One Must Hunger for Freedom

To date, this blog has defined the martial arts in a number of ways including:

The means by which one restores their equality with others,

The means by which one chooses the manner of their own death,

The art of living well,

The method of quickly resolving human conflict in accordance with the universal greater peace.

To these definitions, I add another: the method by which one actualizes their autonomy to achieve and maintain their liberty.  First, I must clarify that not all individuals want liberty, nor is liberty some kind of absolute good.  Freedom does not imply lack of suffering, but merely the lack of arbitrary suffering inflicted at the whim of others.  All will suffer.  All will die.  The question of martial relevance is how one would like to suffer and die best.  By embracing this choice without fear, a person lives a life of greater meaning and beauty than if they merely shuffled aimlessly about the world unconsciously approaching their terminus.

The martial arts dare to postulate that death has value and must be spent on things that matter to oneself and others.  Otherwise, by not taking ownership of one's own death, a person has taken their most valuable possession and yielded it to the whims of others out of fear, laziness, or weakness.  How does one break free of those destructive vices and take ownership of their own lives and deaths?  They must learn to hunger for freedom.

Nurturing the hunger for freedom occurs when one comes into contact with the great rewards of autonomous action.  Autonomy consists of those idiosyncratic actions which distinguish an individual from their collective and best allow the satisfaction of that individual's unique preferences.  One problem of collectivist approaches to public satisfaction is the existence of differences in preference among individuals which lead to irreconcilable strains between the individual and the larger community.  This strain results either to a change of the existing order or a compromise of the individual's needs.

The collectivist would argue that there are instances when liberty must be restricted for the public good.  Indeed, liberty must be earned by respecting the rights of others and those who insist on harming others for their own benefit alone must have restrictions placed upon their behavior.  In the same way an individual would like their autonomy respected and to avoid coercion, they must respect the autonomy of others and avoid coercion themselves.  To maintain this situation, the state is used as a mediator for the protection of individual rights.  However, when the state overreaches its jurisdiction by needlessly abusing coercion where it is not warranted by the protection of rights, despotism is the result.

Despots who wield their authority like a club justify their actions with the moral qualification that the ends justify the means.  For example, if random arrests of unmarried men resulted in less murders per year, then the policy would therefore be just and good.  This point of view might even make sense if human beings were merely hive insects responding by reflex to the pheromone directives of masters.  However, this lifestyle is inconsistent with our natures, even if many of our species are taught to act precisely this way.

This blog dares to posit the exact opposite moral standard: the means justify the ends.  Those who live their lives coercing others, limiting autonomy, and punishing innocents deserve their ends: conflict, regret, confusion, pain, and complication.  Those who live their lives encouraging others, increasing the options of others, and rewarding those who demonstrate merit deserve their ends: peace, pride, wisdom, comfort, and simplicity.  One's method presupposes an outcome.  Ends consistent with peace cannot be achieved by means of violent coercion.  In the same way, one who exemplifies the martial way does not worry about harming others, because their means of living life cannot possibly lead to harmful ends.  In the words of Stefan Molyneux, violence doesn't work. 

I challenge the reader to contemplate their hunger for freedom and the means by which they secure and protect that freedom for themselves and others.  Those who do not live life ground under the heels of petty bureaucrats and bullies have a hard time understanding the value of their autonomy.  I hope that those who currently enjoy liberty implement it to its fullest expression by opposing the use of coercion in their own lives and advocating for greater freedom.  I hope that those who currently have no hunger for living by their own terms challenge themselves to appreciate a taste of self actualization by cutting the safety nets and attempting to make their own way.  Lastly, I hope that those who do not currently enjoy liberty have not forgotten their hunger and will continue to strive for autonomy to whatever extent they are able.