Dear Director Chambers-Smith,
Hi, again.
I left off my last letter mentioning how Anarchism to me represents freedom, sanity, and a number of virtues that correspond to a healthy and meaningful life. Taking those topics in order, I’ll begin with freedom.
Freedom is the most important condition of life for me. In fact, I would suggest that while there are multitudes of varying and conflicting factions within the global Anarchist milieu, and while those varying factions have developed over centuries in responses to different eras, all Anarchists, at their very foundation, value freedom over everything else.
I would also suggest that freedom is the natural state of every living thing, and that no other artificial or fabricated state, however it comes to be, can surpass freedom. And if you agree, that makes you an Anarchist, whether you use the term or not.
Now to the pivotal question: What IS freedom?,– because people often view freedom very differently. If you were to take a poll, you’ll find that everyone values freedom greatly, but when asked to define what freedom is, you get a lot of varying ideas. Many people will list a catalogue of freedoms– “freedom of speech,” “freedom of religion,” and so on. This gives insight perhaps as to which freedoms are a priority to the particular person, but doesn’t really give much insight as to what freedom actually is.
Others, particularly in prison, will focus on specific joys of life to which they have been deprived, defining freedom as being able to smoke, drink, get high, or get “laid.” Again, these are more priorities of freedoms rather than definitions of what freedom actually is.
The best definition of freedom I’ve found was developed by Ward Churchill, a prolific writer and former professor. He’s a brilliant guy. He defined freedom as, “the absence of external regulation.”
I like that. It’s both accurate and elegant. I use that definition. Freedom is “the absence of external regulation.”
To unpack that, where something is regulating you… and that something isn’t you… you’re not free. Where something else is beyond you and is dictating to you or ordering you, regulating you, you’re not free. You are only “free” where you are regulating you… where YOU are in charge of you.
Freedom is the absence of external regulation. Where you have “external regulation,” you’re not free; where there is no external regulation, where you are in charge of you, you’re free.
This definition, by the way, doesn’t distinguish. It doesn’t matter what the “external regulation” is. If it’s present, you’re not free.
So, perhaps we should take a deeper look at this relationship between “freedom” and “external regulation.” Our definition sets them up as opposites. Two opposing forces. Where you have one, the other is absent. We can maybe graph that relationship like this:
0——————————————————————————-0
Freedom
External Regulation
(absence of
(absence of freedom)
external regulation)
Our graph has two absolute points at each end. One is “Freedom (the absence of external regulation),” and the other one is “External Regulation (the absence of freedom).” These two absolute points are connected by a horizontal line between them, which represents a kind of continuum, a space where the interplay between these two opposites occur.
So, with this graph, if you have a situation with very little external regulation, you might plot yourself on this continuum very close to the absolute point, Freedom. If, on this other hand, you are subjected to almost constant external regulation, you might plot yourself very close to the other absolute point, External Regulation.
I hope this graph gives us a chance to think about freedom and external regulation visually, as a kind of interplay between two forces.
But now that we have this graph and we have a way to visualize freedom and its absence, let’s think a little deeper about external regulation and what it is. External regulation implies an external regulat-or, someone who is doing the regulation. Kind of a no brainer, but for external regulation to exist, there must be an external regulator.
And again, quick side note, but our definition doesn’t distinguish. It doesn’t make any judgment as to whether a regulator is good or bad, benevolent or malevolent, friendly or tyrannical. It doesn’t matter the title of the regulator or the kind of system the regulator has in place or the regulator’s motives for regulating you. An external regulator is an external regulator. Where an external regulator is externally regulating you, you’re not free.
Freedom is the absence of external regulation and is, therefore, the absence of an external regulator.
Now, to the next question, what an external regulator is and what it does. A regulator regulates. It rules. It governs. So, generally, the word we use for an “external regulator” is what? “Government.” That’s the common word for the thing that regulates, that governs. Govern-ment. What it does is right in its name.
Now, again, this isn’t a referendum on any particular kind of govern-ment or political ideology. Government is government. External regulation is external regulation. It doesn’t matter if it’s being performed by a king or an autocrat or a socialist party or a senate or a western democratic republic. External regulation is external regulation. Where it exists, you’re not free.
Recall, freedom is “the absence of external regulation,” and external regulation comes from an external regulat-or, and external regulators are more commonly known as “government.”
Freedom is the absence of external regulation, the absence of government. The terms are interchangeable. In fact, we can modify our graph:
0———————————————————————————-0
Freedom
Government
(absence of
(absence of
government)
freedom)
Where you have freedom, you have an absence of government. Where you have government– external regulation imposed by an external regulator –you have an absence of freedom. The more governed you are, the less free you are, and vice versa.
This might seem counterintuitive to many who feel, particularly here in the U.S., that “government” gives us “freedom,” that government is the source or protector of freedom. As point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Government is, and always has been, the opposing force to freedom. Government is not the source of rights but the limiter of rights, the restricter that defines rights that government chooses to recognize and then restricts those rights to only the exercise that government wants to allow.
Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but even the so called Founding Fathers urged a healthy suspicion of government, calling it a “necessary evil.” They wrote a whole collection of works describing government as the enemy of freedom.
So, it is universally true that “freedom” and “government” are opposing forces. Where there is freedom, there is an absence of external regulation, government; where you have government, regulation, you have an absence of freedom.
So, on a practical level, this also holds true. Consider, the ideology that puts government first and sublimates the rights of the subject to the needs of government is Fascism. To Fascists, the authoritarian state is all that matters. Fascists advocate for the nonexistence of individual freedom.
At the opposite end the is only one ideology that advocates for freedom and the complete absence of government: Anarchism. So, we can graph this, superimposed upon our other graphs:
0————————————————————————-0
Freedom
Government
(Anarchism)
(Fascism)
Anarchists are the only partisans who advocate for freedom, for the absence of government. Every other political ideology occupies a point somewhere on the continuum between the two absolutes; every other ideology advocates a compromise position for freedom. The more authoritarian drift toward Fascism while the less imposing systems drift in the opposite direction.
But to be clear, Anarchists, and only Anarchists, advocate for freedom, for the absence of external regulation, the absence of government. In fact, absence of government is the simplest definition for Anarchism.
So, in the U.S., neither major party stands for “freedom.” Both parties stand for a COMPROMISE of freedom, a compromised freedom according to whichever party’s priorities for exercising power. Both parties agree on compromising freedom, and they both agree on government, but disagree only on how freedom should best be compromised to fulfill the aims of power.
And, again, not to get too deep in the weeds on this, but this compromise of freedom made by both parties reveals the real reason both democrats and republicans seek to crush and eliminate Anarchists out of existence: Anarchists are examples that expose the fraud and hypocrisy of both parties and their fraudulent claims of loving “freedom.” Anarchists are a reminder, an aggravation, demonstrating that both parties compromise freedom and really seek power.
Perhaps that’s why your predecessor, Gary Mohr, had me tortured. Perhaps that’s why your Gang Czar, DJ Norris, has me on the gang list.
At any rate, to finish up this question of freedom, there’s one last matter to which I turn your attention: Nonfreedom. What is the word we use for nonfreedom? What is the status of those who are not free?
Slavery.
You’re either free, or you’re a slave. Those are the only two states of being.
Anarchists advocate freedom. Anarchists advocate the absence of government, of external regulation, of slavery. No one else does.
Everyone but Anarchists, without exception, advocate for a compromise of freedom, varying degrees of compromise. And that means they also accept varying degrees of nonfreedom, which, we know, is slavery.
To be an Anarchist is to be an advocate for uncompromised freedom, to be an advocate against external regulation, government, and slavery, not just for oneself, but for everyone everywhere. To be anything other than an Anarchist is to advocate for the compromise of freedom, for varying degrees of slavery, for everyone everywhere. So, I am an Anarchist because I advocate for freedom, not just for me but for you; and I am an Anarchist because I oppose slavery in all of its forms, for me, for you, for everyone.
I hope this presentation makes clear why I believe Anarchism, and Anarchism alone, advocates freedom, and why everyone who advocates freedom in its fullness is, by virtue of that, an Anarchist, whether they identify by that word or not.
I will pick up in my next letter the topic of Anarchism equating with sanity and how hierarchy, based upon a series of provable delusions, is itself a kind of mental illness. That is, everyone who embraces hierarchy is mentally ill.
No offense.
And so, I will close here.
The truth is dangerous.
Stay dangerous.
Freedom,
Sean
***
To share with ODRC Director Annette Chambers Smith:
ODRC Director Annette Chambers Smith
ODRC
4545 Fisher Road, Ste. D
Columbus, Ohio 43228
annette.chambers-smith@odrc.state.oh.us
Mongoose Distro 