FREEDOM
by Lino Bertuzzi - July 2016

SUMMARY: preamble - moral freedom - You not shall have master - When a man is a slave of himself - Freedom and law - How to distinguish good and evil

PREAMBLE

Freedom means a condition in which an endowed with reason fellow can decide to think, speak and act without constraints, and to devise and implement a voluntary action by choosing scope and tools to achieve it.
Freedom is the condition allowing you to bring the power of choice at the time, and it seems needless to say that the action that an individual intends to take, can necessarily be affected by external conditions, both resulting from mandatory laws of physics, as otherwise from determinants of situations. Freedom is perceived by the subject:as follows:

  • as lack of submission, enslavement, or coercion, becasuse a human being  is considered independent,
  • or positively in the sense of autonomy and spontaneity of rational subject: In this sense the volunteers and positive human behaviors are qualified free

Free human actions are voluntary and therefore rational. To be rational, they need to have one or more goals and in this sense can be defined as good or bad depending on ,scope to be achieved and means at are used.

THOUGHT and MORAL FREEDOM

With regard to the field of free choice it comes to moral freedom, legal, economic, political, thought, metaphysical freedom, religious etc. In fact the freedom of which we speak here is that inherent to individual who, even when limited by mandatory external factors, is ultimately a principle that concerns every human person from the moral point of view, since the human person is endowed with ability of judgment and legal capacity. In short, whatever you think about it, I do not think that anyone would deny that moral freedom is the basis, the mother and the hat of all freedoms.

Cicero sentence. 'Freedom (...) does not consist in having a good master, but in having none at all'', but affecting politics of his time and having had a definite political purpose, however, it is very valid as a principle of general reasoning.
The great Cicero, for me a little brave character, he was then on the side of aristocrats and had enemys the plebs tribunes and 'populares' who, like Julius Caesar and others, thought that the Roman people had to work to earn a living, and that landowners should also use free citizens to work in fields and industries.
Returning to subject, freedom, is evident that mandatory laws by acting in the physical world course direct and limit individuals in name of the common good.. However the limited freedoms are considered natural and inviolable, and in this sense are not real limitations, being valid to everyone.
Furthermore, machines used to overcome some physical limitations are tools of which with reason and will should increase the freedom because can transform the power (possibility, ability, capacity) in real actions.

YOU SHALL NOT HAVE MASTERS

FREEDOM  THEREFORE IS TO NOT HAVE MASTERS. But it is not the 'master', ie what marxists see and demonize, it is owner of means of production, or one who has more things than another. or who owns things that another does not have.
It is not th fake lack of freedom resulting from the so-called 'alienation' of labor (read 'theft') performed by capitalist who exploits poor workers, but is the individuals freedom
At the end, collectivistic governments, because it can't help but only can oppress individualities and clip the will, does not eliminate alienation, but create it. The unjust State is a blind and deaf large body hosting myriad of parasites and privileged and enslaving the others..
The Marxist philosopher, whatever may be added here for frills adorn, expresses a demented philosophy that's incompatible with human nature, and think the freedom exclusively as material principle ' man is what he eats' and then banishes any immaterial and spiritual principle.
A big judgment political or pseudo-political fuss, is artfully raised for various reasons from those bad people who consciously lie, or by those who have their own convenience,  or other manipulated by em.
The Marxian fuss  however, can't hide the fact that you can touch everywhere and every day of your life and the lives of all other human beings: namely, that  the true single individual liberty first of all depends on  moral principles  helping  th human being and prevent to become a slave of yourself.

EVIL IS WHAT MAKES YOU A PRISONER OR SLAVE OF YOURSELF

this is typically a psychological addiction to something created due to external factors, or to your own bad decisions. EXTERNAL FACTORS MAY BE MANY AND HAVE ANY ORIGIN, BUT ALWAYS AT THE ROOT THERE IS A LACK OF FREEDOM,. SINCE THE ORIGIN DEPENDING FROM INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIORS..

An example is use of drugs, or alcohol and tobacco abuse, that become a psychological and phisical dependence, similar to that which comes from other unhealy habits, often unnatural, or from certain perversions.
Today, researchers has proven that these are due to real changes in neural circuits, moreover almost always irreversible, while are still not clear all the consequences of genetic damage that negative habits cause offspring.
Always taking example of alcoholic or smoker - the addict who is a slave recoverable only with huge labors - they say 'I can stop when I want' , but is is not true.
Sufferings of a person who wants to get rid of a limiting defect are very high and are not always successful. If it is true that 'freedom does not consist in having a good master, but in none at all', in the case of an addict alcoholic or smoker, the boss that have created is not good at all but it is a real and demonic agent.

At this point is obviously wrong and preposterous the anropological assumption that underpins the modern relativism, fastened on noting how have evolved and there are societies and human groups where certain types of actions are judged right or wrong on the basis of laws and customs that in other companies are judged in a totally opposite way.

With such reasoning, no cognitive act can achieve objective nature of things, or there is not a valid truth absolutely binding on everyone; inevitably all knowledge is relative to the human sensory experience, because everying is filtered by human perceptions, limited and imperfect.
Such ideas are generally propagated, not only by atheists and materialists philosophers, but generally even by those who, for their own interests or often for personal situations (let' say skeletons in the closet) resent the existence of moral laws; generally it is not about philosophical positions but the attempts to stifle the voice of their own conscience.

Let's not go into e analysis of factors at relate to religion, it suffice to say at

  • He can not be said to be free who under e pretext of being free performs actions such as to create e cages from which it will be difficult or impossible to escape.
  • It is not free who is prone to self-generated psychological addictions, even if produced by environmental factors.
  • It is not free ose who intentionally hurt one's neighbor, and e human society doing to oers what he would not accept. In fact because doing so forces oers to act in e same bad way

We say, en, at e human being is free, alough subject to external influences even insurmountable, ie mandatory, only when it acts WELL. But what is GOOD and what is BAD? at is e question. How to distinguish?

FREEDOM AND LAW

As LAW has been established, or is legally established by is anoer topic. On one hand it implies e concept of tradition and society evolution, and is part subject of political philosophy, by e oer hand e certainties of e Christian religion and not only of at.
ere has to be said at e body of law at man is given, has e sole purpose of making e coexistence of human beings.civil and orderly as possible.

e Civil law for example, should not be seen as a cage at limits you, but as a beacon to guide you to keep you from making mistakes and hurt yourself and oers.
is is why I personally believe at over-legislation and complexity of e laws are just dangerous as e lack of laws. It is man who must create e law, e law is for man and not vice versa.

Unfortunately today rages a certain mentality or fashion, which focuses only e formal aspect and not a substantive. It's why ere is a patchwork of laws and sneaky and regulations at leads man to do evil, at is, to offend oers and cause damage.
It is ought at it is enough to write someing, a regulation or a sneaky occasion, because a problem is solved, and down to write paragraphs laws amendments items, sub-amendments and regulations and to fight in e parliament about ings at ultimately go to e benefit of a few smart ones.
e consequence is an increase in inefficiency and stupidity of e state machine, e decrease in productivity, rising costs of living, and e levels of social injustice, and e creation of an unbearable climate of oppression, itself e source of evil.

is occurs when feelings of social conflict and collectivist ideas prevail in e society or due to a secularized religion. Not having e courage to achieve e unveiled Master State, ey are using e law as a tool to surrogate it.
For e discernment of good and evil ere are only formal aspects, imperfect and garbled, multiplied beyond belief by ose who ink to fit em in myriads of individual cases of special interests.
But e excess of laws at e end amounts to no law, as shown by e increase of e volumes of codes in size, due to e introduction of e present case which in most cases would be unnecessary because already present in oer form.

If not in case of defense of persons and property, a murder is just a murder. What need is ere to introduce e crime of 'street murder'? When a drunken or drugged is driving wiout a license or even a stolen car, it is guilty and should be put in a position to do no harm and should be re-educated rough labor for a long time, maybe.
e judges who yesterday sent free similar murderers will find ways to do e same wi a new offense even. It is clear at e problem is not modernize our old pre-war penal code, which sometimes has been modernized, but still was unnecessarily worsened and over complicate in many aspects.

e legislator did not understand at it is not useful to distort and make more verbose e body of laws, because e real issue is e adequacy of e judge to perform e lofty task at awaits him.
In fact e judge, alough should be unprepared, ignorant and sometimes psychopa, likes so many how is today, it is almost omnipotent and unchallengeable because it comes from a cultural and educational distorted and politicized environment .
e bad teachers at in e second postwar decades have worked almost everywhere to destroy e school have indeed been very successful in e work of e society's demolition. It happens also at e laws wi eir quirks and snarls are likely to be used as a weapon against oer men, even wi seemingly good pretexts and harbingers of civil liberties, to limit freedom and enslave oers.
e complication is en usually such at only specialists - and sometimes not even ey - are able to understand em .

As an example let me say about e old and e sick fellows who flee from Holland where ere is a law on euanasia, and go to take refuge in hospitals of France or in Germany, where at law does not exist.
Clearly, e fear of being killed, perhaps by relatives who want to rob, is a real fact. I could say someing else and talk about embryonic stem cells abortions, factories angels etc etc.

Instead e law should be as simple and efficient as possible, while taking into account at evil exists, and you can clearly identify bo its causes, its genesis, at come from its effects. e so-called 'natural law' is an example of simplicity which, like it or not, we are inspired by e centuries e laws of civilized countries. e so-called 'natural law', can be judged under e evolutionary aspect of human society at created and matured in adapting it to e times, but also as worn by human religiosity, en suggested by supernatural intervention.

e individual who wants to do good as well as avoiding ings and situations at make it a slave of oers and of himself, can erefore have an absolute reference to distinguish good from evil, and be free doing well. If you do evil you are not free, or better, you aren't free when you do evil.

HOW TO DISTINGUISH GOOD AND EVIL

e speech of bo aspects of a law at's intrinsic to e man, e so-called natural law, would be too long: alough ere can be no contradiction between e one and e oer, since ey have e same origin. e individual aspects of is should be addressed in its own sphere at is e eical and e political one, and e religious one anoer.

Let's make an elementary and pragmatic discourse, examining e main 'products' of is law in an eical-political perspective. Any way you look, we see at a natural law, intrinsic to a rational being who live in community wi oers like him, definitely exists;. as indeed ere are specific physical and chemical laws at govern e matter.
I dare say at is law has an absolute character and at its actual degree of presence and application, present bo in legislative systems an on e behavior of individuals, determines - or should do it - e harmony and e human and material value of a society on e basis of e law itself.

Definitely here below ere are written obvious ings, I would say trivial, but useful for e next step, at is, e affirmation of e a Natural Law's sacredness. Of is law we can have many statements, all equivalent. e law sets out in a simple way some of e practical requirements at one should accept and observe on average to live in a civilized community. ey are:

  • ou shall honour y faer and y moer: taken for granted at e natural family is e basic cell of society, is requirement also applies to e parents towards eir children. We see in times of crisis how useful e help of family and solidarity among its members. e lack of family leads to psychological conditions of instability, wi dramatic effects for e individual and negative for society. In e animal world is law exists in e instinct of e evolved animals, depending on e need for care and protection of infants due to its own characteristics, it is intended to ensure e survival of e species.

  • ou shalt not kill: ere may be a group of rational beings whose law was "Kill, if you can, whoever you happen to shoot"? e reasons are: to eliminate a nuisance, get possession of someing at does not belong etc etc. e law can be interpreted because e survival instinct at takes you to defend yourself or your group is also a survival factor. But it is essential at you affirm constantly, and to ensure at peace is a factor and a predominant requirement; and at physical violence should not routinely practiced for oer reasons. Oerwise, as we see, atrocities pains and mass exterminations are not lacking. No one can say at ese ings are desirable, if not a madman. True?
  • thou shalt not commit adultery; can a man be happy wi having to maintain a child at is not his, and erefore does not carry his genes? Can a woman be happy at her husband has relations wi oer women and neglects her welfare and ose of children? Evidently not. Certain situations, which some movies show will lead it to seem as normal and quiet and civil, are really negative, especially towards children who inevitably bear e consequences, should be financial or moral or psychic. Sometimes e consequences are so serious at even lead to murder. Eology tells us at jealousy exists even in e animal world, animals at live in groups, such as wolves. Also e sexual behavior or everying at distract e individual from e attention to be focused on family, or from e family's care, evidently are to fit into is eme..

  • thou shalt not steal [or kidnap]: you who earned wi your work all at you have, or had it from your faer e fruit of his work, you can't be happy at someone would take away someing at you need to live, or someing or someone at you care about.
    You can also give voluntarily your goods and your time, at can help oers, but if anyone subtracts you em by fraud or by force it does not make you some pleasure.
    How can you keep yourself and your loved ones and to ensure e future well-being of your family if someone robs you? If someone tries to do it, you have e right to defend em and yourself.

  • thou shalt not bear false witness against y neighbor: is there someone who feels nice and commendable to slander, to falsely accuse someone, to offend the honor and decorum?
    Unfortunately today a misunderstanding sense of 'democracy' and 'right to information', that in reality are envy and interest masked by anxiety of 'justice', encourages slander and backbiting.
    But let's consider what would it feel like to be on the side of the victim. When slander, backbiting or lying is made for interest to achieve economic, political, or any other type of benefits, then maximum abjection is touched.
    This unfortunately is very fashionable, along with the immodest fuss raised by mass media.

  • thou shalt not covet your neighbor's wife (or husband). Lust, greed or oer feelings and inclinations to evil can lead a man, or a woman, to seek the ruin of a family. Unnecessary details: just take the role of plaintiffs like this. Some brilliant and even famous writer wrote entire books on it

  • thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house ... nor anying that is your neighbor: we add to this the social position and personal prestige. Envy and pride are what stimulates you to want what your neigbour owns.
    If one does not do anying honestly to achieve is desire, and continues to envy, only it harms himself, and makes unhappy his own existence. But desire can sometimes lead to action, that is, lies, theft and murder.
    I am reminded of those semi-nomadic tribe of northern savages - Viking, pirates - who worshiped a god (Odin) who prescribed violence and theft against neighbors. Plus one preyed and killed more was considered brave and just man.

You could say then that a lustful does not hurt nobody when there's no violation of the law. This is'nt true because being habitually lustful gets to be slave of this habit, like the slave drugs addict.. Also in many ways one can get hurt or hurt someone and even enslave him.

the interpretations of this law are ese here below

  1. It is not the letter of law, but it is goal that matters.
  2. To be good people is not enough do not make evil, but one must try  do the opposite of what the law prohibits
  3. Even if one does not violate this law, the behavior is wrong when it makes us slaves of ourselves and limits our freedom to act for the good. Be a slave to something is not freedom.
  4. One violates the spirit of this law if somehow, while respecting the letter, is acting to limit the others freedom or to hurt them. The offense seriousness is tailored to its consequences.

We do not consider here the spiritual meaning of the law, which does exist. In fact we have not talked about prescription, or sanctification of time devoted to rest, nor the obligations of gratitude we owe to God Creator of all wonders we have before our eyes .
.However, if if it's said these laws are result of time and practice in most advanced human societies, or who believe they are part of all the rules in force in creation, well then one can't deny the feeling of being guilty that one feel within whenever we violate, or try to do .

LET'S DISCERN GOOD AND EVlL ACCORDING THESE FEW GUIDELINES LET US FEEL FREE. FREE TO DO GOOD. SHOULD EVERYBODY DO THAT THERE ONE WOULD NEED FEW CODES AND LAWS.
AT LEAST TRY TO NOT TOO COMPLICATE OUR LIFE WITH USELESS THINGS LET'S NOT MAKE OVER COMPLEX WHAT IS ALREADY COMPLEX ENOUGH.

ABOUT ME: I began to feel a little voice inside me I scolded when stealing peanuts from my mother's pantry, or unduly appropriating of some few cents forgotten by anyone on the kitchen shelf. to buy myself a small licorice fish at the Aunty's Luisetta store., I was about then 6 yo.
Lino Bertuzzi