A few words about Liberty

The Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was approved 225 years ago in France, states that people are born and live in freedom and have the same rights. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else.

In the spirit of this declaration and the freedom ideals of the age of Enlightenment, English philosopher John Stuart Mill – who is also known as a defender of women's rights as well as freedom of expression and freedom of religion - summed up the essence of freedom in his book “On Liberty”. He wrote that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

The Declaration of of the Rights of Man was inspired by the United States Declaration of Independence, which stated that all men are created equal, and that they have certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 is based on the original Declaration of the Rights of Man, but it has been watered down from the original edition. Although it states that people are born free, it does not mention that people should also live in freedom. The Declaration does not define what freedom is, so each dictator can define it as he wants.

The principle of the inviolability of the liberty of citizens is no longer recognized. Freedom of the individual is no longer relevant. The imagined interest of individual - and in many cases actually only imagined - is considered sufficient reason to violate his freedom. Parliament enacts laws, which reduce the freedom of people to decide their own affairs. Citizens' personal freedom, which the major philosophers and statesmen a couple of hundred years ago defined as an inviolable fundamental right, is being sold by politicians like slices of cheap sausage.

Extreme leftist, who want to establish communism and totalitarianism, do not appreciate the true freedom of the individual, because the pursuit of happiness - such as the The Declaration of Independence says – leads to economic disparities. Some are always more successful than others in seeking to achieve happiness. Individual freedom will also frustrate attempts to create socialism, because free men are unwilling to submit to the socialist system. They vote with their feet if nothing else helps . This is why socialism always includes suppression of freedom and erection of walls. Socialist model also includes the notion that a private citizen does not need a personal freedom, because he cannot use it properly. He is not able to decide what is good for him, and what is good for the society. Decisions must therefore be made by the political minority and elite, which knows what is best for all. There are lot of examples of the kind of happiness what socialist societies can achieve, but still many people believe in them.

The concept of Liberty is so old and so common that even the socialists have not been able to totally abandon it. They have come up with a new definition of freedom, "freedom to something " - as opposed to the old definition "freedom from something”. In literature the names are positive liberty and negative liberty. The later is of course not real freedom. It is more a possibility to something.

The socialist way of thinking has crept insidiously in activities of non socialist states. The technique is the same, with which the Soviet dictatorship was justified . All restrictions were intended only for the happiness of people, even though people did not always get it.

When the value of the freedom of the individual is close to zero, and when the right to security has been increased at the highest value of society, liberties can taken away from the people completely arbitrary. Even a small improvement in the theoretical security allows the massive reduction of individual freedom.

Society has become a totalitarian dictatorship of security in which a small clique of politicians and authorities has the sovereign right to decide what are the security issues, and after that decision it has the sovereign right to use coercion in these "security issues". Security is the magic word with which the democratic debate is silenced. National security, the security of individuals, the security of Internet - any one of these is a sufficient reason to take off the last remnants of our freedom. And when this is happening, we are rejoicing and cheering and waving flags without noticing what is actually happening. And no deadline exists. This is going on and on. A small elite of better knowing people make compulsory laws in order to increase citizens' happiness. Actually such laws reduce happiness. The concept of "right to security " is an essential part of political liturgy nowadays, and it is used to fool people. When something is prohibited, it is said that the decision was necessary because of the people 's right to security.

Although the world has changed, I still appreciate the original freedom of the individual , and I believe that it is best realized in a democratic and equality based society. Not in a society in which somebody is pulling the strings behind the scenes to set up a dictatorship. None of the political parties seem realize this. The concept of liberty is not used in political speeches any more. The politicians do not promise more freedom. They promise more security. And this means dictatorship.

I am in favor of freedom, even though I know it is considered to be old-fashioned . I don't like uniforms. They are not symbols of freedom.

---

There is no such thing as planetary Court of Justice, which would infallibly define what is good and what is evil. The definition is always made by some person or group of people. Violence and in some cases a mere coincidence decides which interpretation remains prevailed.

The system, which is based solely on violence and coincidences, is not very stable. Thus, attempts have been made to connect the concept of good and evil with some permanent principle, to which people may rely, when they decide, if doing something is accepted or not.

Traditionally the monarch or religious leaders have had the last word in defining what is accepted and what is not. Later the people itself has got a right to express it's will by voting in elections. The process, which is dominated by people themselves, is called democracy.

Today's democracy is estranged from what it ideally should be. The citizens feel that they cannot influence common affairs. This leads to the alienation of the political process. People are not interested in voting, because people feel that nothing will change anyway.

The current type of democracy is not even intended to implement the will of the people. It is merely a facade, enabling authorizes the use of power. If citizens complain about any of the regulations, they are reminded that the direction of the policy is decided in the elections. So if they want to change things, they have the opportunity to influence by voting. They have to accept the fact that existing rules correspond to the will of the people until the next election.

Every now and then people's trust in the current policy and the legitimacy of the rules is examined through surveys that ask what the citizens think about the policy and the rules. The purpose of these surveys is not to find out the true opinion of the people, but manipulated opinion that supports the current policy and its existing rules thus resulting in the North Korean figures, which show that more than 95% of the population accept the law. The situation is arranged such a way that the pressure created by the social environment eliminates undesirable alternatives. In addition, the questions are formulated to lead to certain direction, and the answers are interpreted purposefully.