Free Individuals, not Society

The Voluntaryist “advocates … non- political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society.” While I agree that freedom is the objective, I cannot agree with the Voluntaryist that a “free society” is the means to it. Essentially, it gets the cart before the horse.

The article, “Some Critical Considerations on the United States Constitution,” by Carl Watner, the founder of the Voluntaryist, is an excellent delineation of why the U.S. Constitution and the government set up under it are illegitimate. [The article is PDF, but there is a much easier to read HTML version on Wendy McElroy’s site.]

There is a summary at the end, “Since the Constitution is Unconstitutional, What Do We Do?” which makes some important points, and actually identifies why it is not a, “free society,” that ought to be the objective, but, “free individuals.” Here is that summary:

There are two essential things each one of us can do. One is positive, the other, negative. First, we must assume self government and take on the responsibility of caring for ourselves, and our own. If each of us can fill the prescription for the good life, we probably don’t need a constitution anyhow. And if we can’t, a constitution won’t do us much good. A society is only as healthy as the individuals who compose it. Our emphasis must be on creating strong-willed, self-governing, principled individuals.

Second, we must not sanction the Constitution in any way. Voting, holding political office, a government job, or pledging allegiance to the Constitution, all sanction the system. We should avoid using tax-supported services to the greatest extent possible. If circumstances make it difficult not to use such services (roads, post office, government money), we should speak out and make it plain that we call for an end to such services.

In a sense, our first mission - of providing for ourselves - encompasses the second directive of not sanctioning the government. If we concentrate on becoming better people and building stronger families, we will, of necessity, avoid relying on government. Depending on the government diminishes our self- respect and self responsibility.

Constitutions are signs of mental laziness. The surest sanctuary of freedom for a people is not in constitutions or bills of rights, but rather in the minds of the people and in their attitudes towards those who encroach on their rights. Many nations have been tyrannized by governments that ruled according to constitutions (Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia). If people reject the legitimacy of those who would trample on their rights, they are on the road to being safe and free. If they do not reject such attempts, no constitution in the world will save them from tyranny.

It is clear that Americans should stop supporting the Constitution. Today’s controversies surrounding the Constitution are directly traceable to the fact that it is a cover for an illegitimate government. Isn’t it time to reject the Constitution and all forms of political government? Isn’t it time each one of us assumed self government over the only person we can rightly govern - our own selves?”

The article is an excellent one, and if you are unfamiliar with why the Constitution is not only illegitimate, but essentially immoral, you will find the article illuminating.

I like the conclusion too, but can only agree with the “positive” aspects of what an individual must do. I like the concepts of “self-government,” and “taking on the responsibility for ourselves,” which of course is exactly what freedom is. “Perfect freedom means one must bear the responsibility of one’s choices, enjoying without limit the benefit of his successes and suffering without mitigation the consequences of his failures.”

He is right that “if we concentrate on becoming better people and building stronger families, we will, of necessity, avoid relying on government. Depending on the government diminishes our self-respect and self- responsibility.” Of course, because “dependence” and “freedom,” are contradictions, which is the reason only an independent individualist can be truly free.

He’s also right about the method. “A society is only as healthy as the individuals who compose it. Our emphasis must be on creating strong-willed, self-governing, principled individuals.” Though I think he is implying encouraging others to do that (to produce a free society), he points out why this can only pertain to individuals. “Isn’t it time each one of us assumed self government over the only person we can rightly govern - our own selves?” [Emphasis, mine.]

A free society would be a wonderful thing, but it (the cart) cannot be created from the outside, which is just social engineering and always disastrous. When individuals (the horse) go about the business of making themselves free and living independent, moral lives of production and integrity, wherever they are, they are a free society.