Getting Free

Well, Joey has offered his final thoughts in our conversation, at least for now. I for one feel some sense of relief, because the thing had started to sprawl across several blogs as well as subjects, and it was getting too large for me to keep track of it all! A few pointers to some of the participants (links are to their latest contributions to the discussion, as of this writing): FSK’s Guide to Reality; David Gross at The Picket Line; and Kent McManigal. While I have much to say on each of the topics we’ve tossed around, I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to do them all justice in this sitting. Instead, I will mention that a primary raison d’être for my part of this blog is to explore these issues; and I encourage any interested invididuals to explore the archives here and elsewhere for previous ramblings on the subjects. All I’ll offer today are some general observations in response to what I perceive to be Joey’s central themes.

Over the years, several friends and Family members have encouraged me to read The Economist, ostensibly for the clear-headed and somewhat pro-market views. Yet every time I’ve browsed their site, I’ve come away disappointed. Not today.

I continue to seek answers to questions that are mostly unanswerable in my current context ... yet my wanderings on the web—sometimes directed by others, mostly haphazard jumpings of my own—occasionally offer droplets of insight.

I’ve been thinking about Joey’s response in our ongoing conversation about getting free and personal freedom, but have been too busy and/or distracted to write a proper response. As a placeholder—and foreshadowing—I will quote from The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. The context is Prof. Bernardo de la Paz speaking to Wyoming Knott [emphasis in original]:

“... I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

Any товарищи got a problem with that? ;-)

Now that I have your attention, may I –ahem– titillate you a bit more, by saying that to find out what I mean, you’ll have to follow me to the second part of this tease ... where the photographic evidence can be found.

A while back, I posted a semi-rant on folks in The Family who seem to have their lives on hold until after “the revolution”. Joey at The Freedom Symposium followed up with some observations of his own, and we started a conversation which was interrupted by his taking some time off. Now that he’s back, I’ll revisit the subject and perhaps even include what I’d thought was the main point of my first post, but which got left out entirely!

Summer is in full bloom here on the prairie and with it, as every year, come back memories of my childhood almost always spent with either set of grandparents. They are my fondest memories from my childhood and interestingly they have something in common- a kind of freedom provided by the old and the wise in my family.

Yes, I continue to dwell on the “Is all fun profitable?” idea. It occurs to me that part of the reason I have difficulty with responses like Brad Spangler’s is that it’s based on something that may be ineffable for as long as humans exist: a way to objectively define, quantify, and calculate relationships among concepts including “profit”, “fun”, “cost”, “risk”, and “happiness”. I could go off on many tangents from that observation—and I may still, in future ramblings—but for today, I will simply say that I am unconvinced that an economics-based analysis is always the best course.

I recently had something said to me that I have not been able to get out of my mind. Thus, I turn to you twelve for your thoughts on the matter.

I know you’re a decent, industrious, cooperative animal, comparable to a bee or an ant. All I’ve done is to lay bare the little man in you, who has been wrecking your life for thousands of years. You are great, little man, when you’re not mean and small. Your greatness, little man, is the only hope we have left. You’re great when you attend lovingly to your trade, when you take pleasure in carving and building and painting, in sowing and reaping, in the blue sky and the deer and the morning dew, in music and dancing, in your growing children, and in the beautiful body of your wife or husband; when you go to the planetarium to study the stars, to the library to read what other men and women have thought about life. You’re great when your grandchild sits on your lap and you tell him of times long past and look into the uncertain future with his sweet, childlike curiosity. You’re great, mother, when you lull your baby to sleep; when with tears in your eyes you pray fervently for his future happiness; and when hour after hour, year after year, you build this happiness in your child.

You’re great, little man, when you sing the good, warmhearted folk songs, or when you dance the old dances to the tune of an accordion, because folk songs are good for the soul, and they’re the same the world over. And you’re great when you say to your friend:
“I thank my fate that I’ve been able to live my life free from filth and greed, to see my children grow and to look on as they first began to babble, to take hold of things, to walk, to play, to ask questions, to laugh and to love; that I’ve been able to preserve, in all its freedom and purity, my feeling for the springtime and its gentle breezes, for the gurgling of the brook that flows past my house and the singing of the birds in the woods; that I’ve taken no part in the gossip of malicious neighbors; that I’ve been happy in the embrace of my wife or husband and have felt the stream of life in my body; that I haven’t lost my bearings in troubled times, and that my life has had meaning and continuity. For I have always hearkened to the gentle voice within me that said, ‘Only one thing matters: live a good, happy life. Do your heart’s bidding, even when it leads you on paths that timid souls would avoid. Even when life is a torment, don’t let it harden you.’”

Jomama highlighted a different section of what appears to be an astonishing book. Race you for a copy!

I am soooo tired of reading pro-freedom commentary that begins, “After the revolution, I’ll [insert idea/plan here]”. Seems to me that kind of attitude is a perfect recipe for a lot of talking, and little, if any, actual doing.

I’ve been kinda-sorta following developments in wind and solar energy, but not very diligently; I don’t expect to have a need for that kind of tech anytime soon. A Reuters article from yesterday sure caught my attention, though: Pioneers show Americans how to live “off-grid” claims that prices have dropped enough that both technologies are increasingly feasible for home use. And of course, the increasing costs of energy have upped the appeal. An excerpt from the article:

[Author Nick] Rosen estimates that there are as many as 350,000 U.S. households meet their own energy needs, and growing at 30 percent a year.

"As people are losing their homes, or finding the rent or mortgage too much to pay, they are choosing the off-grid alternative because it is so much cheaper," Rosen said

While installation costs for the solar panels, wind turbines, converters and batteries needed to power up an off-grid home were prohibitively expensive a few years back, improved technology and ramped up production has driven down costs significantly.

Popular solar-powered systems are made by Sharp Corp, Kyocera Corp and silicon Valley-based Nanosolar, among others, and according to the website Low Impact Living (click on www.lowimpactliving.com/), installation costs have fallen by more than 80 percent over 20 years.

"The cost is falling all the time as there is more and more manufacturing plant coming onstream. In fact, there may even be a glut in solar panels next year which would be very good news for the consumers," said Rosen. ....

Power utilities such as Arizona Public Service, the principal subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp, is among utilities in several U.S. states that offer subsidies to consumers planning to meet their own power needs, so as to ease demand for a growing on-grid customer base.

"Not only is it getting cheaper to generate non-grid electricity, but it's getting cheap and comfortable to set up your off-grid home, and there are even bonuses from your local utility company for doing so," Rosen said. ....

The cost of building such a home is little different from that of building any other home, and with a range of energy sipping appliances such as refrigerators, hi-fis and even hairdryers now available, the forced austerity associated with off-grid living is also changing.

"You can have hot showers and a cold beer," said [off-grid developer Lonnie] Gamble. "You have no water bill, no sewer bill, no power bill and you can harvest something fresh from the greenhouse ... why would you ever do anything else?"

Two things stick out from the article—only one of which is in the bit quoted. If one is completely off the grid, why would one be in contact with “your local utility company”? Seems to me the privacy gained from them not coming on to the property, reading meters and the like, would itself be worth going off-grid. Second, “trend analyst” author Rosen is quoted as saying that he doesn’t think as many as half of all American homes will ever be off-grid, which strikes me as an amazingly short-sided attitude, particularly for one in the trend analysis biz. If that stupid OPEC lawsuit legislation continues, and if the greenies keep the USSA’s reserves out of bounds, the resulting price pinch could be enough to tip a lot more people that way. And it is possible that the grid could fail or be taken out for a large part of the country, and in some way that would require routing around that in order to regain some of the niceties of modernity. Doesn’t take much imagination to come up with such scenarios at all.

Anyway, it’s good to see such a major leg in the self-sufficiency puzzle getting more interest.

[Note: This "story" has been slightly modified from its original form, as an essay published in Free-Market.Net's FMNews.]

Yes, I know -- I've cribbed my title from Douglas Adams. But it's appropriate, given the subject of this essay and my continuing struggles to find my voice after the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hiibel case. And, unlike the Harvard professor, I'm admitting it freely, so it shouldn't come back to haunt me. ;-)

I am astonished. What is so tough about understanding “mine” versus “not mine”—the fundamental element of property rights? But a few conversations of late have me shaking my head in perplexity, as I find myself hearing strange things coming from individuals who claim to be pro-freedom and pro-property rights.

It’s come to this at last. Governments around the world are calling for national ID (NID) cards, or for increasing the security measures on existing cards. The justification, of course, is the current war on terrorism. Ask “Cui bono?” (Who benefits?) of 9-11 and the answer looks increasingly like “Authoritarians everywhere.”

And I do mean everywhere. NID hype is playing loudest in the United States and Britain, yet other countries are working hard to join the goose-stepping. For example, Malaysia has recently instituted compulsory NIDs for citizens age twelve and up. The cards have computer chips which store copies of the subject’s fingerprints. Other places are considering similar moves.

NIDs—especially “smart cards” that can carry a great deal of encoded information—are viewed as the solution to many “problems” the Thought Police have. They can be used to: verify identity via biometric information; reveal banking, health, voting, and similar records; and track travel and purchases, for starters. Because of the presence of biometric information—supposedly unique body information, such as a fingerprint or retinal scan—these cards are touted as strong security against would-be terrorists. According to various polls, Americans are increasingly willing to accept a NID, primarily because they think that it will increase security.

Sovereign individuals ought to consider this NID movement as the most dangerous threat to liberty on the planet. (The enumeration-and-tracking fervor isn’t limited to the national scale; UN officials have heard a proposal for a global unique identifying number for each person in the world.) The more people can be tracked, monitored, and checked, the easier they are to control. The easier they are to control, the less free they are.

Particularly insidious are the so-called “voluntary IDs”. While originally used for apparently benign purposes (such as getting social welfare benefits in some Scandinavian countries), it’s usually an easy matter to expand their use, and the information required of the subjects. It’s also easy to take something that’s widely accepted on a voluntary basis and quietly make it mandatory. A clear case of function creep is the American Social Security Number; old cards stated that the number “is not to be used for identification purposes”. (The law says these ID uses are illegal too, not that the Department of Justice cares.) Anyone who’s tried to get a driver's license, passport, or even see a doctor without giving the number knows how antiquated that notion is. Many businesses won’t do business with someone who doesn’t give a number.

The databases collected by various interests are often sold, in whole or part (in America, this can include birth, marital, and driving records, banking information, medical records, credit card usage, and buying habits at stores with “discount” cards, such as supermarkets). If all these databases—plus whatever the Thought Police require on the card—use the NID number, it won’t take much to build a formidable dossier on anyone, without that individual’s knowledge or consent. The potential for misuse by petty bureaucrats becomes even greater, particularly against those who are viewed as unfriendly to their interests. And what might law enforcement officers with a license to destroy lives in pursuit of “state security” do? In the US, true patriots—and just about anyone who questions the war and any action relating to it—have already been given notice that they’re potential Thought Police targets.

Given the dire consequences, both of submitting to a NID and of refusing to be numbered, the choice to be made isn’t an easy one. Nor should it be made lightly. Let’s consider the pros and cons of each choice. First, the negatives:
1. If you submit to the NID, you are in the system, in the database, and along for the ride wherever the Thought Police and busybody bureaucrats decide to take you. Your every non-cash purchase may be trackable, along with all bank transactions. Your travel will certainly be monitored, and you could be required to register with the local Gestapo every time you move (it happens in many countries, and has been suggested in the US). Your medical records could be opened up to potential employers as well as LEOs who check your papers. Anyone who sees your number could access all kinds of sensitive information about you, without your knowledge or consent. It’s possible that inept busybodies—or malicious Thought Police types—could wipe you out of existence, or otherwise wreak havoc with your records, and therefore your life. If certain demographic information were included, you could be discriminated against. Much of your life will be open to The State, and your business will be conducted at their pleasure, not your need or desire. Your pro-freedom friends may call you a sellout, and you yourself may begin to question your adherence to your principles.

2. If you forego the NID, you’ll be outside the system, and depending on how diligently the state tracks and punishes those outside, your life may be better or worse than those inside. Already, getting meaningful employment without papers is all but impossible in many places, including the US. You may be severely limited in any aspect of living a normal life: no dealing with checks, credit cards, or anything but cash; no home mortgage or rental agreement; no driving; no flying; no medical care; and no respect from the mainstream community for holding fast to your principles. Indeed, if function creep proceeds so that a NID is required for every activity or transaction, you’ll not be able to set foot inside “civilization”. That may seem like a benefit, rather than a negative; but being outside isn’t always easy. While you are outside, many of your choices and opportunities are constrained by the very fact that you are free. You may become depressed if you choose to focus on this aspect of the situation. You may become a pariah, or worse, in your family or community. You yourself may begin to question the wisdom of your choice, as its challenges wear you down. You can be targeted by the state for “crimes” real or imagined. You can be separated from those you love. You can be killed.

Now, the positives:
1. Being in the system makes you much more able to transact business. This includes pursuing other pro-freedom strategies. Having papers gives you some degree of protection, so you can conduct whatever smash-the-state business you wish with fewer concerns about being an immediate target. Using the system against itself is a monkey-wrenching choice available mainly to those within the system; it’s an activity that can bring success and amusement. While in the system, you can help those who remain outside in a variety of ways. You can help them to do things they otherwise couldn’t. You can employ them, barter with them, support the grey market they rely on, or be a stop on the freedom underground railroad. With a little creativity and effort, many more possibilities offer themselves. Some offer little risk, others more. They all help you be true to your principles while appearing to go along.

2. Not being a cog in the immense state machine means that you do not support it in any way. The immense freedom that one feels as a result is amazing. The feeling of living in accordance with one’s principles is liberating, exhilarating. Knowing that you’re following the path that’s best for human nature can make many of the challenges of being outside worth bearing. You may become an inspiration to others, and may encourage others to follow the refusenik course. This will further weaken the state, helping us all to be freer of its poisonous influences. (If word of your non-cooperation gets around, you certainly will be an inspiration to others. It’s a difficult choice to make, but one very worthwhile if you’re committed to it and enter it realistically.)

I know from personal experience how lonely such a crusade can seem, particularly if you live in a statist haven and it seems you’re the only one who values freedom. I also know from personal experience that you aren’t alone. Part of the reason the thugs can institute wholesale destruction of liberty is the fear they instill. That fear is based on their willingness to back up their threats with force. Ruby Ridge, Michael New, Shirley Allen, Peter McWilliams, Elián González, Waco ... these are just a few examples.

Gandhi: the original refusenik?

I used the term refusenik earlier. If you aren’t familiar with it, refuseniks were the Soviet Jews who wanted to leave the USSR, but who were repeatedly denied permission. Because they wanted to leave, they were hassled in numerous ways, often for years. But they refused to go along with the Soviet system, enduring its worst until they died or were permitted to leave. They refused to cooperate.

If you think about it, Gandhi was perhaps the first well known refusenik. In both South Africa and India, he refused to cooperate with the tyranny of each state over its own citizens. His methods involved fighting back, to be sure, but in ways that were always calculated to show his opponent at its worst. (The movie Gandhi, starring Ben Kingsley, is an excellent introduction to the subject.) He did not initiate force, nor did he ever advocate the initiation of force by Indians. His path was that of non-cooperation.

In South Africa, where all “colored” individuals were required to carry identity papers and live as second-class citizens, Gandhi refused to carry the paper, and organized many Indians living there to join in. In India, he spoke out against British imperialism and through non-cooperation, brought about the end of British rule. One example from the movie is particularly compelling: salt manufacture and sale were heavily regulated, such that the British had a lock on both. In defiance of the law, Gandhi went to the sea and made salt. The British chose to ignore this action, but later decided to take action when hundreds of Indians followed Gandhi’s lead. In one scene, authorities loyal to Britain and Gandhi’s followers face off outside a salt-making company. The authorities beat off the Indians as they approach its gates. The Indians peacefully accept the blows, and keep coming. Some of the wounded rejoin the march, only to be beaten again. That demonstration encapsulated the essence of tyranny, and is widely regarded as the beginning of the end of British rule in India.

A difference in protests between the situations in India and the Soviet Union is that of organization. Gandhi became a symbol“and a lightning rod”for his cause. Millions of Indians came to join Gandhi’s cause, making their strength obvious. There is no comparable figure for the Soviet Jews who became the refuseniks. They acted individually, or in small groups. However, the results are essentially the same. With the world watching peaceable individuals who just wanted to be left alone to live their lives, and the tyrannical responses of the governments to them, tyranny backed off.

Making your choice

Let’s face it: the stakes are high. No matter how benign the stated purpose, no matter how trivial the information required by your local flavor of Thought Police, any NID is a privacy and security threat. With the ease of creating and altering computer records today, it would be a relatively simple matter for function creep to make that innocuous number the bane of your existence. It’s a shorter slide than any of us would like to consider from a NID to a Soviet or Nazi-style society. Your current situation may be tolerable, but how certain can you be that it will last? Do you really want the opposition forces who’ve just come to power to know you voted against them? Do you want your local sheriff to know how many and what kinds of guns you own? Do you think it’s anyone’s business what kinds of videos you like to watch?

Not cooperating will be uncomfortable, inconvenient, and ultimately, dangerous for many. But remember: sixty years ago, European Jews went along with Nazi requirements for papers. Then they went along with the yellow Star of David armbands. Then they went along with being herded into Jewish sectors. Then they went to the concentration camps—and into the gas chambers.

Life is full of difficult choices, and this time is no exception. But we do have a choice. In or out. Private protestor or active refusenik. I encourage everyone who values freedom to find some way of not cooperating with whatever identification or numbering scheme your local Thought Police have, or are working on. As Gandhi, the Soviet refuseniks, and others have showed, non-cooperation works.