Real Freedom

An Anarchist wants the freedom to do as they please whenever they please however they please. This freedom may run contrary to any other person’s freedom to act and do as they please if it interferes with the individual Anarchist’s desires. Most of us would agree that this is a very self-centered freedom that wouldn’t work for everyone. As most will agree, there is really no element of equality or fair treatment for all in the world of Anarchism.

It is also evident that living under a dictator or even a group of people with absolute control over the populace you may have some equality or fair treatment but seldom as many rights and privileges that other forms of government may give. Yet don’t some people view God as the Supreme Dictator over the entire universe? Can’t He enforce His Law and force us humans to obey? Since this should be the right of any Creator why expect anything different? But then if He can use force to correct wrongs why does He delay wiping out all the evil from the world? Wouldn’t all Christians who believe in such a God praise Him if that was what He did?...

But the only time that God ever came close to wiping all evil from all the earth was when He flooded the earth with the great flood in Noah’s time. Can’t you just hear the good angels in heaven whooping and hollering that the evil doers had gotten their just rewards? Surely Noah, and his family were followers of God and would continue to teach their offspring how great the Lord God was in defeating evil. But we know that this drastic measure was just a short term solution because before too long God had to intercede at the tower of Babel. The reason for creating a great flood may have been for other reasons. But we digress. We want to examine freedom from God’s perspective.

Maybe we should examine the best forms of freedom that mankind has found to date.

If everyone was autonomous and respected everyone else’s freedom, this could be an ideal society. Even so, who would provide the overall guidance to everyone? Or would there be some internal conscience that they all shared? How would they reach consciences on what was good for the whole of their society? Would they have a periodic get together and take a vote? That leads us to a democracy form of government.

A pure democracy is often touted as the freest type of government that we can dream of. Actually it would be free only to the extent what the majority desires for the rest of society. Suppose a minority group had a valid concern but the majority voted it down? How would they achieve the freedom they desire unless the majority approved? Maybe an example would help to illustrate the point. Suppose a small religious group believed that sacrificing a chicken and then sprinkling the blood of the chicken over the congregation was the right way to worship God. Within the majority group you would have animal activists who would say the sacrifice was cruel and unusual pain to the chicken. You would have Christian believers that would be repelled by such practices. You would have health officials concerned over the possible contamination that may occur from the sprinkled blood. Then the general populace would be just plain repelled by the whole scene. Please note that the majority are not partaking of the ritual and probably would not even be allowed to view the ceremony since they are unbelievers. So without specific knowledge of the practice, they are not even affected. Is it proper that the majority even have a say-so in the religious preferences of a minority group? If everyone was self-governed and considerate of others would such problems ever arise? Could these differences possibly be due to a chaotic element that has infiltrated our population? Would the decision of such a dilemma be better made by a select group of representatives whose entire life could be devoted to considering the overall good of all? That leads to a representative democracy.

This form of government is presently being used in the United States of America and is called a democratic republic. Those that live under this system are quite familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of this form of government. Is it always equal and fair treatment for all? Of course not. We consider that many humans aspire to be autonomous and considerate of others. We do realize that some people are not capable of such high aspirations whether mentally or physically. We also acknowledge that a certain minority would prefer to perform actions we would consider inappropriate for a equal and fair treatment for all. In fact we call them crimes. Many common ones are murder, thief, and other forms of violence. Coercion and the overuse of power are also not being considerate of others. So our representatives devise laws and enforcers to maintain order in our chaotic world. Is this perfect? No! Are our representatives perfect? No, they are humans subject to making errors. Sometimes they use government funds to ensure they are reelected. Some believe they should forcibly take from the rich and powerful and give to those who are poor. They would like to force a more ‘equitable and fair system’ similar to Socialism.

Socialism is based upon the idea that everyone is equal in rights regardless of personal abilities or motivations. Thus in order to ensure that everyone is treated equally, there must be either a representative group or a selected group (by the socialist elite) that must not only maintain order but they would take over all sources of revenue or value. They create the laws and have enforcers to maintain the laws they make. But if everyone was being treated equally, why would they need to do this? Why would anyone not like such a government? Equal work for equal pay would be ideal. But what incentive would anyone have to progress beyond mediocre? Personal achievement? Again if we had an ideal set of people who were autonomous and cared for others we wouldn’t need to worry about enforcers. In fact, we wouldn’t need a committee of representatives because everyone would agree what was best for each other and sources of revenue would be shared magnanimously. The closest example we have of this form of government is communism. In theory it appears fine until we consider the criminal element and the desire for some people to excel above others. Could we call it greed? If everyone had enough and we were all equal why try to get more? What if we had a divinely appointed leader such as a monarch or king?

Do I need to cover the weaknesses and strengths of a monarch? History shows that regardless of how good or bad a king was, the ultimate end was due to a stronger force or lack of support of the people. Yet we still have a few governments that still have some form of such leadership. Some are called a democratic monarchy and some other monarchies have basically turned their control to the people in some form or other. To discuss each and every one would miss the point. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. If the majority of the people either support it or are so much in fear of it that they do nothing, these forms will continue.

So what is the common problem with all the forms of government we humans have? First of all we do not have an autonomous people who would rather help others than to demand their own rights or privileges. Secondly every form of government requires force to maintain its position of control over people. Thirdly many people are so self-centered about their ‘rights’ and position that they prefer force to be used upon others. There is no commonality among all the people.

What could we do to change things? Do we continue to define and redefine ‘rights’ and privileges in order to make everyone ‘equal’ or have ‘fair treatment’? Then we make laws and hire enforcers to do what? To ‘force’ people to obey our rules and regulations. Is it successful? To some extent until we have civil rights dissenters redefining what rights the disobedient should have ‘just to be fair’. Unfortunately there aren’t ‘equal rights’ for the victims of crime. No manner how many laws are made or how many enforcers there are, as long as the individuals of our society cannot come to a common understanding of the way life should be lead and have the common desire to help each other, there will never be a lasting peace. What if we destroy all the disobedient regardless of how minor the infraction was? I am sorry but in my imagination of all the current laws that are on the books there would be only a few people left. They would be so much in fear that you’d have a society where everyone is looking over their shoulders and accusing each other of various infractions until only one still lives.

We’ve talked a little about dictatorships but let’s cover them in a little more detail. Essentially if we found a benevolent dictator it would be the most efficient form of government we could have. Think about it. If the dictator wanted only the best for his/her people, he/she would make a common standard for all citizens. Now give that dictator absolute controls over an autonomous people who make it a point in their lives to help each other. Would every one be equal? Would every one have fair treatment? Simplistic isn’t it? The answer is yes to both questions. Now if the dictator declares his/her people a kingdom then that means he/she has declared themselves as a king or queen. What difference does it make if the people love him or her? So how do we handle possible differences when everyone loves their king or queen? They bring it to their beloved leader who determines what should be done. The people would resolve their differences based upon the wise leadership of their king or queen. This seems to be almost perfect doesn’t it? But what happens if the differences refuse to be resolved? This is where an earthly example would begin to fail.

Take this last example and put a benevolent God in place of the king or queen. Make Him the Creator of all humans with Him being the source of life to each of them. Have a divine law of cause and effect such that all life forms derive their source of life from God Himself. Now if the people choose to not accept the King’s universal decision for the common good then they choose to separate themselves from the Source of Life. Would God choose to just give them over to die from their own choice without them realizing the consequences? Of course not. Could these delinquent citizens cause harm to each other? Absolutely! Should God intervene in each case of evil versus good? How else do children learn right from wrong? Sometimes they need to be influenced by their siblings or peers before they learn for themselves what is the best way. God wants us to also learn how bad our choice is to leave Him and so we learn from each other. Does that mean that He will end it after the first clash we have with evil if ‘we’ have learned our lesson? No, He wants as many as there exist to learn what type of God He really is before He calls for a final end and allows us to suffer the consequences of our choices. Those that choose to separate themselves from God will die because life without God is not possible. Once this rebellion is over and all have made their choices, God cleans up the results of their choices and His government will return to normal where everyone chooses to live with God out of love and chooses to resolve all differences amicably. Not because God orders it but because it is the only right thing that we can do and because we love our God and He loves us.

- Gene Penninger