But do we have choice? Here in the United
States we had a revolution for liberty so that one could engage
in the freedom to choose, which one must do to formalize one’s
life. But just between you and I, I don’t feel so very
free in my ability to choose. Metaphysically, yes, but in actuality,
not so very free. Supposedly, we are free to choose, so in
actuality one would think that we would be free to act upon
that supposition. But I don’t think that is the case.
There seems to be a number of people telling me what I can
or can’t do. They somehow are controlling my choices
saying I can only choose this or that, and worse, I don’t
have the same right to control their choices. Something seems
not quite right. (Page 2)
To not allow people a choice regarding the reception of something is the
same thing as not allowing them a choice as to their giving of something.
If someone says to us, “Give me your money or else,” most of
us clearly know what that is. It is thievery. Is this any different from
one saying to us, “Receive this at this cost, or else”? The
issue here is choice. Does on have it or not? It does not matter whether
one is demanding that we give or receive, if you are not at choice the
action is thievery. And what inevitably accompanies thievery? Coercion.
(Page 7)
In my defense of the individual, I do not suggest that the individual
be considered before another in any self-other relationship. I do not advocate
sole individualism for that, too, creates a self-other imbalance—me
before you at all costs—that more often than not creates the counter
imbalance of collectivism. I suggest both sides of any self-other relationship
be considered metaphysically equal, thus preventing either side from substantiating
a fundamental superiority over the other with the right to special privileges.
Now, it does not matter what the lines are that one divides his self-other
relationship upon. One may divide it in religious terms calling it “self-God,” or
in political terms calling it “self-state,” and so forth. Regardless,
both sides must be considered metaphysically equal for freedom of choice
to exist. (Page 13-14)
For myself, I am a little tired of all the politicians telling me how
important it is to vote, how it is my duty as a “freeman” while
they just continue to tighten the purse strings. Why should I continue
to play into their hands? Why shouldn’t I use this new metaphysics
of choice and express my choice by not voting for the candidates and laws
that only exist within the old parameter where the issue is not a choice
whether to pay or not but only “how much”? Anyway, if Karl
Marx can call for a worker’s revolution via The Communist
Manifesto,
I can call for a voter’s strike via the New Metaphysics of
Choice.
At least I can do this for myself—with liberty and justice for all.
(Page 19)
