3. Rational Freedom vs. Anarchic Freedom

Both the Rational Concept of Freedom and the Anarchic Concept of Freedom were Introduced by Dr. George Reisman in his book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, Part One, “The Foundations of Economics,” Chapter 1, “Economics and Capitalism,” Part B, “Capitalism,” pp. 23-26 (Jameson Books, 1998). Also see Dr. George Reisman’s pamphlet essay Freedom, pp. 8-13.

Please refer to Dr. Reisman’s writings suggested above for his extended full text and explanation of this very important concept. Because the proper (rational) use of the concept of freedom is such an essential element to understanding, establishing, and preserving Capitalism, as well as truly preserving our individual freedom and rights, I highly recommend your own thorough study to fully understand the Rational Concept of Freedom and the Anarchic Concept of Freedom.

Also see Ayn Rand’s writings at The Ayn Rand Lexicon regarding Freedom and Individual Rights. — To truly understand rights, I encourage and recommend reading Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12, “Man’s Rights,” pb, pp. 92-100 (Signet, ~1980).

I include the Rational Concept of Freedom under Capitalism in this comparison because I think that the proper application of the concept of freedom – that is, the rational and objective application of – is absolutely essential and fundamental to the establishment and preservation of a laissez-faire capitalist society, meaning a society of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, the objective rule of law, and an unregulated free-market economy – all recognized, preserved, defended, and protected by a proper, objectively established, constitutionally-limited government. Because there is so little understanding by the general public, in my opinion, of the true concept of freedom (as well as the concept of rights), I hope that my writings may help inspire the beginning of a genuine desire by the general public – especially in America – to learn, understand, and discuss what freedom really means and how to rationally apply it.

I include the Anarchic Concept of Freedom under Statism in this comparison because I think that the irrational application of the concept of freedom – that is, the anarchic and subjective application of – can be used as an underlying element in establishing a statist society, meaning a society of collective enslavement (individual human life belongs to the state) and of state restricted-regulated-controlled economy, all controlled and manipulated with government force by a statist-oriented, tyrannical government or ruling group. I use the words “can be used” because I think Statism can be established by other means besides using an anarchic approach to freedom, such as in an aggressive, unprovoked invasion into a free nation through direct military force by another criminal nation or group.

The following is My Interpretation of Dr. Reisman’s concepts:

REGARDING THE RATIONAL CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

As I understand, the Rational Concept of Freedom fundamentally centers around the absence of the initiation of physical force, specifically by the government, against an individual’s actions (and I would also add as an extension of the individual, a business’ actions) that are not in themselves the use of force against others; meaning actions that do not constitute a true violation or infringement – of any kind – against individual or economic freedom, against individual rights, or against property rights, including actions that do not truly prohibit or deny individual rights, including property rights; meaning actions that are based on the legitimate application and exercising (acting upon) of one’s individual and economic freedom, and of one’s exercising (acting upon) individual rights, including property rights – especially property rights.

REGARDING THE ANARCHIC CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

As I understand, the Anarchic Concept of Freedom, fundamentally centers around the practice of, mistakenly or deliberately, distorting and viewing the actions taken by an individual, or a business, that are not in themselves the use of force against others, and twisting and distorting such actions as the “initiation of physical force” and violations against the freedom and rights of other individuals – and then using, specifically, the threat of government force – as well as private force sanctioned by the government – to stop and/or deny individuals, and businesses, from truly and legitimately exercising (acting upon) their own inalienable individual freedom, economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms.

EXAMPLES –

(1) Your freedom of speech is not violated (Rational Concept of Freedom) when another individual or business or private school will not allow you to speak on their stage or on their radio station. Even in the face of others exercising their property rights by making such decisions thus creating “obstacles” for you (Dr. Reisman – see below), you still have the freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of speech elsewhere, and you have not been stopped or controlled in that pursuit, and no force has been used against you. However, your freedom of speech is violated (Anarchic Concept of Freedom) when the government, or a group sanctioned by the government, stops and controls you with the threat of physical force (direct violence, or through legislation, mandates, fines, etc.) from speaking on your own stage or radio station, or on a stage or radio station where you have been invited or are given consent to speak – your freedom of speech has been stopped and, therefore, has been violated by government force, or by private force sanctioned by the government, and your freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of speech has been stopped and controlled.

(2) The “Fairness Doctrine” is a perfect example of applying the Anarchic Concept of Freedom in creating and establishing government legislation allowing the use of coercive government force to violate and infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of individuals and businesses. This would mean using coercive government legislation, regulation, mandates, and coercive force to interfere with, infringe upon, limit, prohibit, dictate, regulate, mandate, violate, and control the property rights of broadcast companies, radio stations, and internet sites to control, even destroy, Conservative Talk Radio throughout the United States of America. The “Fairness Doctrine” (a true Statist policy) would force opposing views onto the private property of others where it may not be wanted, and even destroy the market of many radio stations with such political power and force (which is, I think, the real goal of this policy’s supporters). If re-enacted, the “Fairness Doctrine” would be anything but “fair,” and a horrible violation against property rights, and frightening abuse of political power and control, and truly destroy Freedom of Speech for all.

SIDE NOTE: In my opinion, the “Fairness Doctrine” is an example of using coercive government force (Statism) of shutting down opposition to statist (socialist and environmentalist) ideas, agenda, and policies — where “fairness” is measured NOT in terms of recognizing and protecting property rights and the freedom of speech of all private individuals and businesses, but where “fairness” is measured instead in terms of VIOLATING and INFRINGING UPON the property rights and the true freedom of speech of “certain” other individuals and businesses — all because those people in political power and control do not like the freedom of speech of others who do not support or agree with them. The “Fairness Doctrine” is one step towards censoring capitalist-oriented and freedom-oriented opposition to Statism, and all that it stands for.

The following is my expanded interpretation, discussion, and commentary regarding the Rational Concept of Freedom versus the Anarchic Concept of Freedom. My discussion regarding the Rational Concept of Freedom comes first, followed by the Anarchic Concept of Freedom.

MY EXPANDED INTERPRETATION, DISCUSSION, and COMMENTARY REGARDING the RATIONAL CONCEPT of FREEDOM

REGARDING THE RATIONAL CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

To Repeat: As I understand, the Rational Concept of Freedom fundamentally centers around the absence of the initiation of physical force, specifically by the government, against an individual’s actions (and I would also add as an extension of the individual, a business’ actions) that are not in themselves the use of force against others; meaning actions that do not constitute a true violation or infringement – of any kind – against individual or economic freedom, against individual rights, or against property rights, including actions that do not truly prohibit or deny individual rights, including property rights; meaning actions that are based on the legitimate application and exercising (acting upon) of one’s individual and economic freedom, and of one’s exercising (acting upon) individual rights, including property rights – especially property rights.

The key element here, I think, is: the absence of government force against those actions that are not the use of force against others – meaning, those actions which arise from the application and exercising of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including property rights – in a social context – meaning those actions that do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of others. And, in my opinion, only such a situation can exist in a society of Capitalism.

To put it another way (my own interpretation) in a true laissez-faire capitalist society, the actions (and decisions) made by an individual applying and exercising his/her individual freedom, individual rights, including their property rights in the pursuit of their own self-interests – and that do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of others – are not a use of force against others, nor are such actions a violation of others’ individual freedom, individual rights, or property rights. In a proper capitalist society, the Rational Concept of Freedom means that the government cannot use force, nor can the government sanction private force, against those actions by other individuals and businesses that arise from the legitimate application and exercising of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including property rights – precisely because such actions DO NOT “represent the use of force” (Dr. Reisman) against others, and do not violate the freedom of others.

In regards to those actions that do not “represent the use of force” (Dr. Reisman) against others, I refer to such actions as those actions that arise from the legitimate application and exercise of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights, by free individuals and businesses – actions that do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights of others.

I call such actions “non-use-of-force” actions. Such “non-use-of-force” actions would certainly include those actions that an individual takes to secure and protect his/her own life and property (exercise of property rights) against others who would not respect, and who would violate, his/her property rights. This would certainly include actions such as using the police to remove individuals off one’s property who have entered uninvited, who are causing problems or damage, or who will not leave when asked to. In doing so, the police are protecting property rights, and such action is not violating the rights of the true violators (those who will not leave when asked or who are damaging property). There is no such “right” or any justification to infringe upon or violate the individual rights, including the property rights, of other free innocent people and businesses who are simply exercising their own rights. Also, though such “non-use-of-force” actions may create “obstacles” (Dr. Reisman – see below) for other people in exercising their own individual rights and derivative freedoms, such actions have not stopped or controlled the individual’s freedom to pursue their own rights and freedoms.

Such “non-use-of-force” actions – that is, actions that arise from the application and exercising of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including property rights, and that do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of others – are not the violation of individual freedom, and therefore, are not the violation of individual rights or property rights of others. And such “non-use-of-force” actions are certainly not a use of force (not the initiation of physical force) against you, your individual freedom, your individual rights, your property rights, or your derivative freedoms. For example, asking you to leave my property is not a use of force against you, it is simply me exercising and acting upon my property rights. Or, informing you that you cannot express your political views on my property, in my home, or in my business is not a use of force against you, nor is it violating your freedom of speech, it is simply me exercising my inalienable property rights, and asking you to respect my property rights, including what I allow or don’t allow to be done to my property or on my property.

To repeat: exercising and acting upon one’s own individual rights and property rights (“non-use-of-force” actions) is not a use of force against other individuals, nor is it violating or infringing upon the individual or economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms of others. You, as a free individual, are still free to go elsewhere to pursue, exercise, act upon, and practice your individual rights and derivative freedoms, either on your own property, or on property where the owners welcome you and have given you their consent to use their property to practice your freedoms and rights.

Also, in a society of true Capitalism, you would not be allowed – nor would you have any claim, justification, or “right” – to use government force to stop or prevent an individual, or a business, from engaging in their “non-use-of-force” actions, that is, stopping or preventing others from “acting” upon and legitimately exercising their individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including their property rights, and derivative freedoms, as longs as such actions do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights of others.

EXAMPLES of the RATIONAL CONCEPT of FREEDOM versus the ANARCHIC CONCEPT of FREEDOM

(1) Your freedom of speech is not violated (Rational Concept of Freedom) when another individual or business or private school will not allow you to speak on their stage or on their radio station. Even in the face of others exercising their property rights by making such decisions (“non-use-of-force” actions) thus creating “obstacles” for you (Dr. Reisman – see below), you still have the freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of speech elsewhere, and you have not been stopped or controlled in that pursuit, and no force has been used against you. However, your freedom of speech is violated (Anarchic Concept of Freedom) when the government, or a group sanctioned by the government, stops and controls you with the threat of physical force (direct violence, or through legislation, mandates, fines, etc.) from speaking on your own stage or radio station, or on a stage or radio station where you have been invited or are given consent to speak – your freedom of speech has been stopped and, therefore, has been violated by government force, or by private force sanctioned by the government, and your freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of speech has been stopped and controlled.

(2) Your freedom of religion is not violated (Rational Concept of Freedom) when another individual or business or private school does not want you to physically practice your religion on their property or in their business. Even in the face of others exercising their property rights by making such decisions (“non-use-of-force” actions) thus creating “obstacles” for you (Dr. Reisman – see below), you still have the freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of religion elsewhere, and you have not been stopped or controlled in that pursuit, and no force has been used against you. However, your freedom of religion is violated (Anarchic Concept of Freedom) when the government, or a group sanctioned by the government, stops and controls you with the threat of physical force (direct violence, or through legislation, mandates, fines, etc.) from practicing your religion on your own property, in the church of your religion, or on another property where you are given consent to practice your religion – your freedom of religion has been stopped and, therefore, has been violated by government force, or by private force sanctioned by the government, and your freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of religion has been stopped and controlled.

See Dr. George Reisman’s pamphlet essay Freedom, pp. 8-13, for more examples.

NOTE: The word “truly” – that I use in this context – refers to understanding and applying the Rational Concept of Freedom towards distinguishing between what is a true use of force against others, and that which is not a use of force against others – and understanding the difference between that which truly does violate individual freedom and rights, and that which does not violate individual freedom and rights. Using government force to stop and prevent individuals from legitimately exercising and acting upon their individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights, is a true use of force against them, and is violating and infringing upon their freedoms and rights; individuals freely and legitimately exercising and acting upon their individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including property rights, is not a use of force against others (again, what I call “non-use-of-force” actions). Also, I use the term “legitimately” to refer to those actions that do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights of others.

Under Capitalism, another person’s individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including their property rights – and their ability to pursue, exercise, act upon, and practice them – are as sovereign, immutable, and inalienable as your own individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights – including your ability to pursue, exercise, act upon, and practice them. For a further discussion regarding rights, see Item No. 4.

Further, if you (1) privately initiate physical force against, or (2) support the initiation of physical force by the government against, or (3) support the initiation of private force sanctioned by the government against other individuals and/or businesses to stop and prevent them from legitimately acting upon and exercising their individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including their property rights, then you would be the one who is truly violating and infringing upon the freedoms and rights of others – and you would be the true violator and criminal, along with the government.

DISCUSSING DR. GEORGE REISMAN’S “OBSTACLES”

Dr. George Reisman points out, in his essay Freedom (see reference above), there are two types of obstacles “to the achievement of a goal or desire.”
(1) One type of obstacle is that which comes from the natural state of things, from reality (such as a tornado, a river, a security fence, or gravity, or a physical handicap), also including such things as the “voluntary choices” (Dr. Reisman) that other people make that arise from them exercising their individual rights and property rights, i.e. those “non-use-of-force” actions (as in ‘please remove yourself from my property’ or ‘this is my company and I only hire smokers’ or ‘an aunt that buys a Lexis car instead of paying for the education you want’). While such obstacles may be an inconvenience to you or me, temporarily or permanently, from achieving a goal or desire you or I want, they do not violate or infringe upon your or my individual or economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, or derivate freedoms – precisely because such obstacles are not a use of force against you or me – they do not truly stop or control you or me, as individuals, from exercising and acting upon our individual freedoms and rights, and you or I am still free to pursue, exercise, act upon, and practice our individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms.
(2) The other type of obstacle that Dr. George Reisman refers to are those obstacles that arise from a government threatening “to use physical force” (Dr. Reisman) against the rights and freedoms of individuals and businesses. I refer to this type obstacle as true violations and infringements of rights, because such obstacles are true uses of force against free individuals and businesses, and actually interfere with, infringe upon, limit, prohibit, dictate, regulate, violate, control, stop, and prevent an individual from acting upon and exercising their individual and/or economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms. For example: [1] the government threatening to use physical force against a radio station by imposing fines, business closure, or jail time, if they do not allow “all” political views be broadcasted on their airwaves through implementing and enforcing such legislation as the “Fairness Doctrine” (an application of the Anarchic Concept of Freedom), or [2] a government’s threat to use physical force to imprison and/or confiscate private property if the land owner does not pay his taxes, or if a land owner destroys any government declared “wetlands” or “endangered species” on his private property.

Under true Capitalism, and the application of the Rational Concept of Freedom, you would not be “free” to exercise your “pursuits of happiness” and derivative freedoms (such as your freedom of speech or your freedom of religion), as an individual or as a group, at the expense, infringement upon, and violation of others’ individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, or derivative freedoms by using private and/or government force to do so. For example: you, or a group you belong to, would not be able to exercise your freedom of speech or your freedom of religion on others’ property without their consent and approval – and giving or not giving that consent or approval is their true, proper right. Not allowing you on their property or to use their property is not using force against you; it is the rational application of freedom in exercising their own inalienable individual rights, including their property rights.

This may cause you an inconvenience by imposing an obstacle in the “achievement” of your personal goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires (the first type of obstacle as described by Dr. Reisman), but that is all it is: an inconvenience. Other individuals and/or businesses not allowing you to use their property is not a violation of or infringement upon your individual and economic freedom, your individual rights, your property rights, or your derivative freedoms – it is only an inconvenience caused by such an obstacle, and no matter how much it might disappoint you, or your might resent it, it is still NOT a use of force against you. And you have no excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or any “right” to use the threat of physical force by the government, or privately, against such a “non-use-of-force” (action) obstacle.

Again, to repeat, any such inconvenience caused by an obstacle that arises out of the application and exercise of others’ individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including their property rights (meaning the “non-use-of-force” actions by others), does not give one an excuse, a claim, any rationale, any justification, nor any “right” to use the threat of government force to stop and/or prevent others from acting upon or exercising such individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including their property rights – as long as such action does not truly violate or infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of others. Nor does any such inconvenience caused by such an obstacle justify or legitimize using government force to control, occupy, use, and/or seize the property of other individuals (including their body, their mind, their incomes, and wealth) and/or businesses (including their income, wealth, and/or profits) to (1) achieve your personal goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, or desires, or (2) to force your educational, political, environmental, conservationist, and/or social-engineering plans and agenda onto others, or (3) to simply exercise and act upon your own individual rights and derivative freedoms.

There is no such right as a “right” to violate and infringe upon the individual and economic freedom, the individual rights, including the property rights, of other individuals and businesses, or to control and enslave other individuals or businesses for your personal goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires – even when “non-use-of-force” actions by other individuals and businesses might cause you an inconvenience by imposing an obstacle in the way of you trying to achieve your personal goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires.

Again, to initiate the use private force or government force (either by regulation, mandate, law, or actual military or police force) to against others to stop and prevent them from acting upon or exercising their individual and economic freedom, their individual rights, including their property rights, or to occupy, use, and/or seize another individual’s or business’ property (including their income, wealth, and/or profits) by government force, is the true violation and infringement of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights, and the true act of force against others.

Only in applying the Rational Concept of Freedom (as presented by Dr. Reisman) can such horrors and injustices of coercive private and/or government force, and the infringement and violation against innocent individuals and businesses, who are legitimately exercising, acting upon, and pursuing their own freedoms and rights, be prevented.

FURTHER NOTES

Under the Rational Concept of Freedom, for example, your freedom of speech (a derivative freedom derived from your fundamental rights to life and liberty – see Item No. 5) allows you the freedom to exercise and express your views and ideas on your own property, or on a property where you have the permission and/or the consent by the property owner to do so, without being interfered with, limited, prohibited, dictated, regulated, mandated, controlled, or stopped by the government, but your freedom of speech does not guarantee or give you the unlimited freedom to exercise or express your views and ideas wherever or whenever you wish, or on the property of others, nor does it guarantee you a “platform” (such as a publishing business, a stage, a lecture hall, or a radio or TV station – or any government subsidized radio or TV platform, such as PBS) on which to exercise and practice your freedom of speech. Nor does it allow you to use coercive government force (through taxation, fees, forced use of property, or seizure and confiscation of property) to provide you with such a platform (such as establishing PBS or using the “Fairness Doctrine”) by violating another individual’s, or business’, property rights, including stealing their income, wealth, and/or profit, just so you may practice your “freedom of speech” by expressing your views and ideas wherever and whenever you wish or desire.

Nor does the freedom of speech mean that others must listen to or read what you want to express, nor does it give you the “right” to disrupt lectures and speeches on private property (including business and private schools). Nor does the freedom of speech give you the “right” to force private radio stations to provide you with air time so you can express your views. It is not a violation or infringement of your freedom of speech – and it is NOT a use of force against you – if another private individual, business (such as a radio station), or private school does not want to provide you with a lecture hall, microphone, or airwaves, or will not allow you to occupy or use their property (the studios, stages or airwaves they may own) so you can express your views and ideas. It is simply these individuals and businesses exercising their property rights. Again, such actions and decisions by free acting individuals and businesses, based on the application of the Rational Concept of Freedom, are “non-use-of-force” actions.

While not being able to use the property of others may be an inconvenience by imposing an obstacle to the “achievement” of your personal goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires, you still have your freedom to pursue, exercise, and act upon your individual rights and derivative freedoms on your own property, or to make voluntary, peaceful arrangements with other individuals who have property that will give you their consent to use it. But you have NO “right” to use private or government force against other innocent individuals and businesses, and against their consent, to force them to let you use their property and/or their income and wealth so you may pursue your own rights and derivative freedoms. If you think you do, then you are the true violator and the true criminal and aid in the destruction of the Rational Concept of Freedom.

The exercise (actions) of property rights by others is not a violation of or infringement upon your derivative freedom of speech, and it is not a use of force against you; your derivative freedom of speech does not trump or override the fundamental, inalienable individual rights and property rights of other individuals, including businesses.

Under Capitalism, you are always free to pursue and start your own business, such as a radio station, so you may broadcast what you wish to say – or start your own newspaper to publish what you want – or to try to convenience a business or property owner through peaceful, voluntary cooperation to support your views and ideas. However, in applying the Rational Concept of Freedom, your individual and economic freedom does not guarantee you a success from your freedom to pursue your personal goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires. Under Capitalism, if you cannot find a market for your ideas, or you do not have your own property to act on, or find anyone who will voluntarily allow you to use their property, so you may exercise and act upon your freedom of speech, you would then NOT be able to, or allowed to turn to, the government and demand that it (the government) use the threat of physical force to steal and confiscate the property, money, income, and wealth from other private individuals and businesses – in the form of taxes, fees, forced use of, or direct confiscation – to provide you with a platform (either in forcing them to allow you to use their property, or providing such public broadcasting as NPR or PBS) so you can then practice your freedom of speech, in broadcasting or publishing your ideas.

To repeat, your derivative freedom of speech, or any other derivative freedom or right, does not trump or override the fundamental, inalienable individual rights and property rights of other individuals, including those of businesses.

You have no “right” to violate or infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of other individuals or businesses, or to control and enslave other individuals or businesses, simply because you have been inconvenienced with some obstacle – all so you may exercise or practice any of your own individual rights and freedoms. There is no such right as the right to enslave others for your benefit.

A reminder: The pursuit to achieve any of your personal, business, social, or political goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires does not give you any excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to use government force and/or intimidation and/or control to stop, violate, or infringe upon the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, or derivative freedoms of other individuals and/or businesses. AND it does not give you any excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to enslave and steal from other individuals and businesses – through taxation or confiscation of savings, income, wealth, profit, or property – for the achievement of any of your personal, business, social, or political goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires. This includes such things as retirement for your old age, medical and health care for your life, education for your children or yourself, a shelter for you to live in, a job to work at, transportation, or food, or clothes, or anything else in your life.

Your only expectation from applying the Rational Concept of Freedom is that you will be left FREE to pursue your own individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms while at the same time truly recognizing and respecting – and to never prevent, stop, infringe upon, or violate – the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms of all other individuals and businesses, and to expect a proper, objectively established, constitutionally-limited government to recognize, preserve, defend, and protect your freedoms and rights, and the freedoms and rights of all other individuals and businesses. That is all.

The concept of freedom MUST be applied rationally to the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms of all individuals and businesses in order to establish and preserve a true society of Capitalism and Freedom.

Using government force to take money, income, wealth, profit, and/or property from others – whether individuals or businesses, rich or poor – in the form of taxes, fees, or confiscation, so that anyone can exercise any of their derivative freedoms and rights, is a direct infringement upon and a violation of the individual rights and property rights of those individuals and/or businesses – and it is also a very immoral thing to do, and therefore, it is an evil thing to do. Why? Because the money, the income, the wealth, the profits, and the property that legitimately and rightfully belong to other individuals and businesses is precisely just that – it is their property, it is theirs by their right of properly acquiring it, and it belongs to them – others property DOES NOT belong to you, to me, or to anyone else who has no legitimate and/or legal claim to it. It is immoral because it is using coercive government force to steal from others (tax and confiscate), control others (deprive others of their freedoms and rights), and enslave others (forcing others to live for and to pay for your needs, wants, goals, and desires) to allow only certain selected “others” to misuse their derivative freedoms, and it is evil because such action is irrational, anarchic, and anti-life. See Item No. 6.

Your derivative freedoms – such as your freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, or freedom from religion – DO NOT include the use of force against other free individuals and businesses so you can exercise or practice them. Your rights DO NOT give you the “right” in engage in any form of criminal activity – not as a private citizen or through using government force – against other individuals or businesses.

Under true Capitalism, your freedom of speech, for example, allows you to pursue your own “platform” in which to express your views and ideas, either through peaceful voluntary exchange with other individuals and businesses (through private charity, or by trading for or purchasing that use, leasing property, etc.), or by legitimately establishing your own “platform” or business in order to do so (through owning your own property and/or starting your own business), without being prevented or stopped by government force, regulation, or control, or stopped by the criminal actions by other individuals or businesses. If a radio station or private school does not agree with your views and ideas, and does not want you to speak on their airwaves, or in their lecture halls, or allow you to disrupt lectures and speeches in their lecture halls, this is their right to do so – all guaranteed under the rational concept and application of freedom – which, in this case, means the rational application of inalienable property rights – the same property rights that apply to you.

Under the Rational Concept of Freedom, other individuals’ or businesses’ decline in allowing you to use their property is an action that is NOT a use of force against you, nor is it a violation or infringement upon any of your derivative freedoms; it is simply their right to use their property the way they deem best for their private self-interests; it is simply the action taken in exercising property rights – it is a “non-use-of-force” action. You have no excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to use government force, or the threat thereof, or be sanctioned by the government, to stop or prevent other individuals and businesses from exercising their individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including their property rights, and derivative freedoms, and/or stop what they choose to do with their life, their business, and their property – as long as they are not truly violating or infringing upon the freedoms and rights of other individuals and businesses.

NOTE: The principle of the Rational Concept of Freedom applies to and affects all individual rights and derivative freedoms.

MY EXPANDED INTERPRETATION, DISCUSSION, and COMMENTARY REGARDING the ANARCHIC CONCEPT of FREEDOM

REGARDING THE ANARCHIC CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

To Repeat: As I understand, the Anarchic Concept of Freedom, fundamentally centers around the practice of, mistakenly or deliberately, distorting and viewing the actions taken by an individual, or a business, that are not in themselves the use of force against others, and twisting and distorting such actions as the “initiation of physical force” and violations against the freedom and rights of other individuals – and then using, specifically, the threat of government force – as well as private force sanctioned by the government – to stop and/or deny individuals, and businesses, from truly and legitimately exercising (acting upon) their own inalienable individual freedom, economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms.

Actions that do not represent the use of force against others refers to, I think, those actions that are based on the true and legitimate application and exercising of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights, and are actions that do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights of others – actions which I call “non-use-of-force” actions. Such “non-use-of-force” actions would certainly include those proper, legitimate actions that an individual takes to secure and protect his/her own life and property (exercise of property rights) against others who would not respect property rights, and who would truly violate his/her property rights.

The Anarchic Concept of Freedom also implies that the government could even sanction the private initiation of physical force against other individuals and businesses (including schools) by simply doing nothing to stop this private use of force. Example: renegade trouble makers in an audience disrupting a classroom, lecture, or speech at a school, preventing the class or speech to continue, and the police (which the government directs) doing nothing to stop the disruption or not removing the renegade trouble makers. Stopping the renegade trouble makers is NOT violating their “freedom of speech,” it is protecting the property rights of the school and its owners, and protecting the freedom of speech of the speaker. Allowing the renegade trouble makers to continue is NOT protecting their “freedom of speech,” it is violating the property rights of the school and its owners, and violating the freedom of speech of the speaker, who either owns the school, works for the school, or has permission to speak at the school.

I think that statist-oriented politicians and government officials, at all levels of government, have a vested interest in allowing and using “government sanctioned force by private individuals” (Dr. Reisman), because it lets their private-sector supporters defend statist government agenda, where the statist government private-sector supporters do the dirty work of attacking, directly, the rational opposition to the true violations and infringements of individual rights and property rights – while at the same time, allowing the same statist-oriented politicians and government officials to interfere with, and manipulate, the military, police, law enforcement, and justice system to prevent and stop these legitimate government institutions from doing their proper government functions and jobs of actually recognizing, preserving, defending, and protecting individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms of innocent individuals, businesses, and schools that are truly being violated and attacked.

For example: if an invited speaker at a school lecture hall is being interrupted and harassed by a group of trouble makers in the audience, and the school is not allowed, through government directive, regulation, or mandate, to remove these trouble makers by using the police to do so, then the school’s property rights are being violated, and the speaker’s freedom of speech is also being violated. This is the application of the Anarchic Concept of Freedom. Again, your derivative freedom of speech does not trump or override the individual rights and property rights of others – and does not allow you to violate or infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of other individuals and businesses.

Besides, in my opinion, such behavior as harassment, heckling intimidating, and purposely interrupting speakers is NOT an example of the freedom of speech. It is only an example of despicable, irrational behavior, a deliberate use of force against others, and is the actions of hoodlums and thugs – not of free individuals who truly understand freedom and its proper application.

Applying and engaging in the Anarchic Concept of Freedom means to use direct government force or government sanctioned force to stop and prevent the “non-use-of-force” actions by other individuals and businesses, meaning stopping and preventing the actions that arise from acting upon and exercising individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms by other individuals and businesses, meaning those actions that do not truly violate or infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of others. I think that most people fall into the trap of supporting the Anarchic Concept of Freedom because such “non-use-of-force” actions are either wrongly interpreted, or deliberately distorted to be viewed, as force against others and, therefore, seen as an infringement or a violation of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including property rights – which they are clearly not.

The key element here, I think, is the misinterpretation and/or distortion of the proper concept of freedom to mean otherwise. The Anarchic Concept of Freedom represents the mistaken or deliberate interpretation and distortion (or irrational belief) of the idea that the legitimate and proper application and exercising of individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including property rights, by “certain” other people or businesses (meaning those actions by individuals or businesses that are not the use of force against others) are actually viewed as the “use of force” against other people, and therefore – mistakenly or deliberately – viewed, and “construed” (Dr. Reisman), as using physical force against others, and therefore, of infringing upon and violating the individual rights and derivative freedoms of the certain “other” selected people – even of certain “other” selected businesses – who are seen as the “victims” of such “non-use-of-force” actions by others.

But again, “non-use-of-force” actions are neither force nor violation against others. They are simply those actions taken by an individual or a business in legitimately exercising (acting upon) their own individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including their property rights, and derivative freedoms.

Simply not being able to achieve what one wishes, wants, or desires, because another individual and/or business is acting upon and exercising their own individual freedom and rights, including their property rights, for their own self-interests, is not a violation or infringement upon the freedom, individual rights, or derivative freedoms of other individuals, and it is certainly not a use of force against them either. And no one has any excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to use government force, or use private force sanctioned by government, against any other innocent individual or business in stopping, limiting, prohibiting, dictating, regulating, mandating, violating, or controlling the exercising and acting upon of their individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, or derivative freedoms, and any commerce or business activities – as long as they are not truly violating or infringing upon the individual rights and property rights of others.

But this is precisely what the Anarchic Concept of Freedom allows: using government physical force, or private force sanctioned by government, against individuals and businesses, and stopping, preventing, and denying them from truly and legitimately exercising, applying, and acting upon their own individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms, including any and all commerce or business activities.

EXAMPLES of the RATIONAL CONCEPT of FREEDOM versus the ANARCHIC CONCEPT of FREEDOM

(1) Your freedom of speech is not violated (Rational Concept of Freedom) when another individual or business or private school will not allow you to speak on their stage or on their radio station. Even in the face of others exercising their property rights by making such decisions (“non-use-of-force” actions), you still have the freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of speech elsewhere, and you have not been stopped in that pursuit, and no force has been used against you. However, your freedom of speech is violated (Anarchic Concept of Freedom) when the government, or a group sanctioned by the government, stops you with the threat of physical force from speaking on your own stage or radio station, or on a stage or radio station where you have been invited to speak – your freedom of speech has been stopped and, therefore, violated by government force, or by private force sanctioned by the government, and your freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of speech has been stopped and controlled.

(2) Your freedom of religion is not violated (Rational Concept of Freedom) when another individual or business or private school does not want you to physically practice your religion on their property or in their business. Even in the face of others exercising their property rights by making such decisions (“non-use-of-force” actions), you still have the freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of religion elsewhere, and you have not been stopped in that pursuit, and no force has been used against you. However, your freedom of religion is violated (Anarchic Concept of Freedom) when the government, or a group sanctioned by the government, stops you with the threat of physical force from practicing your religion on your own property, in the church of your religion, or on another property where you are given consent to practice your religion – your freedom of religion has been stopped and, therefore, violated by government force, or by private force sanctioned by the government, and your freedom to pursue practicing your freedom of religion has been stopped and controlled.

See Dr. George Reisman’s pamphlet essay Freedom, pp. 8-13, for more examples.

Further, I suggest, when the Anarchic Concept of Freedom is believed to be legitimate and then legislated into law allowing it to be practiced, it then becomes common practice to “rationalize” the use of state or government force to stop and prevent “select” other individuals and businesses from exercising (acting upon) their own freedoms, individual rights, and property rights (which means preventing them, by using government force, from acting in their own personal self-interests, including using their property and any economic activity). This means violating and infringing upon the freedom and rights, including property rights, of any and/or all individuals and businesses just so “certain select other” people and/or businesses can achieve what they want, get what they want, or do what they want – for whatever reason – by using government force to do so, or by being sanctioned by the government to use their own private physical force, and intimidation, to do so.

The “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE” as an APPLICATION of the ANARCHIC CONCEPT of FREEDOM

The “Fairness Doctrine” is a perfect example of applying the Anarchic Concept of Freedom in creating and establishing government legislation allowing the use of coercive government force to violate and infringe upon the individual rights and property rights of individuals and businesses. This would mean using coercive government legislation, regulation, mandates, and coercive force to interfere with, infringe upon, limit, prohibit, dictate, regulate, mandate, violate, and control the property rights and freedom of speech (meaning the content) of broadcast companies, radio stations, and internet sites to control, even destroy, Conservative Talk Radio throughout the United States of America. The “Fairness Doctrine” (a true Statist policy) would force opposing views onto the private property of others where it may not be wanted, and even destroy the market of many radio stations with such coercive political power and force (which is, I think, the real goal of this policy’s supporters). If re-enacted, the “Fairness Doctrine” would be anything but “fair,” and a horrible violation against property rights, and frightening abuse of political power and control, and truly destroy Freedom of Speech for all.

In my opinion, the “Fairness Doctrine” is an example of using coercive government force (Statism) of shutting down opposition to statist (socialist and environmentalist) ideas, agenda, and policies — where “fairness” is measured NOT in terms of recognizing and protecting property rights and the freedom of speech of all private individuals and businesses, but where “fairness” is measured instead in terms of VIOLATING and INFRINGING UPON the property rights and the true freedom of speech of “certain” other individuals and businesses — all because those people in political power and control do not like the freedom of speech of others who do not support or agree with them. The “Fairness Doctrine” is one step towards censoring capitalist-oriented and freedom-oriented opposition to Statism, and all that it stands for.

The “Fairness Doctrine” would be a vile abuse of political power and control, and as I said before, a horrible violation and infringement of individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms. I think that in a proper, rational, freedom-oriented capitalist society, such a ludicrous idea as the “Fairness Doctrine” would not even be considered a rational, legitimate concept, let alone worthy of any debate or discussion, and definitely would not be allowed to be legislated into law: a proper, objectively established, constitutionally-limited government of a true laissez-faire capitalist society would not allow such a farce. No one – not you as a private individual, or business, or group, or mob, or some mislead politician, government official, or government committee or legislature – has any excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to use government force, or the threat thereof, or be sanctioned by the government in using private force, against individuals and businesses to stop them from exercising and applying their individual rights, including their property rights, their economic freedoms, and/or what they choose to do with their life, their property, or their business – as long as they are not truly violating or infringing upon the individual rights and property rights of others. As mentioned above, such actions arising from exercising and acting upon individual rights and property rights are “non-use-of-force” actions against no one.

In applying the Rational Concept of Freedom, every single individual, every single business, every single school, every single publishing company, every single broadcast company, every single television station, every single cable network, every single radio station, and every single internet site has absolute, sovereign, immutable, inalienable property rights never to be violated or infringed upon for any reason by the government, nor by any private individual or group – and has the right to broadcast or publish anything they wish or please, and has a right to find a market that will pay for their broadcasting content – as long as they are not truly violating or infringing upon the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights of others, by engaging in some sort of true coercive force, fraud, liable, or slander.

Because of the rational application of property rights, free individuals and businesses have every right not to allow anyone else to use their property, or airwaves, if they so choose. That is their right, as it would apply to your own property rights. (And, yes, under Capitalism, even airwaves are privately owned.) For example, if radio stations across a country prefer to broadcast Conservative Talk Radio because there is a consumer demand and market for it, they have every basic, absolute, inalienable right to do so. THAT IS THEIR RIGHT! And no one – NO ONE – not private individuals, nor any businesses, nor any politicians or government official, or any special interest groups, or any union, or any other group, has any excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to use government force and/or intimidation against such ratio stations to stop or prevent them from doing so – to stop or prevent them from exercising their inalienable property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or any other derivative freedom. Just because you may disagree with or not like the content, ideas, or message presented by Conservative Talk Radio, that does not give you, or your favorite politician, union, or special interest group, any “claim” or “right” or justification, whatsoever, for any reason, to use coercive government force, intimidation, or manipulation to control them, violate them, stop them, or destroy them.

It is only in applying the Anarchic Concept of Freedom that such a horrid, debased idea as the “Fairness Doctrine” would even exist, and therefore, even be considered as a legitimate legislative idea, and then “legislatively” implemented. The “Fairness Doctrine” legislation is clearly anarchic, irrational, and a direct violation of and infringement upon the property rights, and the freedom of speech, of other individuals. It is clearly a statist’s “dream” legislation, and an advancement of the statist elements, agenda, and policies of our current American government if made law.

Finally, it is my opinion that an Anarchic Concept of Freedom can ultimately destroy a free, capitalist society, if it is accepted, adopted, and practiced as the norm by the majority of people in the society – destroying that society through the way in which they practice and exercise their distorted idea of “freedom.”

FURTHER NOTES

Under the Anarchic Concept of Freedom, for example, your Freedom of Speech is distorted and twisted to mean that if another individual or business (including private schools), does not want to, or will not, provide you with a “platform” (such as a printing press, a stage, or a radio or TV station) to express your views and ideas – or will not allow you to use their property (the stages or airwaves they may own) to express your views and ideas – or prevent you from disrupting a lecture or speech on private property to protest it (be it on personal, business, or school property) – you can then claim (though irrationally) that your freedom of speech is being violated by such actions and decisions (though they are “non-use-of-force” actions), and accuse these individuals, and businesses, of such violation.

Further, by applying the Anarchic Concept of Freedom, you can then proceed to use the initiation of physical force by the government (or the threat to use such force), or use the initiation of private force sanctioned by government, to truly violate the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, including the property rights, and derivative freedoms, of any or all other individuals, and businesses, who will not allow you to use their property (be it a stage, a radio station, or airwaves) to express your views and ideas – and physically force them, by using coercive government force or coercive private government-sanctioned force, to either allow you use their property, or provide you with a “platform” so you can practice your “freedom of speech.”

To repeat: the Anarchic Concept of Freedom means using the initiation of physical force against innocent individuals and businesses – who have not used force against anyone by exercising their own property rights – to force them to either allow you to use or occupy their private property without their voluntary consent, and to control, prevent, and even stop these individuals and businesses entirely from being able to exercise (act upon) their own property rights, which means stopping them from using their property the way they want to and deem best for their own interests.

Another manner in which the Anarchic Concept of Freedom is applied is in justifying the confiscation and stealing (through taxation, fees, fines against, or confiscation) of income, wealth, profits, and/or property of all individuals and businesses in a society (or only of a select few if need be) to forcefully provide “public” communication and entertainment platforms, such as NPR, PBS, public art museums and theaters, etc., giving certain “select” individuals a blank check to exercise their freedom of speech or their freedom of the press anywhere and anyway they wish.

A reminder: The pursuit to achieve any of your personal, business, social, or political goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires does not give you any excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to use government force and/or intimidation and/or control to stop, violate, or infringe upon the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, or derivative freedoms of other individuals and/or businesses. AND it does not give you any excuse, claim, rationale, justification, or “right” to enslave and steal from other individuals and businesses – through taxation or confiscation of savings, income, wealth, profit, or property – for the achievement of any of your personal, business, social, or political goals, wants, needs, wishes, whims, demands, or desires. As an aside, this includes such things as retirement for your old age, medical and health care for your life, education for your children or yourself, a shelter for you to live in, a job to work at, transportation, or food, or clothes, or anything else in your life – including a radio or TV station for you, an art gallery for you, a park for you, etc., etc., etc.

Your only expectation from applying the Rational Concept of Freedom is that you will be left FREE to pursue your own individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms while at the same time truly recognizing and respecting – and to never prevent, stop, infringe upon, or violate – the individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms of all other individuals and businesses, and to expect a proper, objectively established, constitutionally-limited government to recognize, preserve, defend, and protect your freedoms and rights, and the freedoms and rights of all other individuals and businesses. That is all.

However, the application and use of the Anarchic Concept of Freedom is precisely the way to completely destroy the very concept of freedom that one is trying to achieve – either mistakenly or deliberately. In my opinion, this is why I think many Statists (those who support Statism) focus on applying and using the Anarchic Concept of Freedom to achieve their very social-political goals and desires: the Anarchic Concept of Freedom ends up destroying freedom for all individuals and businesses, and helps in establishing Statism in one form or another.

The bottom line is that the Anarchic Concept of Freedom is an irrational, twisted, distorted, and corrupted use of the proper, objective, Rational Concept of Freedom – upon which America was originally established – and the use of the Anarchic Concept of Freedom is in part responsible in destroying American culture and establishing Statism: by destroying the proper application of the Rational Concept of Freedom. The Anarchic Concept of Freedom is being used, and promoted by many present day United States citizens, businesses, government politicians, officials, and judges to violate, infringe upon, and destroy individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms for all Americans, individuals and businesses.

NOTE: The principle of the Anarchic Concept of Freedom – which is based on the allowance of the initiation of physical force by the government, or the threat thereof, against the “non-use-of-force” actions by individuals or businesses, thereby truly violating and infringing upon their individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms – applies to and affects all individual rights and derivative freedoms.

Go to previous page   |   Go to next page