The Right to Liberty according to the Constitution of the United States. Liberty literally means freedom.

rousseauYour constitutional liberty to freedom allows you to live your life free of government control. Of course, you have to pay taxes and obey laws. But the government can’t force you to take certain actions against your will, in the interest of society at large. It can’t tell you that you must vote a certain way. You have the right to make up your own mind about issues, including those that affect the whole country, not just yourself. “Behind the legal sovereign that the lawyer recognizes, there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow. ” (Dicey.) This is the political sovereign. In democracies, the legal sovereign receives its authority from the electorate, whatever be the basis of the right of vote, and is answerable to it for the exercise of its powers. Legal sovereign is subject to be changed by the mandate of the electorate at regular intervals. Even during the term of Parliament, in the cabinet system of government, legislature may be dissolved and fresh mandate from the electorate sought. The legislature makes laws on the basis of the policy approved by the electorate.  So we may say that the electorate is political sovereign.



Jean Jacques Rousseau, enlightenment thinker of natural liberty.

rousseau12Notes on Rousseau:- Rousseau poses this challenge: “Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before.” (Comment: Rousseau might seem to be raising the bar too high. Why must the move to political society leave each individual “as free as before”? Maybe a legitimate government takes away some freedom but offsets this loss by providing other benefits that are or should be more important to each individual than the lost freedom, and moreover the mix of costs and burdens that political society imposes is fairly distributed, fair to all. Rousseau does not see it that way. The question arises, what sort of freedom must be preserved or secured, according to Rousseau, if political society is to be justified. When a government uses state power coercively, seeking to force all to obey its authority, how might this be fully consistent with the freedom of each coerced citizen?) Rousseau states the solution in the same chapter: “the total alienation of each associate, together with all of his rights, to the entire community.” But what makes this a solution rather than another of the problem? Rousseau observes, “in giving himself to all, each person gives himself to no one.” He adds in the same chapter: “”Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and as one we receive each member as the indivisible part of the whole.” Is this double-talk? Is Rousseau speaking with a forked tongue? What does he mean? “Forced to the free.” He writes, “For since the sovereign is formed entirely from the private individuals who make it up, it neither has nor could have an interest contrary to theirs.” (Rousseau earlier in the same chapter had said that the entity formed by the union of persons in the social contract is called “republic or body politic,” and is called “state when it is passive, sovereign when it is active,” e.g., making laws.) Why not, the reader may wonder? Why couldn’t it happen that people agree to form a political society, and establish a government, which involves placing political power in the hands of some political rulers, who may then want to bully or oppress the people, or at least may form interests that are not identical with the interests of the whole people? Further along in the same chapter, Rousseau comments that “each individual can, as a man, have a private will contrary to or different from the general will that he has as a citizen.” Rousseau continues, “”in order for the social compact to avoid being an empty formula, it tacitly entails the commitment—which alone can give force to the others—that whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body. This means merely that he will be forced to be free.” This “forced to be free” passage puzzles commentators. It’s one thing to say that it is fair to coerce and punish a person who does not obey the laws of a decent political order. The individual has benefited from the operation of the decent political order, and maybe his obedience is a fair price for the benefit. But what then is justified, surely, is restricting the person’s liberty for the benefit of other persons, those who are cooperating fairly. Rousseau, embracing paradox, says that what we are doing when we force a person to obey the laws in these circumstances is forcing him to be free. Is this claim coherent? Compare a similar claim made by Rousseau in the “Letter to the Republic of Geneva” that is the preface to the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. There Rousseau states that if he could have chosen his birthplace, “I would have wanted to be born in a country where the sovereign and the people have one and the same interest” and that “this could not have taken place unless the people and the sovereign were one and the same person” which is only true where the form of government is “a democracy, wisely tempered.” Rousseau continues, “I would have wanted to live and die free, that is, subject to the laws in such wise that neither I nor anyone else could shake off their honorable yoke” (“Letter,” p. 26).

How to end occupation once and for all. Satyagraha and the end to slavery. Opinion not.

The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. Freedom and slavery are mental states.  How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master’s bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor and not he, for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done.


Steps to overcome occupation

  1. How to spot a phony.  A slave- holder, who has decided to abolish slavery, does not consult his slaves whether they desire freedom or not. satyagraha02

Where the definition begins and ends with forced versus freed labor.


Orestes A. Brownson — preacher, magazine editor, lecturer, reformer, socialist, Transcendentalist, and writer — was an avid labor reformer in the 1830s and 1840s.  Here he argues that so-called “free labor” is far more oppressed than slave labor. 

Forced labor as all involuntary work or service exacted under the menace of a penalty. It can be used to describe a people or group being able to exercise all of the necessary functions of power without intervention from any authority which they cannot themselves alter. ILO Forced Labour Convention of 1930, any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country; Payment for unfree labour[edit] See also: Labour economics § Wage slavery, Labor theory of value, and Productive and unproductive labour. Convict labourers in Australia in the early 20th century. If payment occurs, it may be in one or more of the following forms:  The payment does not exceed subsistence or barely exceeds it; The payment is in goods which are not desirable and/or cannot be exchanged or are difficult to exchange; or The payment wholly or mostly consists of cancellation of a debt or liability that was itself coerced, or belongs to someone else. Unfree labour is often more easily instituted and enforced on migrant workers, who have travelled far from their homelands and who are easily identified because of their physical, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural differences from the general population, since they are unable or unlikely to report their conditions to the authorities.


Mere Yaar thu nachle, Dance with me my friend. Russian dance of Mayuri.

jhanak jhankak jhan, mera jhumka utha ke laaya re yaar ve, jo gira tha bareli ke bazaar me, mai tho jhumka lagake sharmagayi. Boli Ghoongar bandha dhenge mein aa gayi. My innocence was lost my friend when it fell in the market. I lamented my shame. Mere yaar thu nachle abb tho lutaa hai baazar, Yet, its charm yearns. Mujhko nachaake nachle, aaja nachle nachle mere yaar thu nachle, jhanak jhanak jhankaar.. o nachle nachle mere yaar thu nachle abb tho lutaa hai baazar, sabko bulaake nachle, aaja nachle nachle mere yaar thu nachle, meri yaar.. drown your sorrow in dance as you watch the market go up in flames. Nachle nachle zara nachle nachle, chhath pe bulaake nachle, nachle nachle zara nachle, nachle jhat se uthaake nachle, go, gather  the assembled and pick one out of the crowd to help you. Mainai galthi kari thi, meri nathani padi thi ke sone mein usko ranga gayi, meine rangaake atariya pe aa gai.  I committed crimes and doing so lost virginity. Even as my crimes turned into gold. And with it I satiated my desire. Mohalhe mein kaisi maara maar hai, bole mochi bhi khud ko sonar hai, there is always an uproar in the palace as even the knaves believe that their mustaches are gold. Mainai tho kamsin kali thi, zara thanke chali thi. I beg for forgiveness so that I may walk. Aage jaage gali pe balkha gayi, koyi jaane jawaani kab aa gai, mere sadhke zamane ki kamaayi re, mujhe dhetha udhaari halwaayi re. The festivities have spread all around and who knows who was made young again.  I pray that my penances remove burdens. I will then be free of you, bazaar ( market),  once and for all.

Punishments given to Roman Slaves. Roman Punishment.

In Ancient Rome the slaves had no rights at all. The were thought of, treated like, merchandise. However, slaves did cost money to buy so many of the punishments did not inflict lasting damage.  The lash was the most common punishment. When slaves were beaten, they were suspended with a weight tied to their feet, that they might not move them. Another punishment was to be branded in the forehead. An alternative punishment included the slave being forced to carry a piece of wood round their necks wherever they went. This was called furca; and whichever slave had been subjected to the punishment was ever afterwards called furcifer. Slaves were also, by way of punishment, often confined in a work-house, or house of correction, where they were obliged to turn a mill for grinding corn. When punished for any capital offence, they were commonly crucified; but this was eventually prohibited under the rule of the Emperor Constantine


Tolstoy’s reply to the ruling classes of the world, they practice “violence as a law of history.”

tolstoyAmong the pseudo-legitimations of the ruling class Tolstoy first discovered the scientific justification for using violence as a ‘law of history’ in Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest transferred from the world of animals to the social sphere (Social Darwinism):

The only difference in this justification by pseudo-science consists in the fact that, to the question why such and such people and not others have the right to decide against whom violence may and must be used, pseudo-science now gives a different reply to that given by religion — which declared that the right to decide was valid because it was pronounced by persons possessed of divine power. ‘Science’ says that these decisions represent the will of the people, which under a constitutional form of government is supposed to find expression in all the decisions and actions of those who are at the helm at the moment. (3)

This scientific superstition criticised by Tolstoy would however conquer even Japan and India and would make the oppressed commit the same mistakes as their oppressors so that Tolstoy doubts the truth of Free Hindustan’s thesis: “Resistance against aggression is not only justified but demanded: Renunciation of resistance harms altruism as much as egotism”. And Tolstoy replies:

You say that the English have enslaved your people and hold them in subjection because the latter have not resisted resolutely enough and have not met force by force. But the case is just the opposite. If the English have enslaved the people of India it is just because the latter recognised, and still recognise, force as the fundamental principle of the social order . . . .

A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves? 

Attacks on God and enslaving worship; Rabbis passing, Israel. In memorium.