Born without Permission

“I was born without permission.” I informed my mom of this fact at some point when she tried to assert her parental control, and it has become something of a catchphrase. This was mildly annoying to my mom when she wanted my compliance, but she admired my moxy. Now the phrase is a badge of honor as I rely on my innate sense of self-destiny to overcome our increasingly oppressive world.

When the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone first claimed its name, there was something unforgettable about it. CHAZ. My winner of best meme was an image CHAZ sign placed outside a family home on Thanksgiving. The idea of autonomy, or moral freedom to operate without coercion, is an increasingly lost part of the American identity. With the government taking over our every movement in the name of public health we might need to step back for a minute and consider whether our lives are, in fact, the autonomous zones we deserve to have.

The protestors at CHAZ quickly rejected this name, switching to CHOP, or Capitol Hill Organized Protest, to more accurately reflect the goals of the group . In the name of “autonomy” they had barricaded and closed out a police precinct, harassed the Seattle City Council and Mayor, and pretended during the day to be a carnival while at night allowing a roving “security” gang of enforcers to take control. This surely can’t be what it means to be free. Honoring the long-lasting tent city lifestyle of these career protestors is a much more fitting name.

But I can’t drop the urge to declare my home and autonomous zone. To better understand true autonomy we need to return to basic civics and understand the “social contract.” In America, we have lived under the theory that we have human rights that are true for each person at birth, not bestowed upon them by the government. We The People agree to limit our freedom and consent to be governed, conditionally. The limits on what our government can and can’t do are set out in our Constitution, while we are always free to worship, speak, gather, etc. We also agree to basic property rights and community safety, but not at the cost of our human rights.

This theory of governance is being dismantled by subterfuge. On the one hand, the pervasive philosophical movement against the social contract theory picks it apart for its historical roots that favor the “white patriarchy.” There are elements of legitimacy in this complaint, and no one who truly believes in freedom would disagree with the movement toward increased freedom for those who have suffered for lack of it. Unfortunately, on the other hand, a movement is working to throw the whole thing out, declaring it a failure, and demanding that the only solution is a new form of government not based on a contract at all. Most alternate theories have roots in Marxism and the idea that governments should theoretically be abolished (which will come about when the ruled overthrow the ruling, becoming the new non-rulers...none of it makes any practical sense).

Whatever you want to call it, any form of government that takes away our consent to be governed is operating from a place of manipulation. If the word “contract” feels materialistic then let’s find another, but let’s not throw away the idea that we have control of ourselves and choose to participate in this society on the terms that our freedoms are not taken away. Freedom is not an illusion. Freedom is not negotiable. Turning over our freedom to a gang of thugs while they hash out a different plan is idiotic. So is turning our freedom over to someone we elected or some doctor. Let’s keep it for ourselves and take their health ideas under advisement. If they can convince us to consent, then we can do what they suggest. If they force or manipulate us, they are evil.

The entire coronavirus mandate has been a very questionable use of the powers of government to destroy personal freedoms. It does not matter that these powers were used for a purportedly “good” reason. It is very likely that we could have achieved the same virus spreading results with no mandates or lockdowns at all, but we need time to study that. The philosophical question at issue here is whether the government even has the right to limit our social behavior. There is a very good chance that if they would have simply asked or advised behavior they could have accomplished largely the same goals in largely the same way. This act of respecting the freedom of Americans, of giving them information and asking them to consent (or not) to temporary social distancing guidelines, and letting Americans decide when they are ready to return to worship, work and human interaction without masks, would have been a whole different world of autonomy.

A couple of months ago I came up to a woman coming out of a bakery, and I hadn’t pulled up my mask yet. I told her that I had recently recovered from COVID19 and didn’t think I had it, so she was safe from me, if it made her feel better. She laughingly replied that she and her husband had both had it, and also had the vaccine, so she didn’t have the Rona either. Here we were, two normal American women, both who could theoretically make a great decision about whether or not we should be wearing a mask around others. But we are not free to do so.

Unfortunately the argument against this freedom seems to be something along the lines of “people are dumb and you have to make them.” I don’t know many dumb people. Even those that would seem to not have their own best interests at heart, or the best interest of those around them, still seem to be endowed with the gift of agency and an ability to choose each day how to live their lives. I don’t think they are less worthy of freedom. They might not like the consequences, but they are free to choose their path.

No alternate theories of government ever tried in the world live up the success of the freedoms found enumerated in the American Constitution. The best way to ensure increased freedoms for those who seem to have less is to strengthen the effect of their guaranteed human rights in their day-to-day life. The best way to remind ourselves and our fellow citizens of our freedoms is take steps to act autonomously within our own spheres. We can make our homes places of social gathering, or not. We can consent to be vaccinated, or not. We can even go along with everything we are being asked to do, but think clearly in our minds that we are choosing to agree to do these things, and not act from a place of mental obedience.

People will fear your disobedience if you claim autonomy. Strangely enough they will be the same people that cheered the CHOP zone. This is how we know they are evil. They claim to want to dismantle the system, but really are seeking to place themselves at the top of the new system, and expect us to not mind them taking this all by force. They don’t seem to understand we don’t need their permission to be free. It’s time we find a way to assert this. We were born for it.