Take Liberty.com
Don't Ask Permission - Just Take It


Liberty Series
The Program - Why It Works
by   Richard   Rieben
Chapter 4 - First Posted – 1 January 2004 
 
Is the program of people independently signing a document that protects their rights merely wishful thinking?

You read it, make changes so that it is agreeable, and then you sign it.

Then you sit around in your kitchen wondering – what now? What does this "act" mean? Does this change anything? Has it changed anything? You've read a book, thought about the contents, and signed-off your agreement with a contract of self-government. Is this an indulgence in wishful thinking – in fantasy?

What has changed is everything, although nothing immediately, and nothing apparently. What has changed is that the world is now on the road to peace and harmony. Totalitarianism is being rejected positively (with a cogent replacement), and the events of the world signify the approach of a better world, even as the present one is collapsing.

What has changed is that now you are prepared. The "end of days" is not like stepping off the edge of a cliff. The species has chosen to survive the end, and to transition into something better.

But, well, it does seem a bit foolish, sitting here in my kitchen, signing this thing, and thinking that I have "done" anything. I mean, really, what have I done? Would it make any difference if I didn't sign it? Would it make any difference if I signed the contract without reading it? Would it make any difference if didn't participate at all?

Yes, it does make a difference. Please allow me to offer three paragraphs of background information on the nature of the contract before explaining how your participation makes a difference. And why it matters to you.

There is a form of government which dissolves all power structures, power strategies, domination agendas and all the manifestations of slavery. It is not anarchy (which perpetuates forms of authoritarianism). This form of government is almost not "government" at all. It is a unique form of self-government that does not contain the structural seeds of domination. It is composed of individuals who agree to the terms of a contract that protects their individual sovereignty from violations while retaining individual responsibility for that protection. It does not delegate power to an agency. As a form of government, it is not external to the people; it is not institutionalized; it is almost not "government" at all. Individuals chose an agreement, with one another, and bind themselves, contractually, to that agreement, not to one another or to an agency. If they violate the agreement (to respect the sovereignty of other individuals), then they suffer a penalty, as specified in the contract.

This form of government – pure self-government – has no room for a power structure. It eclipses the possibility of domination, tyranny, and totalitarianism. By means of this form of government, individuals remain at liberty, with their sovereignty in tact. They are, by their choice, responsible to an agreement, which serves to protect them from others and to protect others from them. Beyond this chosen agreement, they are not bound to, subordinated under, or indebted by any other human beings. Their relations are mutually voluntary, and without coercion.

The society that results from this form of government is not utopian. That is, it is not designed for a certain kind of human being, nor is it designed to improve or change people. Undoubtedly, changes will occur in people's character and sense of personal responsibility, but the form of government itself is not intended to affect anyone, only to protect their sovereign individual rights. The social consequence of this form of government will come from the cumulative, voluntary choices of individuals. The social results will undoubtedly be an improvement over what we have known historically, but the form of government does not dictate anything in regard to social consequences – it is not utopian.

Excuse the explanatory detour, I wanted to underline where this form of government is heading, because I want to explain that there is only one way to bring this form of government into existence. This form of government dissolves the power structure. It does this at every level of society, in regard to every group, institution, organization, government agency and secret society. It dissolves their power. Erases it. Voids it.

What keeps domination in power today is not the government, the military, the CIA, the church, the corporations or the secret societies. What keeps domination in power is the support that we give it, individually. Power structures of superior/subordinate positions create dependencies and vested-interests. We may "say" that we don't want totalitarianism or domination, but we are dependent upon these structures for our present survival.

The most anti-liberty elements of society are the people – underdogs, victims, workers, slaves – clamoring for liberty. It's not that they don't want it. It's not that they don't know – vaguely – what it is. It's not that they don't value it. But they don't know how to "get there." In order to survive today, they must continue to support the very structures that suppress liberty.

In addition, they are programmed, conditioned, and indoctrinated to function within a power structure and within a collective. They do not "stand apart," they "get along." It may be their natural inclination to get along with their fellows, in any case, but the collective does not give them a choice in the matter.

The grassroots support that keeps domination in power is a major part of the picture, about one third of it.

Another third is composed of those holding power, who will do everything possible to misdirect the quest for liberty – into blind alleys, or back into support for the power structure. This includes misrepresenting the nature of liberty, with great fanfare and academic, scientific, expert persuasiveness – a big lie.

A final third is composed of the structural properties of all groups; properties that originate in the traditional domination framework. What we have been trained to regard as "normal" group structuring, through such traditional precepts as Robert's Rules of Order, or a hierarchic arrangement, or even the group strategy of gaining membership in order have an impact (by numerical force) – all run counter to the reality of liberty, and all of them subvert that goal.

If we are wanting liberty, freedom and to secure the integrity of our sovereign, individual rights, then we are stymied by our own, ongoing support of domination structures, by those holding power within the structures (and/or our own vested interests in holding power over others), and by having no means, tools, or methodology that can get us out of the domination loop (without falling back into the trap by means of the tools themselves).

The definition of liberty, as a form of self-government, has been carefully described and defined (at length in Reciprocia) because it is very different from conventional, domination forms of government – both in its purpose and its structure. The reason to devote so much care to this description is to avoid compromising on principle, and, through oversight, falling into another domination trap, sinkhole, snare, or pit.

If we want liberty, we need to be sure that's where we're heading and that's what we get – exactly. That's the first phase of the program: Identification, understanding and agreement.

The second phase is to get there, and that also requires special attention to detail, because it is not a path that is familiar to conventional, domination political changes.

We are going some place different. And we are not traveling on the usual type of roads.

The road to liberty is not uncharted, but it does not exist on any of our conventional maps. Our conventional maps are plotted for domination goals. And conventional roads – even those which are posted "Liberty Ahead" – will take us, circuitously, right back into domination.

Thus, we chart a road that bypasses the usual snares. It cannot be routed through an organization. It cannot be routed through a community, commune, group, or club. It cannot go along the paths marked "education" or "academia." The path cannot be administered, monitored, or guided by an elite. The trail must be so secret that the travelers are the only ones who are aware of their footsteps; and they are only aware of their own footsteps. Admittance cannot be determined by money, race, religion, or any other social criterion. Access to the road is publicly and easily available to anyone, but it remains invisible to those who are opposed to liberty.

One of the main cloaking devices is that, even though it is in plain sight, it requires a conscious choice – some effort must be made to travel this path. It is not a rescue operation; it will accommodate the lame and the halt, but not the lazy or the irresponsible.

Now, does it matter if you read and sign, or sign, or participate in any fashion? Well, no. The rest of us will get there without you. If you make a choice not to participate, that choice signals a lack of interest in the goal, perhaps even opposition to the goal.

But this is not a good argument. It suggests that the "collective" will leave you behind, excluded and alone (you poor, abandoned baby), if you don't sign-on. It is a typical collectivist argument. But I wanted to let it roll around on your tongue before you spat it out.

The road described is the only real-world method of achieving liberty in today's sociopolitical environment. It is a premise, rather than an illusion. It is a description of the only circumstance that can result in liberty. It is a description of a possible reality – and of a tangible reality.

The postulate: "What if there were a secret movement to achieve liberty by means of single, separate individuals signing a contract that they have come to independently?" is not contingent upon a count of heads or books, but upon the reality that this is the only way to come to liberty, therefore, it must exist in some degree, and, finally, as a movement, it exists in full.

That does bear repeating, not to hit anyone over the head, but because it is the crux of argument: because of the nature of liberty, and because of the law that "means determine ends" (a corollary of the law of non-contradiction), it is only by means that are consonant with liberty that we can achieve liberty. Inasmuch as this is the only way, in reality, to come to liberty, therefore, as a movement with these goals and methods exists in some degree, then, as a movement, it exists in full.

I guess another answer to the question, "but I don't feel like I've done anything when I sign this agreement," is: well, you could spend more money, go to conferences, sign up for lectures, take special academic courses, and involve yourself in political action – and then you would feel like you are doing something, right? But toward the goal of liberty all of that "running around" is a waste of your time, energy and money – an intentional diversion, waste, and dissipation. If you find it entertaining, then great, I hope you have a lot of fun. But you, who are always saying that there are so many demands made upon your time and energies, are the one who is trying to invest your limited resources effectively. All I am saying is: do this one thing and – game, set, match – the world will be free. Sufficiente.

Mostly likely, you'll be around to watch it happen.

 

Chapter 3 - Liberty Series - Chapter 5
 
copyright © 2005 by Richard G. Rieben