pull down to refresh

Revisiting Civil Disobedience

as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up.
--Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
What an amazing quote from Thoreau, whom, we recall, was imprisoned for refusing to pay his poll-tax, on the principle of "civil disobedience" to state overreach and the condoning of slave ownership. "That institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up"--if reading that 180 years later doesn't make your hairs stand on ends, then what does?
Thoreau's transcendentalism resonates in these lines, reminding us that freedom is as non-tangible as your Bitcoin UTXOs.

Freedom is relative, an ideal

I have considered the oft-lamented, anti-libertarian bane that is the social-welfare state and the exorbitant amount it costs the government, especially as I meet more-and-more people complaining about the bureaucratic buffoonery we have over here in Canadaland. Honestly, what a shit show.
But over here, in my line of work (picture: inner city school), I hear a lot about developing countries, where folks lack a lot of the so-called freedoms we enjoy. Where they don't have freedom to worship a God of their choosing, women must cover their heads in public and cannot pursue an education, and where they'll cut off your hands for stealing.
I am told of places where schools pack 60+ kids into a classroom, most of them showing up only because they don't want to go to work, or, because they get biscuits on Tuesdays. Some of these places, the teachers are expected to chase after children if they don't attend class, go into their homes and reprimand them over dinner tables of rice, plantains and coca-cola. Yet other places, teachers shame parents by @-ing them in public group chats when their sons or daughters don't complete the homework as expected and 'everything apps' surveil all of your social and economic activity; and yes, in China, so I am told, parents are expected to work on their child's homework projects.
Some of these places you cannot own property.
From some of these places, people walk 365 days a year on worn out shoe-soles across continents in search of some glorified idyllic 'freedom,' out of fear of tyrannical government regimes who have devalued their currency so as to not even be worth the paper it is printed on. I talk to folks every day escaping real tyranny, the kind we are told lay crouching in the darkness, seething and desiring and plotting to take away your freedom.
To them, tyranny is familiar as their first cousin. And yet, they see the contradiction in the claim that they escaped tyranny to enjoy 'free society.' They are not fools. Although, some, I would argue possess a special kind of discernment when it comes to spotting a tyrant. They confide in me their complaints and I find, to my chagrin, they despise much I do, government overreach, bureaucratic skulduggery and taxes.
What I have begun to tell them, besides the empathizing platitudes: freedom is relative, an ideal.

A freedom state of mind

And to you, dear freedom-loving reader. You might have your BTC in self custody, your property, your guns, your free speech, your off-grid power sources. You might be free from the arms of government power and well protected, ready to defend your family and property from some listless refugee wandering onto your property in the cover of darkness. I'm not fear mongering. I am illustrating the point that there, you see, freedom is an ideal, a relative state that needs protecting. It cannot be fully realized, because, to the libertarians the inalienable freedom to own property means that that property faces the threat of being taken, pillaged or otherwise violated.
I don't imagine that Thoreau could have anticipated the world we live in today, nor that his words would be construed as I have done. I beg forgiveness from any Americans who think I have missed the point. But, pray, take heed of his words:
"I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was."
Don't be one of those townsmen.
Freedom is a relative state, and it is a mindset. If you are completely self-soverign, independent, self-reliant, off-grid, self-custodying; all of these things and, still, you might be paranoid of losing it all - then, are you really free? Similarly, people flee oppression, understandably, but I fear lest when they get to where they were going, what they find is the same velvet-tongued tyrant, dressed in different garb.
I think we need to adopt freedom as a state of mind, and seek it constantly. And be as tranquil as Thoreau,
I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous.
And yet, I challenge you, to reflect: over what continents you have traversed, over hill and dale, to be free?
Thanks for writing this masterpiece! I've bookmarked this for the times when my mindset of freedom goes stray, I'll read it and be back to what I aim to be a sovereign individual. I've just stepped foot into this territory so I'm not sure how it tastes but this article and the book that you mentioned are going to be my lifelong companion. Thank you so much again .
reply
Thanks for your commentary, good sir.
reply
43 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 27 Nov
What I have begun to tell them, besides the empathizing platitudes: freedom is relative, an ideal.
I suspect there is an absolute maximum to freedom but I can’t be sure so I suspect it isn’t always relative at least. Beyond the freedoms taken from us by force, there are freedoms we are competed out of (freedom to use someone else’s property for example) and other freedoms still depending on how we define it. By most common usage I’d say if we are left alone and without competition we are maximally free.
I’m not sure what point I’m making except that freedom is often expressed in relative terms yet I feel like we all can identify the absolute.
reply
I agree in principle. I think there is an objective standard of freedom. transcending physical property, provided by "nature" that we can all likely agree on. This involves minimal intervervention by authority. This I think Thoreau would agree...
there are freedoms we are competed out of (freedom to use someone else’s property for example)
True, but wouldn't unhindered competition inevitably lead to a right-by-might scenario? I haven't thought this through completely, but I believe the libertarian perspective would be that governments play some role here in protecting people from the use of force.
reply
66 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 27 Nov
I mostly meant economic competition, but yes, I believe humans can resort to violence to get what they want given no easier means and the role of government, if it has one, is to have the biggest, impartial peacekeeping service in a jurisdiction.
reply
The easier means here being though fair economic competition to acquire proprietary rights.
What about when a company establishes the type of monopoly like we see with Canada Post? It operates in a capitalist more-or-less free market and yet the government has imposed its coercive monopoly (its "crown" designation), thus free market competition is corrupted by government overreach. I suspect we agree is an affront on the individual.
I wonder if using/holding/transacting in Bitcoin, which has quickly surpassed the historical relevance of letter carrying, is seriously threatened by a similar coercive monopoly situation. ETFs, Microstrategy, and the semantic takeover risks seem to have a shot at this. Do you think people brainwashed enough for this to happen?
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 27 Nov
Thanks for this great post! I hope to read more from you in the future.
reply
Will try my best.
reply