Stop Wasting Your Time

A recent article by Karen Kwiatkowski, “Can We Live Free in an Unfree World,” which coincidentally is a recasting of a presentation she gave at the “Agora Unconference,” [See Daily Freedom, “Close, But No Cigar” on the origin of agorism], was disappointing. While the idea of living free in the world today is the exactly right one, Karen makes the same mistake everyone else talking about freedom makes, and turns it into a social issue, rather than an individualist one.

Her article begins discussing how the state deludes people into cooperating in their own oppression, which is true enough, but not the whole story. It is assumed that freedom would reign if only the oppressive hold of the state could be thrown off. The part of the story she, and all libertarians seem to miss is that much of what the freedom loving regard as oppression, most people regard as security and are delighted the state provides it. They do not need to be “deluded” by the state, it’s exactly what they want.

Anarchists, agorists, and libertarians must maintain the illusion that the state is vulnerable to their methods and movements. Karen expresses one version of that illusion:

“And curiously, while states are expensive to maintain, fiat money is continually inflated, and food and fuel prices have risen, the technologies of communication for the mass of the people are affordable. Liberty is within reach for most people in the world today. This is what we are seeing in North Africa and the Middle East today, and within all of the statist regimes of China and India.”

Anyone who thinks the “revolutions” in North Africa, the Middle East, China and India, carried out by individuals dominated by altruist, collectivist, mystic, and tribalist beliefs are movements towards freedom has no idea what freedom is, or what is really going on in the world.

After pointing out the power of the state, she finally askes the question:

“How then can we live free in this environment? … Do we try and change the politics, the technology, the economics, and the language of the state to produce a more decentralized and liberty-tolerating and even liberty-promoting system? Do we stand up parallel alternative systems, and participate only in those spheres? Do we ignore the problem and just live our lives?” She says, “The answer, I believe, is yes.”

There is one word repeated four times in her answer that is what is wrong with all these movements—that word is, “we.” By “we” she does not mean, “each individual,” but some unnamed collective of libertarians, of liberty lovers, or perhaps agorists. Individuals seeking freedom do not “stand up systems,” to be free, they act independently to achieve their own freedom.

She does say, “To really think about this topic philosophically, one can read Harry Browne?s book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.” Harry’s appraoch was entirely in individualist one, which suggests Karen has never read it, and apparently is unaware that Harry’s book is no longer published. She also recommended another book:

“A new book was published this spring, called Why Liberty edited by Marc Guttman up in Connecticut. It contains the stories of how 54 people from around the world and from all walks of life, discovered liberty and embraced peace and freedom in their lives.”

I haven’t read that book, (and do not intend to), but a review of the book has this to say about the 55 people who supposedly “discovered liberty:”

“All across the world individuals have learned that only by interacting peacefully can we achieve a more harmonious, prosperous, healthy and tolerant society. … Fifty-five authors from fifteen countries collaborate in this venture. Included are philosophers and physicians, economists and judges, military officers and environmentalists, police officers and soccer moms, lawyers and small business owners.”

Perhaps you thought freedom was necessary so you could live your life as you choose without the inteference of any other individuals in your life, and that freedom was a requirement of your nature as a human being, and that to live successfully in this would you had to be free.

Apparently Karen and Libertarians believe the purpose of freedom is to, “achieve a more harmonious, prosperous, healthy and tolerant society.” The name for that view of “freedom” is called utilitarianism and is a form of collectivism which puts the purpose of society above the purposes of individuals. It is a distortion of the nature of freedom, which pertains only to individuals, a distortion which enables the inclusion of such anti- individualist “professions,” as judges, military officers, environmentalists, and police officers as proponents of liberty. Good grief!

The mistake is the assumption that liberty is the equivalent of the elimination of the state. If none of us can be free until the state has been eliminated, then none of us will ever be free. Even more dangerous is the view is that to be free, an individual is also obliged to convince his neighbor to be free.

“The honest answer is we have to start with ourselves, and we have to practice living liberty in such a way that it informs, inspires and ultimately induces and helps our neighbors to turn their own backs on the state.”

There is almost breathtaking naivete in these views.

“In each moment, and in the myriad of ways that human beings reject the state, lose faith in the state, and withhold their consent, we achieve liberty and we proportionally destroy the power of the state. It happened to Rome, and to Moscow. It’s happening today in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain. It is happening in the United States too, not in an organized or vertical way, but by the cumulative daily acts of liberty in mind, body and economy of millions of real people. To live free, we need only to greet them, commend them, and join them.”

Freedom that depends on “joining” something is not freedom, it is collectivism. Freedom pertains only to individuals, individually pursuing their own lives, and only such individuals deserve the kind of social relationships possible to free men; only such individuals have something of value to offer others and are capable of appreciating the value of what other free individuals have to offer.

The answer to Karen’s question is, “yes, any individual who chooses to be free and is willing make the effort to achieve their own freedom can live free in the world today—whatever the world is. It is unlikely that anyone who let’s themselves become involved in any of today’s so-called freedom movements will ever achieve freedom, because all such movements can only waste one’s time, one’s energy, one’s life and one’s resources.