Liberty is that odd combination of desire and strength. It meets halfway between the two. None is free to fly in the sky as a bird, but none are so slaved to work without the chance to quit the job. Each has the strength to serve in his own capacity, each has the desire not to have rules enforced upon him, and each is limited in both regards. What defines this thing that people want? That they'll die for?
One explanation is that true liberty is entirely independent of strength" - bit focused solely on what it is one can do with their strength - but this is a relatively unsound definition. After all, people can do as they please with limitations by way of desire of others - they could rob a bank or run away from jail, that none can do these things without a man's involvement to stop them is no different from their feet and heavy bones that prevent them to lift into their air with flight. Surely one could not contend that one is better or more distinct than the other?
One could claim that people desire *more* liberty such that they fight to be *freer* men, although not totally free in any respect. This may be true - but then, why fight a war? Why the revolutions, the chaos, the constant guerrilla bombardment in ways that entirely restrict their ability to do as they please without another man with a gun getting involved - the most heinous enemy of this defined strength - if they truly want the thing they claim? Surely there is another definition, if a man is will to die for "freedom."
I believe it is found in the word of God. That there is no alternative explanation. Consider that men always follow the dictates of their conscience except when prompted to do otherwise. If one hears a voice and believes it to be God - believes that prompting is of the highest order - then surely they are willing to abide by it at any risk. The thieves and comforters which take their ability to follow that prompting do them the harm of a life in non-continuum with that which they know best. If God wills, it is not that thing from which one can easily stray - not without a fight.
Liberty is being able to do what you want without the severe temptation to do otherwise. If man provides you with the comforts that lean you to the choice of not following the will of God, one is felt to be in a place where he is less free. It is natural that man follow his natural promptings - that he accept his character whom peace directs his being to engage, but it is not natural to find oneself in the care of others, entirely dependent on them and bending to their will. This is where the conflict of liberty arises from, and from this point it can only bring a tearing war.
WIthout the desire to let oneself become the martyr, he is not a follower of God. All of God's followers are in that example of Christ - that man who so perfectly stood for his principles. This is God's teacher, this is who they follow - the Libertarians. That is to say, Libertarian in a classic sense - a not necessarily political sense - the Libertarians who desire to leave their choices in peace and respect others to do likewise. The true libertarian is dirty and rugged, chooses his own course - or else he is wise and benevolent, stays on the mountain and chooses his own course - or perhaps he is mild-mannered, dwells in the crowd, but chooses his own course. Libertarians are those who choose their own course and reject the teachings of others as necessarily inferior to that prompting they know, which is of God.
Who can deny that God is the savior of all men? Who can deny that following his path is the way to true happiness? Who can deny that he is the one to strive for, whose promptings override all else, who suspends the ethics of man in favor of the word of right? These are the unanswerable questions of life, for as soon as one answers "I reject", he has damned himself. None can damn themselves, so non can reject. It is plain as day. Damnation is that tool which reveals to oneself the impossible life. One can only approach it if he desires to find it and becomes madly in search of it, where it is never to be found.
Thing said are not things meant. Nor are things desired to mean the things they are.
What do I mean by this? The things desired to mean are the asymptotes to damnation, to perfection - not perfection in a goodness sense, but in a real sense, where one conceives the perfectly real form - damnation being the conception of a form which does not exist nor could it - These things inspire the meaning to stray from its actuality forever. One can wish to mean one thing, and never actually mean it - a process of self-delusion that envelopes one in unending paradox, and so the madness that he could never reach, by wishing to reach it - Then, even then, his madness is not the result of that thing he desired, nor is it without end should he choose, but it is madness all the same, and a terrifying madness at that.
The Libertarian hero wishes for the escape of any such possibility that his standards be loosed. He holds to the principal of his promptings - the acknowledgment of his "gut feeling" that he acts upon, the statements of this reason according to God's will, even if he does not acknowledge it as such, though he does - and this is what rebels him to the actions of those who wish to change him; him being his desires, and the desires he desires. For one who desires nothing but his own security in the ethics he plays make-believe to deduce is not a hero, but a coward, in his own right, and is a man so limited to the structure of his environment that he is never the hero to change it - by which the Libertarian hero, principled to remain such, cannot survive.
Are all heros Libertarian? No, only the bravest. Many are heroes in the eyes of the crowd, when their actions are understood and their intents fully recognized. The Libertarian hero is not understood, and this is what makes him all the more heroic. He walks a dim path lighted only by the Lord God, the only one to acknowledge his greatness, and he accepts what comes as a scenario which the Lord provides - every minute every moment as part of the lesson he must learn. He is never relaxed unless he is acute, his dreams never tire, nor does his sleep vanquish to black - he is never in darkness despite the darkest room, and he is never controlled as he controls the universe himself.
What a joy it is to be such a hero! What a joy it is merely to watch him. Every story every movie is from the perspective of such a hero - unless it is rubbish - and the readers' looking through the eyes of this man makes them become part of a story they could never desire more for - a story of the hero they never dare become, until once they do, and a hero whose intentions are so good and so misunderstood in one accord. The hero who cannot stand the dictates of his own conscience with regard to the joys of others, but who hates them in comparison to the God he loves, despite loving them as much as even himself. This hero is not the hero of reward on Earth - not the king of earth or the prince of heaven, but the king of heaven and the prince of Earth's goodness, at the temporal price of never holding earthly kingship, for none in the crowd, none of the crowd, can ever acknowledge his goodness even as those close to him do. He becomes the leader of a group so fine-tuned to his purpose that he becomes truly a prince of Earth, ready to inherit heaven's kingdom, but he strives for Earth's kingship not one mite, for he could never bear the comforts, the temptations, to stray on that mortal plane from that which cannot be conceived and bears ever greater weight: that which he progresses to on the faith that God provides. He is the perfect man, the humble man, the weak man that becomes stronger than all the strength of earth even as he acknowledges his weaknesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment