I’ve talked about this on several occasions but some things have become more focused for me lately as pertains to verbiage. I’m hoping that by discussing on Gonzo Times I’ll be able to present this thought to people who might be in positions to implement it more fully than I.

Many people talk about “Freedom of the Press” or “Free Speech”. They talk about the “Right to Privacy” and the “Right to Bear Arms”. I think people are confusing a few things here so I want to try to simplify this language. Before I do, however, let me explain why I think it is important to do so.

This land in which we live –the whole modern world, in fact — is controlled by what people refer to as “law”. It’s actually nothing of the sort. It’s legislation designed and written by people who know in very fine detail exactly what words they’re using and why. These people are called “lawyers” and they have their own language. This language is designed to sound just like the languages spoken by everyone else, but the definitions are developed in order to be subtly different. These differences put the power in the hands of the people who know exactly how and when to use which words. Words, therefore, are infinitely important in our work at freeing the world from these power-hungry warmongers.

Two of these words are being used interchangeably when in fact that have very different meanings and apply to very different things. These words are “Right” and “Freedom”. A “right” is a behavior which a person can do and under no circumstances can this be given up. The expression of the “right” might be limited in very specific situations, but the right can never be eliminated entirely nor curtailed in any way under normal circumstances.

There is one and only one true Right: the Right of Self-Defense. The only way in which this might be ethically curtailed is if one trespasses against another person. One’s Right of Self-Defense is then limited to removing one’s self from the trespassing situation. This is ethically acceptable from both points of view. An individual’s “self,” for the purposes of this Right, include their own physical body and any physical property they have justly acquired. I recommend viewing The Philosophy of Liberty for more information on this detail.

All other behaviors in which one might ethically indulge are “Freedoms”. These are derived from the Right of Self-Defense. If something cannot reasonably be derived from the Right of Self-Defense, one might rationally believe no such freedom exists. One can build walls upon one’s property behind which one can have privacy. There is therefore a derived Freedom from Invasion of Privacy. In order to defend one’s self and one’s property, one must at times use tools. There is therefore a derived Freedom to Bear Arms (when such arms are also one’s own property it is the Right). Since one can defend one’s own property, one obviously has the Freedom of Peaceful Use of such property. Being able to defend one’s self and one’s property allows one the Freedom of Association on and with such property.

When we conflate these two terms, we open the door to those who would curtail our Right to Self Defense. By claiming we have a Right to Free Speech, when obviously there are times (such as when we’re on somebody else’s property) when our subjects can ethically be limited, we give permission to these Lawyers to define a Right as something which can be limited. Worse, this  holds true not only with Lawyers but with the mindset of the population at large. For decades now people have rationally admitted areas and scenarios in which the “Right” to privacy can be ethically ignored. This implants in both the psyche and the law-book the view that a Right can be ignored. This must be stopped.

It is my contention, therefore, that we should be much more careful about what we call a “right” and what we label as a “freedom”. I hope you’ll agree with me. We refuse to allow others to govern us so we must govern ourselves.