[Lnc-business] The Standard of Liberty

[Starchild]

Hi Ben,

	Thank you for writing, and apologies for the delay responding. When I first read your message, I wasn't sure what to say. Looking over it again, I'm still not quite sure what to say. You've titled your essay "The Standard of Liberty", but I don't understand what precisely you're claiming that standard is. Can you sum it up in a sentence or two? You say none of the usually cited eminent intellectuals who have written on liberty have managed to write about the subject without still justifying some measure of tyranny in their philosophies. That's an interesting claim; I'd like to hear more about it. Where do you think they go astray, or where do you think tyranny creeps into their thinking? How have you avoided it in framing your own standard of liberty – or do you think you have? Do you believe that someone who advocated, or adhered to, the Non-Aggression Principle with perfect consistency, would still in some way be failing to live up to the ideal of liberty, and if so how?

	Getting more practical, I'm curious as to your purpose in writing to members of the Libertarian National Committee. How would you have us apply these ideas to the day-to-day affairs of the Libertarian Party's operations? You mention feeling somewhat disappointed in the party's disunity, yet you (wisely, in my estimation) also reject a party in which people bend their principles and vote party loyalty, and wish for a party that's about uniting people under a common banner of truth. What would a party united around truth, but not around party loyalty, look like to you? Can you identify the concrete differences between such a hypothetical party and the Libertarian Party as you see it existing now? If you've been paying attention to the LNC email list, what positions would you have taken on some of the recent mundane matters we've been discussing, and why? (If you haven't been paying attention and would like to check out the matters we're dealing with in order to attempt to provide some practical advice or guidance, you can read the LNC's email correspondence online, or sign up to receive the messages via email, here  – http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/ .)

	Philosophy is well and good, but for it to help me in my role as an elected representative on the LNC, I need to understand how it applies to the actual decisions I'm called upon to make and the actions that are within my scope to take, and in the case of what you've written I confess that I lack any such understanding. Can you distill your thoughts into some specific recommendations? If so, please feel free to send them along.

	Either way, I appreciate your commitment to the Libertarian Party and the cause of liberty for which it stands, and thanks again for taking the time to write. I hope you are also taking the time to engage in pro-liberty activism where you live, because achieving a free world requires not only that those of us who have some understanding of freedom try to live in accord with libertarian ideals ourselves, but also that we work to stop the aggression being committed by others, and to dismantle the organized structures and systems that facilitate that aggression.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                               (415) 625-FREE
                                 @StarchildSF


On Mar 6, 2017, at 5:29 AM, <sonoflibrty at gmail.com> <sonoflibrty at gmail.com> wrote:

> To Libertarian Party Officers and Members:
>  
> I joined the Libertarian Party ten years ago, out of firm convictions regarding the principle of liberty.  I am now somewhat disappointed in the Party’s disunity.
>  Ian Tart, a writer for the Libertarian Republic, expressed this disunity in a recent article identifying five kinds of Libertarians, ranging from moderates to anarchists.  All of these, as I see it, differ in their standards of liberty.
> The subject of Liberty has weighed heavily on my mind for the past thirty of my sixty-three years, in every area of my life, including relationships with family, employment, church, “friends,” and governments. 
> The following article is a summation of the convictions I have formed over those years.  It is a gift to you, to the Libertarian Party, to anyone who shares my conviction that we will never be united as a party or a nation unless we embrace a common Standard of Liberty; a standard of Truth. 
> For whatever it is worth, coming from a common member would like to remain common, it is time to raise the bar.
> Was the Libertarian Party established to influence people, under mob rule, to bend their principles and vote party loyalty, or was it established to unite free-thinking people under a common banner of truth? 
> For me, this is the Party’s decisive moment.  Do people really want peace?  Do they really want Liberty?  Or are they willing to continue to live their lives slogging through various degrees of tyrannical slime and contention because they would rather do that than face the truth and be responsible for themselves?
> I do not want recognition.  I would prefer anonymity, but will do whatever I can to help promote the principles defined in the following article.  It is copy written only to maintain my integrity; not for profit.  You may use or discard it, as you please.
> Your Servant,
> Ben H. Szymanski
>  
> THE STANDARD OF LIBERTY
>  
>      Does anyone really want peace?
>      Do you want it?
>      What would you give to have it?
>      The price of peace includes nothing of value.
>      Peace requires only your pride.
>      Peace requires abandonment of every assumption that you are entitled to something.
>      The price of peace is embracing full responsibility for yourself.
>      The price of peace is abandonment of tyranny.
>      Is the price too great?  Are you willing to pay it? 
>      Can you give Liberty to the people in your life?
>      I am frequently complimented on my ability to write, but seldom on my message.
>      Perhaps this is because the truth is seldom pleasant and hardly ever flattering.  We are all inclined, by nature, to avoid the truth about ourselves.
>      What, exactly, is Liberty?  What does the word mean?
>      Is there a universally acceptable definition?
>      In all my experience, I have never heard or read one.  I’ve encountered definitions of Liberty ranging from total responsibility for self to absolute freedom from responsibility, but I’ve never heard or read a definition, formed by the mind of man or woman, that nails down Liberty as a firm state of being or standard of behavior.  
>      Everyone comprehends liberty, but no one agrees on the standard of behavior precisely defined by that word. 
>      Liberty is a fundamental principle of Moral Law.  It was etched in every heart, in every conscience, by our Creator.
>      Listen to your heart, and you will hear the truth of this definition:
>      Liberty is the opportunity to love.
>      In Liberty, you have a choice: you can give the energy of your life to others, or you can focus it upon yourself. 
>      Without liberty, this choice does not exist for you.  Without Liberty, someone you fear consumes your interest and attention.
>      Without liberty, you cannot give anything to anyone.  Without liberty, you have nothing to give.  Without liberty, nothing belongs to you; not even yourself.  Without Liberty, someone you fear owns you; someone who believes they are entitled to everything you have, and everything you are.
>      Without liberty, you have no power to love; no right or power to express who you are or what you feel.  Without liberty, outside of yourself you do not exist.
>      Liberty is the opportunity to love.
>      Is this untrue?
>      You cannot win liberty by fighting for it.   You cannot buy Liberty.   Liberty exists only as a gift. 
>      Liberty is the opportunity to love.
>      The more I contemplate this definition, the more I am convinced of its truth.     Every effort I make to talk about it, however, results in one of two reactions from people:
>      In one, I am presented with a list of philosophers like Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, or Ayn Rand; eminent intellectuals who have written profound thoughts about Liberty.  These are people who, supposedly, can really teach me about this subject.   I find, however, that all of them justify some measure of tyranny in their philosophies.  No one defines a standard of behavior that would eliminate it. 
>      In the second reaction, I am dismissed as an arrogant nobody who has the effrontery to suggest that Liberty can be defined, or that defining it even matters.
>       In either case, the subject of Liberty is avoided.
>       If you want to get into a raving argument, try cornering someone about the definition of Liberty.  After repeated attempts, I can bet that you will come to the same conclusion that I have; Liberty is the common underlying issue in every human conflict. 
>       Everyone wants Liberty for themselves.  Few are willing to give it, without reserve, to others.      
>       I am no authority on this subject.  In your heart, you know as much about Liberty as I do.  I just don’t see that Liberty is so complicated that it requires books by intellectuals to comprehend it.  We all have the pure knowledge of this principle written in our hearts; within the attribute we call conscience.  Liberty is the fundamental principle of Moral Law; the Law that God has written in our hearts.  But ultimately, unless his mind submits to his heart, it is the mind of a man that governs his actions; and the mind of man is the source of tyranny.  Liberty comes from his heart.
>      I obtained books on Liberty by intellectuals and read them, or at least I attempted to.  In every case I felt like I was wading through a waist-deep bog of quicksand.  I kept setting the books aside, asking, “Why am I doing this?  Is reading the works of an ‘expert’ going to make me one?  Are these people saying anything profound, or are they complicating liberty to justify their own denial of it?   Are they revealing truth, or clouding it over?”
>      Your mind defines Liberty in terms that bend to your own standard of morality.  It depends upon how well you listen to your heart.   Everyone wants Liberty for themselves, but few are willing to grant it to others.  Most people reserve to themselves some right to be tyrants.
>      What tyrant does not loudly proclaim “Liberty!” while arrogantly believing that Liberty gives him the right to enslave others?  In his mind, he has convinced himself that slavery benefits “lesser” people! 
>      Liberty is not about you.  Liberty is a gift that you give to others.  Liberty is a gift that you receive from others. 
>      Liberty is the opportunity you give others to love you, rather than fear you.
>      What good is there in holding yourself or others to a standard that is loosely defined and compromised at will; that can be bent or denied by your mind to justify tyranny? 
>      What light are we to hold political issues and candidates up to, if the light of liberty can arbitrarily be dimmed to any standard we choose?
>      The only constant beacon of light I know of is the light of conscience; the light by which men of peace govern themselves and their relationships with others.  By that light people of virtue, people of conscience, ought to agree on a firm standard of Liberty, a standard of behavior by which statesmen can be differentiated from politicians.
>      I offer you, in friendship, my own standard of Liberty.  I ask you to consider it, in the light of your conscience.   Can you find a statement within this that is not true?  If so, I would consider it an act of friendship on your part to make me aware of it.
>  
>  
> THE STANDARD OF LIBERTY
> Liberty is your opportunity to love.
> Liberty is your opportunity to give.
> Liberty is your opportunity not to give.
> Liberty is self-ownership, and as such,
> Liberty requires self-responsibility.
> You have nothing to give if you do not own yourself.
> You have no power to choose if you do not own yourself.
> You have no self-respect if you do not own yourself.
> You are nothing If you do not own yourself.
> Regardless of inequalities, two people are equal
> when neither is entitled to anything from the other.
> We are equal when we mutually embrace self-ownership.
> Every contention stems from denial of equality.
> Every contention is a battle for self-ownership.
> There is no peace without equality.
> There is no peace without liberty.
> If one person is entitled to something from another,
> they are not equal.
> What one is entitled to, the other is enslaved to.
> Neither has liberty,
> Neither knows peace.
> Liberty grants opportunity to destroy it.
> Liberty grants you opportunity to destroy yourself.
> Liberty is your opportunity to be self-indulgent.
> Self-indulgence evolves into hoarding.
> Hoarding evolves into inequality.
> Inequality claims entitlement.
> Entitlement denies liberty.
> We were endowed, by our Creator, with rights.
> We were not endowed with entitlements.
> You have a right to Liberty, as Liberty is right.
> You are entitled to nothing, as entitlement is not right.
> Liberty is a gift; something you receive.
> If you have Liberty, it is because someone gave it to you.
> If you have Liberty, it is because someone defended it.
> If you have Liberty, it is because someone loved you.
> Honor the gift, for by so doing, you
> Honor the givers of the gift.
> Liberty is the opportunity to love.
> Liberty is a gift; receive it.
> Liberty is a gift; cherish it.
> Liberty is a gift; give it.
> Liberty is the standard by which men of peace govern themselves.
> Ben H. Szymanski
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170316/230bf03b/attachment-0001.html>