Liberty: "The power or scope to act as one pleases. Individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences".
There are many enemies of liberty. Any institution, state, organization or movement can be, or can become, enemies of liberty.
In order to organize any of the above, members or participants must subjugate their own aspirations to the benefit of the "movement" or goal. So by its very nature, "movements" all demand a level of conformity, and therefore, deny total liberty. Whether you are involved in a movement to maintain or abolish liberty, you have to work as a team. The one thing no team can tolerate, is a rogue player.
For the sake of discussion, let's focus on our cultural definition of liberty and freedom: "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."
In our American culture we accept that we don't have total liberty, but we also claim to promote the most libertarian government and social environment on the planet. In fact, many cultures around the world look at American Culture as decadent, self-absorbed and disrespectful of traditions and history. That is because we tolerate enormous abuses of freedom. We venerate excessive wealth and ostentatious displays of it. We eat, drink and smoke too much. We allow for recreational use of marijuana and pornography. We consume more than our fair share of natural resources. We are piling up mountains of toxic waste materials that are spoiling our oceans (as are many other countries). And our entertainment and communications systems are polluting young minds relentlessly.
But isn't it in the nature of liberty to be unattached to any limits?
We do, however, restrict certain freedoms because we accept that they interfere with others' rights to live without fear or intimidation, and that those concerns can be based on other systems of thinking that should be given their freedom to exist.
For example, we ban screaming "fire" in a theater because it would cause a panic and it may lead to injury when patrons bolt for an exit. By limiting the total and complete freedom of speech we protect others from danger. But we do allow for most political or cultural speech (including all media forms) even when it "harms" others by slandering, or besmirching their integrity or reputation. Unless it is done for no other purpose but to cause harm, then we consider that liable and no different than a physical attack.
We incarcerate more law breakers than any other industrialized nation, in a controversial effort to protect law abiding people from enemies of their liberty.
Enemies can take the form of weaponry (anything that can physically harm you or your surroundings), physiological (fear, deception or intimidation) or even subliminal (psychological) boogie men. An enemy can appear as an idea or an army, or something in between. Or, it can be transparent and invisible.
Enemies of liberty are most often clandestine as exposure rallies adversaries because almost everyone loves their liberty. Those that oppose liberty are always in the minority, otherwise they would not need to attack liberty at all. They would just overrule it.
People who have lived in Communist countries often say, "You can vote your way into Communism, but you have to shoot your way out."
What makes this issue so contentious is that some folks define liberty differently: They believe true freedom is derived from adherence to a strict formula. That may be a religious dogma, or it may be a tribal tradition. Either way, that concept projects a predetermined code of conduct on its citizens.
Recently, Claus Schwab, the President of the World Economic Forum, and a leading proponent of a Total Economic Reset and implementation of a New World Order, reportedly said, "In the future, you will own nothing, and you will like it!"
Was this friendly advice or a threat to capitalism and economic sovereignty? He is an enemy of liberty because under those conditions no one will own anything. The World Economic Forum is a pseudo-governmental, self appointed guardian of the Earth's future. It is determined to install a One World Order (government) and has as its membership many of the richest families in the world. Therefore, I think it safe to say the WEF, by their own volition, is the Chief Enemy of Liberty on the Planet Earth.
But there are many.
More to come…