Natural Liberty VS. Civil Liberty: Who Has The Right To Decide For You?

"In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something."

― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract

How many times have you heard a person argue against something they've claimed to support? Our lives are filled with people who have knee jerk reactions to whatever polarizing issue is in the forefront of our collective minds. Why do we suspend our abstract principles in the face of reality so easily? 

This contradiction is woven into our Constitutional Republic. The ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are still fought for by those on the outside of what Dr. Cornel West termed: the "normative gaze". There's a Dimension of personal belief that spills into the public sector; this belief has the ability to circumvent the rights of others. Living an ideal life is an abstract fiction sold to us by propagandist in large marketing firms. What is normal, and why should we subscribe to someone else's definition of it?

The abstract fiction of freedom sells better than a real world example of injustice. Look at the current situation gays and lesbians find themselves in. The right to a marriage recognized by the sovereign is a right many in this free country have fought (and some died) for, yet the majority of states have laws banning these citizens from engaging in the practice, and furthermore they fight against those who fail to see the injustice in the policy.

The odds of convincing someone opposed to same sex marriage that it should be legal are slim to none, so what I'll try to do is clearly define liberty. I respect the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. We have a right to believe or not believe anything we want, but that isn't at issue. 

Natural liberty is the belief that you can pursue any endeavor your heart desires. There aren't any moral or ethical barriers stopping you from living anyway you choose. Civil liberty is contingent on the idea that you follow the laws established by the sovereign in order to receive the protection the sovereign offers. 

My questions are few: how does the sovereign benefit by not recognizing the consenting relationships established by citizens of the sovereign?  how does limiting their freedom promote liberty in greater society? If the sovereign- in the form of the U.S. government hasn't established any laws prohibiting consenting adults from loving each other, why enlist laws that prohibit the natural evolution of that love?

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” 

― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry not only harms them as individuals, it harms the idea of liberty capital L. Our country was founded by brave men who fought the tyranny of the royal crown. Men who in the name of liberty committed genocide on native Indians and enslaved Africans. Why wait for history to point out the flaws of our current thinking. I'm not saying anyone should change the way they live. I want people to see how clear the line is drawn. Either you believe in liberty or you don't. If you don't believe in same sex marriage: DON'T MARRY SOMEONE WHO SHARES YOUR SEX ORGANS.

My fellow Christians love quoting scripture when topics contrary to biblical teachings come up. I offer them Matthew 5:29. The only one eyed Christians I know lost their eye due to accidents or disease. I've never met a Christian who plucked their eye out because it offended them. Paul said slaves obey your master, yet we got around that. Paul also said women shouldn't preach, but we worked that one through as well. My religious beliefs have the ability to influence my decisions, not the decisions of others.

If we want to further the cause of liberty as described in our countries founding documents we need to include all the members of our society. This is a question of following the rule of law. If freedom is reserved for some and not all at least post a list of desired peoples who shall be protected by the sovereign. 

Similarities With Distinctions: Why Paula Deen Is Different Than The 2 Live Crew

Paula Deen VS. 2 Live Crew
              

Imagine, it's 1987 and you've got tickets to see the 2 Live Crew. The amphitheater is packed. The opening act is a D.J. who is seamlessly blending records into a musical narrative about the plight of living in the hood. After his set there's a pause; the stage goes dark, and the 2 Live Crew comes out dressed in three piece suits. The crowd looks on trying to figure out what's happening. Luther Campbell approaches the microphone and starts reading bible scriptures. 

That hypothetical situation is as far from a 2 Live Crew concert as you can get. This is where Paula Deen comes in. The backlash she's faced over her use of racial slurs is deserved, but for a different reason: she didn't market herself as a gangsta rapper or a bigot. She gave us something we didn't come for.

I was going to leave this alone, but the illogical and immature Facebook posts and comments of her supporters has prompted me to point out the obvious: the companies who cut ties with her did so because it was better for business. When a company does a deal with Lil Wayne, they know he's going to use racial slurs, misogynistic language, and glamourize street life. In essences they're getting what they paid for. There isn't one company who did business with Paula Deen who expected her to start dropping N-bombs (even if said N-bomb was 30 years ago)

As a black man, I'm not upset Paula Deen uses that word. I'm offended by institutional racism. There isn't a double standard about race. If you're a serious person and you use a racial slur it will hurt you. The idea that we would hold a comedian or a rapper to the same standard that we would hold Paula Deen too is ridiculous. So, by that logic, pointing out the fact that some of the companies who dropped her also sell Rap music is faulty. 

Companies get into bed with the Rap music industry because there's a segment of middle class suburbia that can't get enough of that stuff. That's called free market capitalism. The irony is that the same people who profess to support capitalism reject its principles once they are faced with them. Paula is on ice, (for now) but she'll be back. The market has spoken.

Historical Perspectives On The Loss Of Privacy And The Breach Of The Social Contract

With distrust in the government steadily rising, this seems like the perfect time to tie the past and the present together. The phone tapping program conducted by the  National Security Agency has started a new round of conversations about privacy. What the NSA is doing is an evolutionary extension of the wire tapping program the Patriot Act gave us. Whether we call it wire tapping and appoint a court to oversee it, or run some clandestine operation with an official acronym, the fact is: it's the government is spying on you.

I'm amazed at how shocked people are over the revelation of what should have been a known truth. The government has a history of infringing on the rights of citizens. We entered into a social contract as a civilized society. The chaos of  living in an immoral world where Psychological Egoist took what they wanted prompted Rational and Altruistic Egoist to react. We gave a sovereign the power to promote the general welfare and to enforce the laws; that trust is sacred, but what happens when the breach of the social contract is by the sovereign?

Thomas Hobbes laid the philosophical groundwork for this kind of society in his treatise Leviathan. In an ideal society our sovereign works to protect us, our interests, and our freedoms. When person A attacks person B the sovereign administers justice. We relinquish our power to enter into this protected agreement. What's happened over time is that the sovereign has sought to gain more power than we freely gave it.

I want to focus on the abuses of governmental power as it relates to us (private citizen). We've been conditioned to give up privacy for security. What the NSA is doing now is bad, but small potatoes when compared to the Counter Intelligence Program.

The Counter Intelligence Program was started in 1956 with the goal of "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order." What started out as a program designed to keep tabs on the Communist morphed into a full blown assault on every uprising during the 1960's. When the psychological warfare tactics and IRS audits weren't enough, the FBI would spy on, imprison, and even assassinate troublesome "Americans".

All of this sounds far fetched to young people who grew up with the fairy tale image of our country. "Cointelpro" was real. During the 15 years it was in operation they ran covert operations against every major movement that challenged the establishments control- even against Puerto Ricans trying to gain independence. What started with the Communist Party USA spread to the American Indian Movement (AIM), the civil rights movement, and groups protesting the Vietnam war.

The FBI, under direct orders from J. Edgar Hoover, began targeting many prominent members of the civil rights movement. Basically, every American Indian, Mexican, and Negro you learned about in school from that era was under surveillance, selected for intimidation, and in the case of Fred Hampton assassinated. The Nation of Islam, The NAACP, SNCC, AIM, The Communist Party USA, and the Black Panthers were all infiltrated.

When Americans get scared we cede more of our freedom to those who are sworn to protect us. We turn a blind eye to injustice right in front of us. America will declare war on anyone who resembles the enemies of the war we are currently fighting. There are over 80 innocent people trapped at Guantanamo Bay. Men who are guilty of nothing else but having a name similar to someone else's. This is no different than the internment of the Japanese during WWII. We've been told that these men are a threat to the security of our country, so we've kept them surrounded by the guilty ones for over a decade.

The hardest part of claiming morally superior ground is having to walk on it. We label China and other Communist countries as"rouge" or "oppressive" regimes, yet we employ the same types of espionage tactics they use against our own citizens. We get in an uproar when innocent Americans are held in other countries, yet ignore the war crimes we commit. Imagine the national outrage if Russia flew drone missions in Alaska to take out targets they felt were hostile to their security. These are things we do everyday.

I know people are upset about the government having access to their phones, but we've lived in a police state for a long time. No one freely gives up power. I know it's trendy to blame Obama, but he's just a continuation of the policy in place. I wish he would've closed Guantanamo Bay, I wish he would quit signature drone strikes that kill innocent people. I hope these things happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

When you love someone you hate to see them do things contrary to their best interest. It's the same for your country. Liberty demands honest critique of policies and practices.

I'm going to close with an excerpt from an official Cointelpro FBI document:

 GOALS

~~~~~

For maximum effectiveness of the Counterintelligence Program, and to prevent wasted effort, long-range goals are being set.

1.  Prevent the COALITION of militant black nationalist groups.  In

unity there is strength; a truism that is no less valid for all its 

triteness.  An effective coalition of black nationalist groups might be the

first step toward a real "Mau Mau" [Black revolutionary army] in America, 

the beginning of a true black revolution.

2.  Prevent the RISE OF A "MESSIAH" who could unify, and

electrify, the militant black nationalist movement.  Malcolm X might have

been such a "messiah;" he is the martyr of the movement today.  Martin

Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammed all aspire to this

position.  Elijah Muhammed is less of a threat because of his age.  King

could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his

supposed "obedience" to "white, liberal doctrines" (nonviolence) and embrace

black nationalism.  Carmichael has the necessary charisma to be a real

threat in this way.

3.  Prevent VIOLENCE on the part of black nationalist groups.  This

is of primary importance, and is, of course, a goal of our investigative

activity; it should also be a goal of the Counterintelligence Program to

pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they 

exercise their potential for violence.

4.  Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from

gaining RESPECTABILITY, by discrediting them to three separate segments of

the community.  The goal of discrediting black nationalists must be handled

tactically in three ways.  You must discredit those groups and individuals

to, first, the responsible Negro community.  Second, they must be

discredited to the white community, both the responsible community and to

"liberals" who have vestiges of sympathy for militant black nationalist

[sic] simply because they are Negroes.  Third, these groups must be 

discredited in the eyes of Negro radicals, the followers of the movement.  

This last area requires entirely different tactics from the first two.  

Publicity about violent tendencies and radical statements merely enhances 

black nationalists to the last group; it adds "respectability" in a different

way.

5.  A final goal should be to prevent the long-range GROWTH of

militant black organizations, especially among youth.  Specific tactics to

prevent these groups from converting young people must be developed. [...]

What Is Your Life Made Of?

Our lives are made up of the total days we've lived. These days are, in essences, what define us. The idea of running from your past is parochial; no matter where you go, you carry your past with you. We live in a society in which it's easier to distract ourselves from the reality of our situations than to face them. The use of alcohol and drugs (legal prescription, over-the-counter, and illegal) combined with all of the distractions of our technology driven culture have comfortably sedated us into a false reality. The fact is: the booze wear off, the high comes down, and we're left where we started; we are Sisyphus rolling that rock up the hill when we run from life. We wake up with a hangover and all of those same problems waiting on us. The examined life is hard! The idea of "thought wrestling" isn't a new concept, but rather a choice people have been making all along. Thoreau once said, "what can I do to awaken my sleeping neighbor?" I don't have a silver bullet full of answers; no one has a monopoly on the truth: we can make claims, but we could be wrong. It takes courage to look deep inside ourselves and question what we believe. I have to engage in this kind of deep Socratic dialog. This is my nicotine, alcohol, and drug addiction rolled into one. There are times when I'm more alive by myself with a book than when I'm surrounded by people. All of my problems in life were a result of my unwillingness to face what was right in front of me.