Free Will and the Will of a Free Society

 

 If a society should will it, then it shall be free. If a society should take leave of their will for another’s, or if it should seek to impose their will, on the individual, then it shall forever remain bound into the slavery created by their will.

 Aside from God, Jesus, Yeshuah, Allah, Providence, Buddha or any other form of deity that we believe in, the will of society is not so great as to be infallible or just in all cases. However, the will of a society as a collective majority, can also be just if it is justly imposed.

 But what if then, a collective will, is unjust or unjustly imposed upon society as a whole? Does indeed might make right? I would persuade you against that theory in that it is as much a threat to the free will of man as the deprivation of oxygen is to his life. Might can only perpetuate might in that it is often born of a desire to repress the will of another. Right will always be right until it is used in the endeavors of wrong. Thus, just because it is your right, does not make it right.

 Let us then, for the sake of this article, agree, Theologians and Atheists alike that there is indeed a higher power that seeks to provide instruction for a just and moral life. That there is indeed a deity that granted life and free will and that he continues to watch this world and its inhabitants. Let us address him in the most general of terms as God.

 The founders of this country and the framers of her Constitution were stalwart in their belief in a higher, guiding force. They agreed that such a force has endowed upon his creation of man, certain rights that are natural, inherent and therefore inalienable.

 “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.”

  Declaration of Independence

  “The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing.”

 Saint Thomas Aquinas

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

 Marcus Aurelius

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”

 Thomas Jefferson

 So then, our forefathers and many a man and ruler in ancient history not only believed in a creator, but believed that that same creator had granted the right of self determination, self governorship or free will to the individual man. They believed that mankind had the right to rule his body and actions and to seek and fulfill whatever desires he may in his pursuit of, not only knowledge and fortune, but of happiness.

 How then does it come to pass that we have found ourselves being ruled yet again? How then have we come to give up this right of self determination? Why is it that a collective society can assume they may impose their will, just or unjust, upon any other man, woman or child?

 The individual, aside from God, is the single most powerful force on this planet. The individual alone has the right to determine which way he should go in life and what actions he may take. The individual is capable of a great many things, for the individual is capable of thought and reason.

 I propose that it is completely deplorable and laden with rebuke for a collective to seek to repress any just or moral action of the individual. The mass is only capable of group thought and speak; it has no capability of reason or thought in that it must, for its very existence, abhor these things. It must denounce the very idea of individualism and self determination.

 Though in doing so, it is also renouncing and repressing the greatest gift that our creator has bestowed-Life.

 For what is a life lived in its entirety in chains and bondage, servitude and serfdom? Nothing I dare say, but merely an object of existence. A rock may exist, but it has no life.

 If we do accept that God has given us to life and free will, then we must also accept that these gifts have come with a price. In every powerful being there exists such a desire as to see its subject live under their will. Such I believe is the desire of God. He in fact, does wish for us to live in his honor and after his image and teachings, but he also has granted us leave if we should so choose another path.

 Therefore is it entirely acceptable for a child of God, his creation, which among all other man is equal, to decide what another man shall do with his life? Is it therefore then acceptable that a Catholic should decide that all mankind should not eat meat when the custom of lint should come about? Or the Christian to partake of no wine or drug, or the Muslim to partake of no pork? I remain staunch in my belief that this is near chief among the greatest transgressions man can inflict upon his brethren.

The forceful or coercive application of the ideas of one or many, upon a single individual, is second in tragedy only to the actual physical taking of his life. An individuals mind and intellect is among the chief of those most precious gifts entailed in life. Is it not in the mind where happiness is perceived? Is it not our minds and intellect that allow us to define our happiness by counting it against our sufferings?

 To make a man espouse the ideas of another, forcefully, is an evil, tyrannical thing. In all cases this act should be met with the utmost and vehement force of rebellion. The retention of all things singular and precious to this individual should be retained, and it is his will alone that can determine what will or will not be cast aside.

 It is a derelict society that would seek to impose its own ideas and will upon the individual. It is an immoral and corrupt society that would seek to ridicule, persecute or excommunicate the individual that would challenge these same things. It is also a cowardly individual that would allow this same treatment to persuade his ideology.

 There can be a time however, that an imposition can and should be tolerated. The father that teaches his children about morality and integrity should, in all cases, not be hindered. The pastor that teaches his congregation after the teachings of God and his book should not be abhorred. The student that seeks knowledge from his teacher should not be abridged in any way. But, there will and must come a time when each of these will, in the course of responsibility, throw off these harnesses and seek for themselves the truth of the questions.

 This time must come in the course of natural events. It must be allowed to expand as a result of the individual’s own desire and it must come freely. A society is in no way just, nor does it have the authority, to bring about these changes or inflict upon the individual a reprieve from these things.

  A society must stand aside and let man, for himself, determine when he shall stand and when he shall lay. When he shall read and when he shall speak. It is a fearful and dastardly thing indeed for a society to seek or obtain the power to direct the individuals mind and mouth to its own ends. This act should be repelled in every instance.

 The ideas of an individual are the very foundation of a free society. They are the fruit born of labored intellect and they should be well received in all cases. Is every man not entitled by way of life to his own thoughts and opinions? Whether they be perceived rightly or wrongly is of no consequence. If a just and moral idea should give way to actions of the same, then how should a society succeed in putting them down? If an unjust and immoral idea should lead to actions of the same, but not be put down, how then should this society be regarded?

 I should say that the individual is the very thing upon which a society is formed and the very thing which gives it power. Therefore is it not conceivable to assume that every idea and individual is indeed of the collective? For an idea may inspire one or many to the same cause. Those same individuals may take shelter in their own collective to insure their merits are well received and debated. Is this not the way it has always been?

 I should upon reflection and reference state yes. Men have always been drawn to those of like mind and conscious. Whether they be moral or immoral is not the basis of this argument, merely a by product. If endowed with the ability and desire to seek and espouse our own ideas, but having those same rejected by the majority of society, is it not our way to form a group of individuals wherein the same reasoning and logic can be found?

 If so, why is it then allowed, for one collective to be deemed just, while another, created by the same desire of company, should be vilified? I know not and can fathom no logical or sane reasoning as to justify this behavior.

 If a free society is to at all, remain free, or a bound society is to ever, become free, it then must accept the individual and the respective ideas as an integral part of the same.

“Reaching consensus in a group is often confused with finding the right answer.”

 Norman Mailer

 “The unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion.”

 John F. Kennedy

In Liberty,

 Richard Camacho

Ron Paul 2012