Freehold is available free on the web as part of Baen Books’ brilliant marketing plan known as their free library. I’ll spend time talking about the Free Library later because it and the whole Webscription concept are a dramatic example of the kind of innovative marketing techniques that only unfettered capitalism can produce. For those who don’t live in front of a computer screen, you can get the paper version of the book through Michael himself at his website www.michaelzwilliamson.com or through Amazon.

I originally started Freehold because I was out of David Drake, Eric Flint, Terry Pratchett, and John Ringo books to read and decided to work my way through the authors in the Free Library backwards. Michael was up first. Long story short, the book was marvelous.

Without spoiling the plot, I’ll say that the protagonist leaves the repressive United Nations of Planet Earth fearing for her life and ends up on the planet Grainne. We watch her go through the culture shock of leaving a society that makes Europe’s government look like anarchy and entering a libertarian paradise. We watch her liberal preconceptions contested and dissolved one by one. And then we watch as she takes up arms in defense of Grainne when the UN attempts to destroy the living example of just how wrong they can be.

“HOW DARE they be happier, healthier, and more prosperous than us with their minimal government. Everyone knows that greater freedom can only be achieved through overbearing legislation. They shouldn’t exist, therefore we’ll ignore them, and when we can’t ignore them anymore we’ll release propaganda against them, and when people see the truth anyway, we’ll extinguish them” (Sound similar to the commies’ repression of free speech, the Europhiles’ activity in our own goverment, or the very purpose of the real UN? [just read their Declaration of Human Rights])

This work is absolutely full of short pithy quotes that conservatives could get some excellent mileage out of and for that alone is worth the price of admission. But the true brilliance of Michael’s approach is that unlike the works of Heinlein or other, more recent forays into the libertarian/scifi subgenre such as Road to Damascus by John Ringo and Linda Evans, rather than simply being dropped into this society with no preface, we are brought in like Ms. Pacelli, as newcomers, and given a gentle introduction. We, like Ms. Pacelli, slowly (or very rapidly in my case) become smitten with Grainne. And we scream cries of defiance and we rage as the destruction of our perfect society seems imminent. Starship Troopers had me nodding my head in agreement, Road to Damascus had me thumping the table in frustration at the contradiction in terms of the modern ‘liberal’, but this book had me feeling everything Kendra Pacelli felt. Unlike similar works, this book brings not only an intellectual satisfaction but an emotional catharsis as well for those of us who feel caged by the direction society is heading in. Michael makes Freehold ours.

I can’t recommend this book too much for anyone with libertarian leanings, and I insist anyone who describes themself as a moderate or a liberal reads it, just for a chance to see graphically the world we at the right end of the spectrum dream of. I do have to warn you that there are a couple of short sex scenes in the book and as in Heinlein many of the characters are somewhat promiscuous. But it’s easy to skip a page or two if you need to in an otherwise marvelous book. Oh, I forgot to mention, Michael’s not a bad wordsmith overall, but his talent really comes to the fore during the ‘action’ scenes, and there are a lot of them in this book.

p.s. also check out The Weapon (also available at webscription.net as an ebook), his second book in the Freehold universe following a concurrent timeline and a different character (one born and raised on Grainne). This one’s lighter on the political talk–although it’s not completely missing–and heavier on the action. This one’s also pretty enjoyable.

After an abortive attempt last spring, I’m about to take a stab at this whole blog thing again. Hopefully with a more prolific posting rate…and more than three regular readers, but we’ll see.

I’m gonna start off with some pretty heavy crap. This is because there are terms in common usage that have no consensus definition. That makes dialogue, or monologue, quite difficult. This is, in my opinion, one of the major reasons that politicos can succeed in talking past each other for years at a time. These definitions also ultimately define the line drawn in the sand between left and right in naked simplicity.

There are two words in particular that have massively different connotations depending on which way you lean: Freedom and Rights (and privileges). Based on someone’s take on either of them, you can figure out if they’re a dirty hippy or if their feet are firmly planted on the ground.
——————-

Rights. There are two basic definitions of what rights are. A perfect illustration of the original version is found in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

For an illustration of the new concept of rights, usually with the word ‘human’ appended in front of it, proceed directly to the local college campus and attend a liberal demonstration of any kind. Or you can take a look at the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Within you’ll find a mixture of the aforementioned unalienable rights, government protected rights (which I’ll deal with in a later post), and what sensible people would refer to as privileges. Some of these ‘rights’ include the right to marriage, the right to a nationality, the right to vacation and leisure time, maternity benefits, education, and the right to work. There is little or no philosophical basis to these as rights, and indeed, prior to the 20th century–the late 20th century at that–no one would have been able to see how these could be considered anything but privileges. Some of them perhaps important and worthy privileges, but not rights nonetheless.

Especially significant is the wording of Articles 22, 23, and 25, which I’ll deal with in a separate post on the meaning of rights. It is here that the telling phrase “by means of social protection” first rears its ugly head.
————————–

Freedom. Two quotes can do the bulk of the work here. First, from Jean Jacques Rosseau:

All men are born free, and yet everywhere lie in chains

Then, from Julian Baggini, a philosophy guy for the British newsrags:

But the left has always recognised another from of liberty…the practical ability to actually make choices and live your life in the way you want…If you have no opportunities in life, the fact that the government isn’t interfering with your business is small consolation…Freedom only becomes real if people are empowered to make choices for themselves, and they may need the help of others to do so.

(ellipses mine)

The important distinction here is that in order to be free under Rousseau’s definition, you simply need to be left alone: Freedom is passive. Under Baggini’s (which isn’t his, but dates to John Stuart Mill and was popularized by Isaiah Berlin), being left alone isn’t enough–you may need to have some things provided to you, and this can only be achieved if others give them. Freedom requires active maintenance.

Two big problems here. First, these two definitions are completely incompatible (you aren’t really being left alone if someone is appropriating your money and time for someone else’s benefit). Following the Rousseau school, as I do, means I’ll never agree with someone who follows the Berlin school. There can be no compromise.

Not only that, but ‘opportunities’ and ‘empowerment’ are arbitrary, meaning there’s no consensus even among those who subscribe to the leftist definition of the freedom. They vary from the so-called ‘political moderates’ whose stance boils down to “I believe the government has some responsibility to ‘empower’ and provide ‘opportunity’ for all, so give me a little welfare and a little obtrusive overbearing social policy,” to out and out communists who would dictate exactly where your money goes and how you behave. This situation basically begs for the old slippery slope situation to find itself played out again. And, as I’ll talk about later, this is exactly what we see in the EU where their ’social model’ is touted as the be all and end all.

Once a populace or a government ascribes to the leftist version of freedom, it’s all over. Time for us real freedom lovers to pack up and leave…or start a revolution. This is because as I mentioned, leftist freedom must be actively maintained through others’ contribution to you. Freedom, being the sacrosanct goal of nearly all popularly maintained governments, must be protected at all costs. If freedom can only be ensured through empowerment and opportunity, then there is no measure too draconian if raised in defense of ‘liberty’.
————————–

What we have here is what the Terry Pratchett character Sgt. Colon would refer to as an ‘imp’s arse’. I believe freedom is found when you leave me the hell alone. You believe freedom is found when my actions and my pocketbook are manipulated by the government in order to benefit others. I believe rights are very profound, very narrow things intrinsic to the human condition. Few in number, yet massive in scope. You believe rights can be as trifling as the amount of vacation time your workplace offers (I’m being serious…see the UN link). What I believe must be earned as privileges through participation in the social contract and through the fruits of one’s own labor, you believe should be granted on the basis that one is upright and breathing.
————————-
We won most of our battles during the Vietnam conflict, but lost the war. Those who stand for freedom (libertarians, minarchists, constitutional originalists, conservatives) are in danger of falling into the same kind of morass as we plod merrily away. We’re winning battles consistently, from the exposure of media bias in coverage of the Iraq War, to watching the Europe’s economies implode and gloating, but as in the Vietnam conflict, we have too myopic an objective.

“Take that hill” is a good directive for a battle, just as “take down the dirty liberals on gun control” is a good issue for bloggers to tackle. But “Keep taking hills until you hit the 21st parallel” was a bad way to run a war, just as “Just keep tackling issues” is ultimately not going to be the way we win.

The war isn’t about issues, it’s about definitions. Our definition of freedom is incompatible with theirs; granting the rights they wish to grant can only be achieved by constraining all men. We must attack their ideology, and not just their legislation.