Freedom is something that goes hand in hand with responsibility. You have the liberty do things but you are also responsible of the consequences for the better or worse. How can we learn without extending and testing our limits? Being a grown-up should mean that you are in a full control of your life. You decide and act like an ass or a responsible person but it’s all up to you, right?

Become an entrepreneur and you soon realise that there are regulations and restrictions on pretty much anything and everything you do. Adults are not allowed to mutually agree upon the terms of their voluntary interaction—they are not considered competent enough to be in charge of their own lives. It does not matter whether we talk about building a house, renting an apartment or some equipment, hiring a person to do something for you, or even buying simple goods from your local shop. Did I mention there are even rules how and when you can walk and penalties for non-compliance?

Freedom means that you have the right to accept something but more importantly the right to decline from something. The latter part causes a lot of trouble for entrepreneurs. They are not simply allowed to carry out their trade without being pushed around continuously by various rules and regulations, penalties and compliancy issues. Large companies have it easier since they have the adequate resources and specialist to handle all the burdens of the public authorities. Small companies do not have the capital and manpower to deal with all the requirements without compromising their primary line of business: earning their living.

The entrepreneur must become the master of all trades without turning into a jack-of-all-trades. The challenge is not so much of how to be a productive member of the society but an obedient puppet that is not completely tangled up to the master puppeteer’s strings that tend to be pulled in random and often in self-contradictory order.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that one of the most persistent themes in human life is a constant urge to find asylum and comfort elsewhere, even if the whole quest is based on pure illusion of vague ideas or poorly defined concepts that do not make much sense in a closer look. This behavioural pattern can be found in politics, religion, or pretty much in any arena of human life—we want to be rescued from ourselves.

This is rather amusing thought. Someone is afraid of or unable to cope with himself and is looking for pretty much anybody or anything for relief from this horrible condition. If there is demand there is also supply and hence there are always people with bags full of tricks providing cures for the wicked. What makes the scenery a bit confusing is that the helper and the patient typically have the same condition—the deaf is leading the way for the blind, and at the end of the day nothing gets any better.

The formula is very basic and favoured by many con-artists: “You don’t have to do anything yourself I will take care of your troubles and worries. I will fix everything for you without your involvement, rest assured.” The outcome is very predictable like in the case where the firemen are the pyromaniacs in disguise—there will never be a lack of new fires to be extinguished. The mess does not get any cleaner unless the root cause of the matter is tackled and faced. And this does not happen easily since that’s the whole name of the game—dependency and continuity of the status quo, supported by both parties.

No one does anything for nothing so there needs to be a catch, a trade-off. In order for an exchange to happen both parties need to gain something in the trade and have something the other party values. Often the list of wishes is rather short: money, power, control, property, or a combination of these. The game is very straightforward and it keeps going on until the patient has run out of assets that interest the helper. The point is not to face the mirror and see the bogeyman but to keep the good stuff flowing as long as possible. Who would like to wake up the client if it causes to end the long-term relationship of mutual co-dependency? And for the client the existing state of affairs is often many times more tolerable than any potential changes to the unknown—no matter how harsh or twisted the current reality is.

In essence this mutual inertia is the core why human life spins the same wheels thousands of years without much change but in appearances and non-essential surroundings such as technology development and sophistication. We yell for help and at the same time some of us provide the momentarily relief for the rest, more or less knowingly that it is all based on pure illusion, self-betrayal, and personal gain. The stronger tends to exploit the weak while the weak is too ignorant to care about the consequences and supports the exploitation since they do not know anything better—there has always been someone else that saves them from themselves and takes care of the hardest of all works: thinking and self-development.

No one remembers anymore how to be self-reliant. Be strong and independent, stand on one’s own two feet and be at peace with oneself and the world. Interact and communicate with the world but without participating in the victim game of need and lack. That’s something the weak will never know and only the strong can tell, if there were any of them left to show the way for the others.

This works similarly in the collective level. Abstract words such as nation, community, political party, nationality, profession, or whatever imaginable descriptive term that combines several individuals by some common nominator(s) are used to simplify and polarise, categorise and divide. The idea is to unify and make individual units alike that can be counted like beans in a basket: they can be added or subtracted, multiplied or divided, even replaced if necessary. This ‘collective’ becomes a breathing unit that is responsible for its ‘actions’ and hence can be blamed for its outcomes. Collective punishments are justified in this manner.

Despite of the multitude of abstractions in use they do nothing in themselves. No country wages a war against any other country. No government confiscates private wealth. Similarly no political party gets anyone elected. The words we are commonly using have a life of their own. They are no more treated as pointers or descriptive terms that make communication of the underlying issues easier and more efficient but nothing more. Today the abstractions are more important than the individuals that are referred to by these terms. Abstractions are a way to camouflage and disassociate what is really meant by using the terminology.

Words do not hurt anyone. Nobody takes a mad man seriously no matter what comes out of his mouth. It is always the receiver, the listener, who interprets and makes the value judgement whether to react and how, if at all. Words become important and significant when they are taken seriously and considered to mean something. Still, we regard words as something very precise and accurate when in the most of the cases they are not. Even tangible objects cannot be communicated without ambiguity or a large margin of error—more words are required just to describe better the item in question in order to make sure that it is understood as intended by the sender.

Abstract ideas are even worse. Often they cannot be described in a way that is acceptable, understandable, or even comprehended by the listeners at all. It is simply assumed that everybody knows what the term means and it is perceived in a manner the sender intends it. Ideas are based on assumptions and certain beliefs, and they are typically built on top of a mental construct that is mostly not self-evident.
Someone using an abstract term does not necessarily mean that she has any idea what she is talking about. Often it is impossible to find even a handful of individuals who share the same definition of an idea or abstract concept. Nevertheless, they are used like precision tools that are razor sharp and exactly to the point. And they are taken seriously.

Still, abstractions are just a tool we use for something that has been deteriorating for a long time. The fundamental question is not so much what’s wrong with others but what’s wrong with us. “We” is always someone else’s “others” so altogether there is no one else to blame but us, the humans. Labels do not change the reality no matter how nice or bad words we use, neither they change the actions taken—they are still with the persons who carry them out and cannot be undone. Words and perceptions can be spun and distorted but they do not change the truth—it stays even when no one is ready to acknowledge it. Ultimately words are irrelevant and only the actions remain.

We have lost the substance, the actions, and are only interested of the words. This is reflected all around in every sector of our society. We use a concept called money but our central banks do not even provide a definition for something they have a sole monopoly. In the past there needed to be more than words in pieces of paper that were created at a whim of the producer—the paper itself was not of value like a valet coupon. Now we are happy to use colourful papers that are just that, mere words backed by nothing but the public’s trust on them and a threat of violence to protect the cartel. There is no more private property—only various degrees of control. Our legal system is a joke that does not protect each individual equally and fairly in front of the law. Justice is something that has lost its meaning. Laws are written and interpreted by those who are in power and dependent on or benefit from the system. Law enforcement favours the large interests and mainly protects the government from the people. Objectivity and fairness cannot be mentioned in the same sentence with equality when laws are written to benefit some persons at the expense of others.

The emperor has no clothes in so many fields that we don’t even recognise the ludicrousness of the situation anymore. It has become the status quo and accepted new normality. This deterioration happens gradually, over many decades and centuries. Without fundamental questions and strong individuals still believing in the power of their own mind and reasoning the downfall turns into a freefall that can be very shocking when the inevitable truth starts to loom behind the decorative words. The crash is harder the later the reality is acknowledged. Movement of time is no proof for advancement of any society. Higher sophistication in stupidity and brutality do not change their very basic nature even though they may be tolerated better thanks to over-extended exposure to them. Is there anything more arrogant than those who claim to be civilised?

We have lost our ethics and moral. They are not seen in our actions—we merely talk about them. Or should we define our ethics by our actions? Words are useless but our actions never lie. We support financially and by our every day actions killing, murdering, stealing, violence, and coercion. These activities are not just directed towards other species but most of all exercised against other human beings. They are always conducted by someone, an individual person, never by any abstraction or collective concept. Still, in most of the cases we don’t consider anything wrong or hypocritical in these actions and thus they are tolerated or even encouraged. Killing, murdering, stealing, violence, and coercion against individuals are acceptable when the scheme is large enough, for the greater good, or specially approved by an abstract body.

You are not allowed to steal from your neighbour except when using a taxman or legislation. Murdering people is wrong except when you have a strong economical interest or other justifiable cause backed by your government. Coercion is not acceptable unless you are a bureaucrat. In that case you are not responsible of your very actions as a human being—you turn into a mechanical robot without consciousness and moral. The list is almost endless and we all are part of these activities against each other.

This madness does not stop until we recognise and acknowledge each other as human beings. Currently we are waging war against everyone else financially, psychologically, socially, and physically. We use various tools and means for our bidding but it does not matter how much we spin the words the reality does not change—only individuals do the acts. Nothing will change unless we change ourselves. Our society and world is only the reflection of human consciousness and ethics. Any society that does not respect individuals and lay their foundation on individual freedom, respect, responsibility, and equality is doomed to fail in the long run. Only strong independent individuals can support each other and thus form a society. There is no society without persons. Externally imposed morality, rules, controls, and restrictions are doomed to achieve their purpose unless it is to suppress and subdue individuals as obedient servants that act like sheep ruled by a small elite. So far we have found many volunteers for both roles as victims and masters. The play will not change unless the individual actors start to act differently and stop blaming each other for the lousy script they have written themselves. There is nothing wrong with the world but maybe little something with our values?

Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand—the greater the freedom the greater the responsibility as well. Our current society does not encourage personal freedom. In practice we are sanctioned, monitored, and restrained in almost all aspects of life. We have learned to behave obediently and not to question the behaviour patterns or norms of the society. Like Goethe once said: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

We have created an artificial layer that is expected to protect individuals from harms and consequences of their personal actions. This has created a culture where people have become accustomed (or learned) to be passive and not to take action themselves. We expect someone else to tell us what to do or help us out of our own problems. This has come so far that we even regard we have the right and the others’ the moral obligation to unilaterally support us. We have isolated ourselves from the effects of our actions.

Our personal initiatives and responsibility are very limited, but so is our freedom as well. We have given up our rights in order to gain something for nothing. We prefer to have it easy and let others to bear the consequences for us. Unfortunately this is a zero-sum game in an aggregate level and as a result everybody is worse off. There are no free lunches—there is always someone paying the bill.

Isolating individuals from their actions’ consequences is a double-edged sword. It creates an illusion of safety and protection but at the same time it removes the control from the very person. And this creates uncertainty, fear, and self-esteem issues among others. Simply we do not feel anymore that the life is in our own hands: we are on top of the issues and have the solutions available for us. Confidence and security build from experience and the knowledge that we have the tools and the means to cope with our circumstances.

It requires practice and experience to become good at something. This means that we have learned something by experimenting and sometimes even making wrong choices that have guided us to do something differently in the future. In other words we have the motivation to keep going and get better. All this requires responsibility. Responsibility is the feedback mechanism that shows us how we are performing and the results of our pursuits. Mastery is only possible for those who are aware of their actions and their consequences.

Look around you—how much responsibility are we taking for our actions?

Who does not have any needs? We all do. Newspapers are full of ‘needs’ to be fulfilled. They are very urgent and thus must be satisfied at any cost. But whose needs are more important than anyone else’s?  Why should others fulfil someone else’s needs? In short, what is the justification for the underlying assumption that everybody else except the person itself should be responsible for satisfying one’s own needs? This is to say that it is fine and noble to receive without one’s own effort and let the others even work for it. To close the circle the ones who are working for the ‘needs’ of others are morally despised by the others because they are making an effort and thus at least are getting something done. They are called selfish and greedy. It is socially acceptable to receive benefits in due cause solely because one needs them but it is low and almost criminal to mind one’s own business and stand firmly on one’s own two feet. Their needs are of no importance since they are capable of taking care of themselves. Thus it is OK to discriminate against the ones with capabilities and virtue—“they have it all” as it is often said. It is the ones who do not have are more important exactly because they lack something. And because they have deficiencies their ‘needs’ have to be fulfilled. In another words, ability and hard work are less valued than ignorance and vices. Not doing and trying are achievement themselves whereas making an effort and working for one’s success are self-evident and of no importance whatsoever—they are sacrificial.

It is socially acceptable to care for others’ well-being, often even in general terms without being able to define the others specifically (i.e. ‘public good’, welfare of the state, general good or welfare), and to do something that is non-profit and thus ‘not selfish’. This means that everyone minds everyone else’s business but no one is allowed to mind one’s own. A socially acceptable and morally just society is one where no one is selfish and thus not focusing at all for one’s own needs and well being. In addition, it is socially acceptable to receive if one has needs but if everyone is just to receive from where is it all then coming from? And how can the others know exactly what are the most important needs for everybody else? Or is it so that there is a more general standard which defines what others are supposed to need and in what proportions? Or is it just called the welfare state and democracy by majority rule?

Human history is a history of serfdom and slavery. A tiny minority rules the majority and the majority is kept under the current rule either by physical fear or imposing ideological and moral means for the same end. The end result has always been the same: some, very few, benefit and the rest pay and suffer the consequences. It does not really matter how the political system is called because actual, de facto, circumstances reveal the reality anyhow. Despotism, communism, democracy, socialism, capitalism, and feudalism are just abstract words with little concrete and commonly accepted meanings. The reality does not change by naming it differently. Also, the previous ideological principals that were the founding forces for something considered as noble at the time usually decay after a few decades or generations, and can revert to its opposite reality in practise.

Thanks to our history we have never experienced freedom. Therefore we are not accustomed to it either. It is difficult to claim something that is almost beyond practical comprehension. Liberty is one of the key things we have never realised in our societies. The Founding Fathers of the United States were probably the closest in our modern history to grasp the concept by stating in the Declaration of Independence the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

The statement holds some very strong fundamental concepts and moral ideas upon which all the rest is based on. It starts by stating that everybody is born equal and this self-evident fact cannot be changed during the course of anyone’s life nor can it be taken away from any person by any means whatsoever. Just to state this once again: everybody is equal and no one is above or below anyone else. This means that everybody has the inseparable right for his or her own independence and freedom, and since everybody is equal nobody has the right to violate anyone else’s independence and freedom (i.e.Rights) either. Especially the negative right is very important – a right to decline and refuse.
It continues by opening up some of these inseparable Rights by naming them: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. By saying that everybody has the inseparable right for his or her own life this means that everyone’s life is equally valuable and no one shall interfere with other’s life (or separate one from it). Liberty states the inseparable right for one’s own actions and their consequences (as long as they do not violate anyone else’s Rights). This means that one is free to choose his own moral choices but also to bear the consequences.
The Pursuit of Happiness declares that everyone has an equal opportunity to seek and discover his or her own happiness by one’s own means and choices. It does not state that one is entitled to happiness (i.e. one has a right for happiness). It does not define happiness since it is everyone’s own quest to define and materialise it in one’s life. Thus it is part of the liberty and freedom that everyone has. One is free to seek for his or her way of happiness and practise it as well without anyone’s interference.

Altogether, we are born free and equal and continue to be so along the courses of our lives. We are free to act and use our lives as we wish without anyone’s interference provided that we are not denying anyone else’s similar rights either. A mutually respective way of living based on everyone’s own actions and free will to exist independently.

The final sentence defines the role of Governments only as the means for the protection of the stated Rights, and nothing else. It does not define for governments any role per se and thus they only raison d’être is to make sure that every person is equal and their inseparable rights are not violated by anyone (not even by the government itself).

The above statement is very strong and the humanity has not been ready for it, as of yet that is. Why? Because it is made for grown-ups that are expected to appreciate their own and other’s life above anything else, and respect this principal by not violating anyone else’s rights by force (i.e. involuntarily). It requires that everyone is responsible of one’s own life including one’s own actions and their consequences. This means that one appreciates oneself and lives by one’s own standards, values and moral choices without imposing them to anyone else involuntarily neither directly nor indirectly (i.e. by third parties or entities such as government). It also means that we are free to pursue our own course of life and enjoy from it as well. Especially the last points have been very difficult and basically non-existing in the modern Western societies.

Coming back to our legacy we have always been under someone’s rule either physically, mentally or spiritually and therefore it is very natural for us to expect something or someone to look after us and tell us what to do. This parenting concept is so evident that we don’t even realise it. We expect someone else to take responsibility of our own lives and let us follow the lead. Naturally there has been and always will be people who are ready to take the lead and define the rules how the rest of the population should behave, think, act, work and most of all live their lives. By allowing this to happen we give away our own liberty but more importantly we force others under someone else’s rule and judgement and thus deny their very Right for independent existence. Imposed liberty is no liberty at all. So far liberty has been too precious to be left for everyone to seek for and purse themselves.