ZeroGov: Understanding The Difference Between Classic Liberty & Modern Freedom


Why do we fight?

And towards what end?

23 responses to “ZeroGov: Understanding The Difference Between Classic Liberty & Modern Freedom

  1. Some seem to fight because they want to reset the avalanche.

  2. What you had: A confederation madam … if you can keep it.

    Works the same.

    We wouldn’t have kept our confederation anymore than we kept our republic.

  3. One thing we must keep in mind when talking about the 3%-5% group of patriots is that after the revolution was won, most, if not all, of the Tories/Loyalists left the US for Canada and other places. Therefore, there was no real organized resistance or massive dissent when the Republic was new. This will not happen after the kickoff for Civil War II. This fight will be akin to what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. I do not think our Republic will ever come back to what we dream it could have been, under a Jeffersonian model or something akin to the Articles of Confederation. We will be torn apart.

  4. If you had complete freedom/liberty, what would you do with it?

    Where I’m going with that question is in the sense that there’s still a lot of First Amendment freedom, yet people just leave their own minds and spirits chained.

  5. Complete liberty is not a difficult prospect, though it is unknown now. I will re-quote myself, “I am a classic liberal/liberty minded individual. I will do what I want and will not initiate aggression against you, do not do so to me.”

    I for one will not go out and start smoking heroin and doing hookers…I will continue to live as I do now- with one minor exception, I wont have the state threatening me regarding MY hard won money, and I wont have people using the state to ensure I pay my “fair share” or worrying about “breaking” a minor needless state “law.”

    I will do what I want and will not initiate aggression against you, do not do so to me.

    Btw, thank you for re-posting this article! 😉

  6. “Reset the avalanche.”

    Yeah, I think that’s a fair statement.

    The snow that can’t be put back in place on the mountain will have to be melted or moved to another location.

    It’ll be a tough job. But somebody has to do it.

    • Somebody has to do it? Why?

      Because liberties once again need to be decimated by an inexorable, unstoppable phenomenon that always increases its own size and destructive capacity in an exponential manner, by continually taking from its environment?

      • To preserve Liberty. For love of country. Because of a sense of duty. Because of loyalty. Because evil exists in this world and it must be confronted. Because this truly is the best system of government the world has ever seen. Because our progeny deserve to live free. Because our documents demand it. Because of tradition. Because so many have already suffered and died for us. Because a free market economy has proven to be the best.

        And the number one reason why someone has to do it…

        Because there’s a man with a gun over there, telling me I got to beware.

        I ain’t gonna live with that. Ergo, he’s gotta go.

  7. As much as I would like to have a world with no state or let me rephrase that, no NEED for a state. We dont have it. We are not going to get it in our lifetime. We could fight CW2 and remove the current government all the way down to the lowest city councilman. Within weeks the establishment of local governments would be back underway. Many will exist because someone with more guns will put them into place. It is human nature to herd up. So Brass while it may seem that some are working to only reset the avalanche that is not the case. The goal is a government that takes into account the natural human tendency to exert will on others and is restrained from doing so. I submit that do that by fixing the rules in place. The basic amendments to the BOR. We remove the ability of the follow on government to create new laws . If there are no rules in place to cover a situation then you dont need a rule figure it out yourselves. A basic framework of how to manage the day to day functionality of the government and that is all. That may not be clearly laid out but i think if folks just take away the idea that if the government has no mandate to make new rules it will not have the power to do so.

    • Grenadier,

      I think I’m mostly in agreement with you. People aren’t ready for no State. They’re not ready to assume the personal responsibility it takes.
      But it doesn’t follow that people should support a “small State,” (whatever that is). A bunch of average men getting together and concentrating unnatural amounts of coercive power in the hands of a few average men is insane. It is always ultimately destructive of the end it was intended to secure.

      • Its not so much the people withIN the US that I worry about. I know we are not really ready but we could get there. What I worry more about is what happens if we decide to get all nice and “ungoverened”. What happens when the Chinese look upon us and push the idea to those who are not ready for self determination that the Chi-coms could be the answer to their prayers? Suddenly the little voluntary enclaves and resiliant communities are surrounded by a commie backed FSA.
        It begs the question can we build a society that has both strict government control for those who want that and complete freedom for those who do not? Will we see City-States that band together for mutual defense from other nations but are not in alignment at other times? Much like the old Greek city states?

  8. I have one innocent question:
    Please show me one historical example of a government which either never grew over time or found a one true way to limit its growth over time. Just one.

    In anticipation of the inevitable response to this question with a question, here is my answer:

  9. Bill,

    I am anticipating the “When has there ever been an anarchist/voluntaryist society?” My response: all society, insofar as it is comprised of mutually-beneficial, free-will interactions, is voluntaryist.” It is everywhere. Voluntaryism is more than the absence of a State. It is the presence of a respect for individual human dignity and its corollaries, liberty and property, on the part of the vast majority of individuals.

    • Brass you are right but you assume that everyone can get to this mental status. I dont see that happening. Just like government always grows and attempts to usurp our liberty so to do we always see some measure of humanity that attempts to exert their will over others. They are two aspects of the same characteristic. It will always be. So how do we build a voluntary society that can defend its liberty and volunteerism from those who would seek to take it? There will always be those who will not respect the human rights of others. A voluntaryist state free world is a libertarian or anarchist utopia. It exists on paper and in theory but the law of entrophy will seek to degrade it always in practice. I would love to live there but i just dont see it as possible. With that said our goal should be to get as close to that as we possibly can and do that maintaining a means to defend it from foreign power.

      • Grenadier,

        I’ve never said it would happen. But it is morally wrong not to strive toward it, and it is reprehensible to support any systematization, in word or deed, of the initiation of aggression, however reduced in degree it may be.

  10. Why we fight and to what end is fairly straight forward if one considers a few sentences from our ‘unanimous Declaration’, aka, “The Declaration of Independence”….

    “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

  11. outlawpatriot said this: Because this truly is the best system of government the world has ever seen. Because a free market economy has proven to be the best.
    Those 2 sentences are not compatible.

  12. Don: Sure, the sentences are compatible.

    Republican is the form of government and Free Market is the economy – separate.

    Indeed, I don’t think one could exist without the other. But we don’t have either one, today.


  13. Brass,
    i didnt say anything about a small state or initiation of force. I am not sure where thats coming from. What I am telling you is that it matters not what you or I think people SHOULD do (live free with no authority) people will naturally form a heirarchy. It is human nature. All we can do is make sure that heirarchy has as small an impact on our liberty as possible. Even if we volunteer to be part of a group with loose affiliation there will be others who submit to strong arm rule and their groups will attempt to exert authority over us via force. No matter how much you want that to not be the case it will happen! I am not telling you that we should do unto others before they do unto us. All i am telling you is that you have to be ready for others to believe that.
    It is in our best interest to be apart of a mutual defense group. That group will naturally develope rules you volunteer to abide by those rules or you go it alone. That idea is not inconsistant with a free and volunteer society.

    • Grenadier,

      I may have read in too much when I said, “We have to get as close to it as possible,” given that the context is the Republic, and particularly the less virulent form extant in the late 1700s.

  14. If you want to live in large groups, bigger than 150 or so, you’ll need government to make it work. Human nature, sometimes called Dunbar’s Number makes larger groups biologically nigh impossible.

    If you want to live in really large groups like our current cities are you’ll need a bigger state and probably a welfare state too to keep the disenfranchised paid for. Remember the cardinal rule. moral behavior is expensive to maintain in terms of parental inputs, social controls and economic leverage. You can cheap on it or avoid paying for it. When we did just this, it created the prison state and the current mess,

    The theoretical best option you have otherwise is some kind of alliance of Libertarian City States with a mutual defense pacts and a much smaller population farther spread out. Note this will require seriously new tech or some kind of coercion as no sound person wants to be on the low end of a Libertarian society that will probably become company store 2.0

    Also With 350 million people in the US and nearby plus billions more clamoring for good land, this is pretty impossible to get unless there is a die back which wrecks freedom since you need tyranny to survive other tyrants. Las

    Otherwise the best you can do is try and check the current system.

    • If this is all true, then how could the relative freedom in early colonial America and the Westward expansion have occurred?

      Note this will require seriously new tech or some kind of coercion as no sound person wants to be on the low end of a Libertarian society that will probably become company store 2.0

      In a free world, there will be no disenfranchised because there will be no franchised. In a free world, there will be a broad middle class corresponding to the broad central peak in average human ability. Capital and wealth only become tightly centralized after political power does — in plain words the elites become good at stealing and lying about it.

      moral behavior is expensive to maintain in terms of parental inputs, social controls and economic leverage

      At this moment. There will always be thieves, and the challenge of producing a free world is to invent a method whereby harmed individuals in the broad middle class are able to (semi-secretly?) kill those thieves without practical repercussions.