On Freedom

Freedom is too politically incorrect. And when our gloomy collective life is shackled that can be unbundled, conversely, by an enlightened collective life, the strata where we can find freedom lies only in some empathic individual pursuits. There can be no denying that this seeking and searching would be in a maze, more confusing with the cacophony of our bewildered generation on the left and the right, nevertheless, it will be worth all the pain for we lack it utterly. It is unfortunate, what it is quite desirable has been rendered to have a negative connotation. For some people, in popular vocabulary, it is the sense of living in a free country in which we are not in the real sense of the term; and for some other people, it is equated with fighting for self-determination, which is again in a crisis.

This is a tragedy of living in a beleaguered state. We live in a dark civilization. On the outside, there is a struggle for power between the so-called state and non-state actors. There is also a question of people’s action and mentality in this kind of Catch-22 situation. Overall we have an environment that curtails all kinds of freedom, and if not for the rightful fight for survival — which many of us see it as a kind of expressing our freedom — we have seemingly stopped thinking, imagining, that real freedom is much more than living in farcically and politically free country or just living for survival, both of which we are so accustomed to. Freedom is expressing the ways how all of us can live happily.

When the nuances of freedom are deliberated along with the political things, we can easily pass the buck to the government. Here, there are two issues which we cannot do without. Firstly, we have reached this critical juncture, as history witnessed, after a very long winding monarchy that lasted from eternal past to the 1940s; and a true democracy for namesake that lasted for a blink of an eye in the late 40s again; and then a fake democracy, which is more of a curse than a blessing, has been in operation to fool all the people all the time. Secondly, the people are immature to elect an able government, so why not drop the proposition to form government by popular consent until we come of age. There will be no headache for all we have to do is learn how we can enjoy freedom as well as put a cap on it. And we can learn about our responsibilities than just passing them off to some dimwits.

The governments have failed and are so pathetic though the irony is that, in the name of democracy and modernity, they call the shots for a free society. The trope is best illustrated by Alexander Berkman when he said: “When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You ‘consent’ alright, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.” This is also quite an inference we can draw from the robbers in our neighbourhood, who have been holding the highways for ransom in the name of fighting for emancipation. If there is to be no government, the issue of how we will march forward can be put open to question for now, because what is more urgent is how we can express what the individuals want in clear terms. In any way, the whole matter needs a new paradigm, and if at all has it been going fine and have we been contented, there would have been no need for questioning the authority. As that is not the case hence the lofty personal challenge against the mighty state. No regrets, though, this is only one way of articulating our freedom when we have been deprived when it comes to a proper legal sense (which in any case, in times to come will be this legality purposeless when we are free.)

Freedom should be able to incorporate the individual as a free and independent human being who has the capability of freedom of speech and expression as natural rights and who can create new shapes and forms 

These are all political speedballs. There are also several romanticised notions of freedom, comparing it with white ibises, the doves and the bird in a cage and what not. Freedom — however as much as we are desired to be free of any bondage — it should be able to incorporate the individual as a free and independent human being who has the capability of freedom of speech and expression as natural rights and who can create new shapes and forms. We are made of only mental states and hence, what is to be free depends a lot on our mental states. This original and individual freedom, which can be squeezed out of an escaped mental state, is more genuine than any other condition of being free. In fact, it becomes more real when it is deprived of its political connotations, for as noted above, it is too defective when there are issues of nationality and authority and other political craps.

Concluded.

Read the related articles

STATES OF FAILURE
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2623
Malcolm Bull
The question of agency remains the central lacuna in the construction of systemic alternatives. Malcolm Bull proposes a reconceptualization of the relation between collective will and invisible hand. Can bearings drawn from Hegel, Gramsci, Sartre indicate the route to a new global order through dissolution of the Western imperial state?

THE STRUCTURE OF ANARCHIST SOCIETY
http://anarchism.net/anarchism_structureofanarchistsociety.htm
Anarchism.Net
A society under anarchism is voluntary and free. Despite this fundamental characteristic of post-state society many anarchist thinkers forward their idea of how the free society is constituted; from anarcho-communist Bakunin’s "union of unions of unions" to anarcho-capitalist Rothbard’s free market society. Such structured views of anarchy serve as inspirations for how to organize one’s neighborhood, but cannot be taken as mandatory blueprints to be enforced under anarchy.

CHAINS TO THE FUTURE
http://www.humansfuture.org/transhumanism_chains_to_future.php.htm
Future Human Evolution
Freedom is not romantic; freedom is about the seizure of power from one group to another, an attempt disguised under a cloak of legitimacy and guilt inducement. Every fight for freedom is as such; even those who declare themselves to be defenders of free speech will, without hesitation, attempt to constrain the free speech of their opposition. It is human nature to do so; it is not necessarily good or bad, only that we should not delude ourselves into deifying the concept of freedom.