Rights or Freedom
In his description of the pursuit of freedom, Harry Browne identified two methods, the indirect vs. the direct.
By the indirect method, Harry was referring specifically to all those movements, programs, and crusades that people join and support in hopes of educating and persuading people by means of continual “social combat,“political action, and propaganda to eventually embrace freedom resulting in a “free society.”
But such movements and programs have been going on for generations, and society is no closer to being free, and in fact, becomes more oppressive every day. It is obvious this method of seeking freedom does not work, and the reason is because all indirect methods rely on getting other people to do something.
The direct method does not depend on persuading or changing others, or convincing others to do anything; it depends only on what the individual himself can choose to do, and can be achieved entirely by his own effort.
“Rights,” Are Indirect
Many people confuse “freedom” with the concept, “rights.” The concept of “rights,” is a problematic one, a philosophical issue I’ll deal with elsewhere. Here, I only want to point out that pursuing, “rights,” is always an indirect method. Perhaps an example will make that clear.
Guns
For many people, the “right to keep and bear arms,” is a very important one, and they join organizations and involve themselves in movements and campaigns to get lawmakers to pass laws that will preserve that “right.” But is it a “right” they want, or freedom?
We suppose the reason they want the “right” is so they will be free to own, carry, and use firearms. If that is the objective, there are many things they can do to have that freedom that do not require getting anyone else, (lawmakers, for example) to do anything. There are places in the U.S. where people are free to own, carry, and use their firearms without the interference of anyone, especially the government. Obviously, one thing an individual who wants that kind of gun freedom can do is to move to a place where one is already free to own and use guns.
“Criminals,” in all parts of the country, even those with the most restrictive gun laws, own and use guns, and except when careless or using their guns in attacking others, they are almost never caught. Obviously they are not concerned about, “gun rights,” and feel perfectly free to own and used guns without them—and they are. For the individual who wants to own and use guns, the alternative to moving to a place where there is no risk in owning and using guns, is to stay where they are, accept the risk, and own and use any guns they choose.
To own and used guns where they are illegal atuomatically makes you a “criminal,” but not immoral. Since you may own and use guns legally in some places, what makes the perfectly moral action a crime in other places are the immoral laws in those places.
Since there is a price for everything, the way to understand the alternatives here is this:
One chooses to own and use guns where it is illegal: the price is increased risk.
One chooses to own and use guns without risk: the price is moving to a place where guns are legal.
One chooses to live in a place where guns are illegal without risk: the price is not owning or using guns.
All of these are things an individual is free to choose and do himself without requiring anyone else to do anything.
Of course, if what an individual wants is the “right” to be able to live wherever he chooses, do anything he chooses (own and use guns for example), and all without any risk or price, what he wants cannot be achieved directly by his own choices and efforts, but only indirectly by changing others. Since that kind of indirect pursuit has never worked, and will never work, such individuals will never be free.
Rights And Government
The concept of “rights” has no meaning outside the concept of government. However one defines rights, they are supposed to be what governments preserve or guarantee. Those who pursue “rights” as a means of securing freedom must depend on government (or some social organization even if something as vague as a “free market” or “anarcho-capitalism”) to supply those rights.
*Govern*ment and *free*dom are contradictions. No one’s freedom is ever increased by government. To seek freedom by means of “rights” is to seek freedom by seeking to be controlled by others, whatever others are supposed to provides one’s “rights.”
There is only one way to secure one’s freedom, the direct pursuit by one’s own choices and effort. The indirect pursuit of freedom by means of rights, is a diversion from the direct pursuit of freedom, and ultimately a dead end.