personal responsibility?  Therefore, aren't license and avoidance of
personal responsibility contrary to the fundamental Biblical precept of
personal responsibility?

Moreover, if personal responsibility is God's fundamental command, then
what can we infer about the fundamental nature of a government that avoids
personal responsibility?  Is it illogical to conclude that in its usual
(irresponsible) guise, government is inherently anti-religious and perhaps
even predisposed to Evil?  Is it possible that as government grows, so does
it's propensity to do Evil?  If so, is it possible that big government
might be inescapably Evil?  Likewise, what can we infer about the motives
of a government that encourages its people to seek license and avoid
personal responsibility?  Isn't that government encouraging them to turn
their backs on God?

On the other hand, if government power and personal license tend to Evil,
wouldn't Freedom and personal responsibility be the essential goals of God
and the prerequisites for a strong society and nation?


                                FREEDOM

Here in the "Land of the Free", the concept of "Freedom" is confusing and
seldom understood.  Too often, the word "freedom" is confused with
"license" (i.e., the privilege of doing that which would otherwise be
illegal or immoral).  If I am "free", can I drive 100 mph in a school zone? 
Can I drag any woman I choose off into the bushes and have my way with her? 
Does "freedom" mean living "for free" and never having to pay for my food
or shelter (as in living on welfare)?  Of course not.

We know intuitively that "freedom" does not include the right to do wrong. 
And though that intuition sounds simple, that's a powerful insight.  Why? 
Because if freedom does not include the right to do wrong, then what could
it include?  What's left after you remove all "wrong"?  Nothing but
"right"!

Freedom, then, is the power to do that which is right! 

Lemme explain.

If we consider our options as "free" men, we realize that to be "free" one
must first be "responsible".  A responsible person doesn't drive 100 mph in
a school zone.  A responsible person doesn't rape.  A responsible person
pays his bills.  And more, a responsible person raises his children
properly, meets his social duties and obligations, and works to support
himself and his family.  And remembers to floss.  And helps his kids with
their homework.  And calls mom regularly.  And helps other less fortunate
than himself.  And, and, and....

Damn.  As a consequence of Freedom, personal responsibility is almost end-
less.  In fact, if you stop to think about it, there's so much that each of
us should do (but don't), that "freedom" begins to take on the grimly unat-
tractive appearance of endless servitude to personal responsibility and
obligation.

What's the good of being "free" if I can't get drunk whenever I want, se-
duce my neighbor's wife, and call in sick when I wanna go fishing?  With
all these damn responsibilities, what's the point to being "free"?

If there's no pay-off in Freedom, why not accept government slavery?  (You
don't like the word "slavery"?  OK, we'll call it "welfare", "enti-
tlements", benefits" or "security" instead -- how's that, you like it
better now?)  But why not?  In the welfare state, I might not be free, but
who cares if I don't have to worry about paying my rent, having a job, edu-
cating my kids, or remaining faithful to my wife?  Why not kick back,
relax, and be a slave (oops, "welfare recipient"), instead of some up-
tight, obsessive-compulsive "do-gooder" fighting to be "free"?

Answer?  Consider the former Soviet Union.  Perfect example.  Under the
Communist cradle-to-grave welfare state, the Russians seduced each other's
wives, aborted even more babies than we do here in America, and drank so
much vodka they had the highest alcoholism rate in the world.  They weren't
free, but they weren't personally responsible either.  So why not?  Free
food, free broads, free booze, and you can't be fired?  Sounds like one
helluva a system, doesn't it?

And yet, that "helluva" system collapsed, leaving several hundred million
people impoverished, frightened, starving in some cases, and vulnerable to
civil war.  What went wrong?  Free food, booze, broads, you can't be fired

-- and they blew it!  What could possible be missing?


                               SELF-ESTEEM

The dictionary defines "self-esteem" as "an objective respect for oneself". 
Pretty dry but technically on target.  Self-esteem is a measure of one's
self-respect.  Some people have high self-esteem, some have a little, some
have none.  While we seldom notice the benefits of self-esteem, it's easy
to see the adverse consequences when self-esteem is missing.  Have you ever
known anyone who drank too much, used drugs, slept around, committed
suicide, etc., who had any self-esteem?  In my experience, the absence of
self-esteem is the foundation for all self-destructive behavior.  That
being so, I believe the presence of self-esteem is a kind of "spiritual
vitamin" that is essential for the maintenance of life.

How do we get self-esteem?  Self-assessment.  No one can claim it for you,
no one else can give it to you, no one else can really take it away.  Only
you can grant yourself the award of self-esteem.  You must respect
yourself.  Neither winning nor loosing (in the eyes of the world) can
finally determine one's self-esteem.  Win, loose, or draw, you must know in
your heart that you've done your best.  It's a little like Sylvester Stal-
lone in the original Rocky movie -- he just wanted to "go the distance". 
He didn't have to win the fight to earn his own self-esteem, he just had to
stand and not quit, to certify in his own mind that he wasn't "just another
one of the neighborhood bums".

Self-esteem is the reward for a successful struggle (usually against your
own fears and the inhibitions against doing right, that society has placed
on you).  You don't have to win, but you do have to fight to the limit of
your ability.  YOU have to fight.  YOU have to struggle.  YOU have to stand
up and do what you believe to be right despite your fears.  If you do, you
succeed in validating yourself, in proving to yourself that you are worthy
of life.

But there is no self-esteem without personal responsibility (YOU must do
your own fighting).  There is no personal responsibility without individual
freedom (you must be free to choose to fight the battles your heart selects
as Right).  There is no freedom under the centralized power and control of
big government (you are denied the opportunity to engage in a personal
fight since all personal power and personal responsibility have been sur-
rendered to the government).  By taking our personal power and personal
responsibility, big government deprives us of self-esteem, and leaves us as
rotting flesh, corrupt, stillborn in our souls, and unless healed, sure to
die without ever having lived.  Put enough people like that in a society,
and an entire nation will collapse.  (Witness the former Soviet Union.)


                       BEYOND FLESH AND BLOOD

In the end, all that governments can promise, is to distribute material
wealth.  They will rob the productive, Robin-Hood style, and give it to the
poor (or more likely keep it for themselves).  But in either case,
materialism (the supply, demand, and distribution of food, goods and
services) is the philosophy that lures folks into welfare, entitlements and
slavery.  I don't denigrate materialism as it clearly plays a powerful,
productive role in all societies (which I'll discuss another time) -- but
materialism is not everything. It's only part of life.

Even animals understand this.  Ever heard stories of a wild lion captured,
caged, cared for and well fed that nevertheless simply lays down, refuses
to eat and dies?  Ever heard stories of dogs that dig and chew at their
cages until their claws break and their jaws shatter?  It happens.  Not
always.  Not even often, but it happens!

It also happens with people.  And with societies, too.  We each have to
earn our self-esteem and the only way that can be done, is by pulling our
own plow.  We must each pay the full price of our own survival.  "Living
free" may not avoid poverty, but "living for free" guarantees self-de-
struction.

We are spiritually dependent on our own self-esteem.  Diminish that self-
esteem, and no matter how much free food, sex, booze and welfare you get,
you will wither and die.

Look at the black community.  They sense the problem.  That's why Jesse
Jackson et al are chanting, "Ah'm black and ah'm proud!"  They understand
that the black community's "collective" self-esteem is about zero, so they
try to build it up by making the blacks say they have self-esteem.  Won't
work -- not so long as blacks are among the principal recipients of big
government "benefits".  Like any other slave, blacks may be able to look
the part, "talk the talk" and "dress for success", but in the end, self-
esteem can only be earned, never faked.

In our hearts, we each know if we've made meaningful contributions to the
support of ourselves and those around us.  To the extent we succeed, we
feel self-esteem.  To the extent we fail, we feel painful self-incrimina-
tion and seek to escape into alcohol, drugs, promiscuity, and similar forms
of suicide.

We are more than material beings, we are also spiritual -- and our spirits
sicken and die without self-esteem.  The inability to provide the governed
with self-esteem is the principle weakness, the "heart of darkness" of
every government; they can never feed our spirits.  Never satisfy our
souls.  Never.


                          ONE-TWO, ONE TWO!

Everyone knows it's important to exercise our physical bodies.  No matter
how well we eat, if we don't exercise, we are not only weakening our
bodies, we are actually shortening our lives.  Scientific fact.

But how many understand that we are more than merely physical beings?  How
many understand that we are as bound by the laws of God and nature to exer-
cise our souls as we are by biological law to exercise our bodies?  Just
like muscles, our souls also atrophy by sitting back, cowed by fear, doing
nothing.  So how do we exercise our souls?  By doing Right.

Remember the arctic tundra ruined by the irresponsible Soviets?  No one was
accountable, no one was responsible.  Why?  Do you think no one wanted to
be responsible?  Do you think the Russians simply laughed with glee as they
polluted their own land?  Some probably did, but what of the Russians who
wanted to do the right thing, and stop the pollution?  Why didn't they act?

Red tape.  Government production demands.  Supply bottlenecks brought on by
government regulations.  They knew what was Right, but they couldn't do it
because big government prevented them.  Big government prevented them
because it was so cluttered with rules, regulations, forms, and permis-
sions, that it had become too ponderous and too controlling to even allow
immediate "personal" solutions to relatively small problems.

By taking power from individuals and concentrating it in the hands of
distant bureaucrats, big government stripped personal power and personal
responsibility from the man on scene where the oil spilled.  Unable to act,
a man in the arctic sat there, helpless, watching the oil spill, unable to
do what he knew was Right.  His self-esteem withered and he reached for a
vodka.

Are you free to do what's Right in the USA?  Ohh, you're "free" to watch TV
and get the latest conditioning and propaganda.  And you're "free" to vote
for the liar of your choice.  You're free to get drunk and smoke tobacco
and (if you're careful) use a "controlled substance".  And don't forget the
"freedom" to murder your own children, provided they haven't been born yet
(for as in Waco, only government can currently murder 'em after they've
been born).  But that's not "freedom", that license!

Can you see your children?  Grandchildren?  Father?  Mother?  Can you keep
enough of the money you earn to give your kids the clothes, home, parental
support and education the deserve?  Hmmm?  Can you even take care of
yourself to the degree you know is necessary and right?  Hmmm?  New
glasses?  Hmmm?  Dental care?  Proper food, vitamins and medical care? 
Hmmm?  Can you travel freely, open a bank account without a social security
number, talk on the phone without fear of being recorded?  Hmmm?  Can you
raise a son without wondering if he'll be murdered in some idiotic foreign
"police action"?  Can your children pray in school?  Can they?  Can you
speak out in public without fear of lawsuit and financial ruin?  When you
see a social injustice is there a responsive public agency to help make it
stop, or is your urge to do right imprisoned within the walls of bureau-
cracy?

How much can you do that you know to be RIGHT?  That is the measure of your
personal Freedom.

On the other hand, to the extent that you live each day walking by one
injustice after another -- closing your eyes, pretending not to see,
knowing the "system" is too cumbersome and indifferent for you to act or
help -- to that extent, you are a slave.  Ohh, you may be a well-fed, well-
housed slave, but in your gut, you know damn well your life is empty,
worthless, unlived.  Your company dental plan may be superb, but your
spirit is toothless.  Without Freedom, there is no personal responsibility,
no self-esteem, nothing but an itch to self-destruction.


                             YOUR REWARD

Freedom is the capacity to do that which is Right.  The reward for Freedom
is self-esteem and Life.

Whoever, whatever, prevents you from doing Right, saps your self-esteem,
kills your soul, and condemns you to a life unlived and an early grave. 
Whatever stops you from doing what you know to be Right is not only your
greatest mortal enemy -- it's also your greatest spiritual enemy.  And who
does more to deny your Freedom and self-esteem than big government?

Will you live Free with the self-esteem of a man who does Right, or exist
as an irresponsible "licensed" slave with nothing but intoxicants and
regret?  You have the right to choose, you have the responsibility to
choose, you must choose.  Why?  Because this is the single, fundamental
choice in all of life.  Freedom or slavery?

But what choice can there be once you understand the difference between
Freedom and slavery?  Remember all the self-destructive behavior associated
with low self-esteem?  Despite the sales pitch about all those government
"benefits" (national health care sure sounds like a nice idea, doesn't
it?), big government and the consequent loss of personal responsibility and
self-esteem can lead you only toward self-destruction and death.  In the
end, the benefits and bondage of big government are at least hazardous to
your personal health, and probably fatal for the nation.

We don't choose to be Free because it's easy.  Freedom's hard, sometimes
even painful.  We don't choose to be Free because it's fun.  Freedom can be
exciting, exhilarating, and invigorating but it's not "fun" (at least not
in the superficial sense).  We choose to be Free because Freedom is the
prerequisite for personal responsibility, personal responsibility is the
prerequisite for self-esteem and self-esteem is the prerequisite of
spiritual LIFE.  We choose Freedom and personal responsibility as a first
vital step to resurrecting our souls.  We choose Freedom because we choose
to live.  In the end, the choice is not between Freedom and slavery, but
between Life and death.

How will you choose?  How will you choose for yourself?  By your example,
how will you choose for your children?  How will you choose for your
nation?

The world is watching for your decision.  Waiting.  And so, I suspect is
God.

Your life and your nation's life will depend on your choice.  Choose well.

-- 

 ********************************************************************
  "The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear 
  of resistance."
            --Thomas Paine
 ********************************************************************
 timr@efn.org
 (503) 895-4681 (FAX)
 (503) 895-4417 (VOICE)

 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 ::  Volume 1, Post 11     SAMSBEST, THE EMAIL LIST     14 November 1994 ::
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 ::  SAMSBEST is a read-only list.  Post all followup to the original    ::
 ::  email list or newsgroup.  Submit the _best_ articles and stories    ::
 ::  for reprint to John W. Redelfs, at tsjwr@acad1.alaska.edu with the  ::
 ::  flag "SAM" in the subject line. --JWR                               ::
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::