💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › enzo-martucci-unbridled-freedom.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:44:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Unbridled Freedom Author: Enzo Martucci Language: en Topics: egoist, freedom, individualist Source: Retrieved on June 6, 2011 from https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/bare-fisted-atheism/unbridled-freedom-by-enzo-martucci
Stirner and Nietzsche were undoubtedly right. It is not true that my
freedom ends where that of others begins. By nature my freedom has its
end where my strength stops. If it disgusts me to attack human beings or
even if I consider it to be contrary to my interests to do so, I abstain
from conflict. But if, pushed by an instinct, a feeling, or a need, I
lash out against my likes and meet no resistance or a weak resistance, I
naturally become the dominator, the superman. If instead the others
resist vigorously and return blow for blow, then I am forced to stop and
come to terms. Unless I judge it appropriate to pay for an immediate
satisfaction with my life.
It is useless to speak to people of renunciation, of morality, of duty,
of honesty. It is stupid to want to constrain them, in the name of
Christ or of humanity, not to step on each other’s toes. Instead one
tells each of them: “You are strong. Harden your will. Compensate, by
any means, for your deficiencies. Conserve your freedom. Defend it
against anyone who wants to oppress you”.
And if every human being would follow this advice, tyranny would become
impossible. I will even resist the one who is stronger than me. If I
can’t do it by myself, I will seek the aid of my friends. If my might is
lacking, I will replace it with cunning. And balance will arise
spontaneously from the contrast.
In fact, the only cause of social imbalance is precisely the herd
mentality that keeps slaves prone and resigned under the master’s whip.
“Human life is sacred. I cannot suppress it either in the other or in
myself. And so I must respect the life of the enemy who oppresses me and
brings me an atrocious and continuous pain. I cannot take the life of my
poor brother, who is afflicted with a terminal disease that causes him
terrible suffering, in order to shorten his torment. I cannot even free
myself, through suicide, from an existence that I feel as a burden.”
Why?
“Because,” the christians say, “Life is not our own. It is given to us
by god and he alone can take it away from us.”
Okay. But when god gives life to us, it becomes ours. As Thomas Aquinas
points out, god’s thought confers being in itself, objective reality, to
the one who thinks. Thus, when god thinks of giving life to the human
being, and by thinking of it, gives it to him, such life effectively
becomes human, that is, an exclusive property of ours. Thus, we can take
it away from each other, or anyone can destroy it in herself.
Emile Armand frees the individual from the state but subordinates him
more strictly to society. For him, in fact, I cannot revoke the social
contract when I want, but must receive the consent of my co-associates
in order to release myself from the links of the association. If others
don’t grant me such consent, I must remain with them even if this harms
or offends me. Or yet, by unilaterally breaking the pact, I expose
myself to the retaliation and vengeance of my former comrades. More
societarian than this and one dies. But this is a societarianism of the
Spartan barracks. What! Am I not my own master? Just because yesterday,
under the influence of certain feelings and certain needs, I wanted to
associate, today, when I have other feelings and needs and want to get
out of the association, I can no longer do so. I must thus remain
chained to my desire of yesterday. Because yesterday I desired one way,
today I cannot desire another way. But then I am a slave, deprived of
spontaneity, dependent on the consent of the associates.
According to Armand, I cannot break relationships because I should care
about the sorrow and harm that I will cause the others if I deprive them
of my person. But the others don’t care about the sorrow and harm that
they cause me by forcing me to remain in their company when I feel like
going away. Thus, mutuality is lacking. And if I want to leave the
association, I will go when I decide, so much the more if, in making the
agreement to associate, I have communicated to the comrades that I will
maintain my freedom to break with it at any time. In doing this, one
does not deny that some societies might have long lives. But in this
case, it is a feeling or an interest sensed by all that maintain the
union. Not an ethical precept as Armand would like.
From christians to anarchists (?) all moralists insist that we
distinguish between freedom, based on responsibility, and license, based
on caprice and instinct. Now it is good to explain. A freedom that, in
all of its manifestations, is always controlled, reined in, led by
reason, is not freedom. Because it lacks spontaneity. Thence, it lacks
life.
What is my aim? To destroy authority, to abolish the state, to establish
freedom for everyone to live according to her nature as he sees and
desires it. Does this aim frighten you, fine sirs? Well then, I have
nothing to do. Like Renzo Novatore, I am beyond the arc.
When no one commands me, I do what I want. I abandon myself to
spontaneity or I resist it. I follow instincts or I rein them in with
reason, at various times, according to which is stronger within me.
In short, my life is varied and intense precisely because I don’t depend
upon any rule.
Moralists of all schools instead claim the opposite. They demand that
life always be conformed to a single norm of conduct that makes it
monotonous and colorless. They want human beings to always carry out
certain actions and to always abstain from all the others.
“You must, in every instance, practice love, forgiveness, renunciation
of worldly goods and humility. Otherwise you will be damned”, say the
Gospels.
“You must, in each moment, defeat egoism and be unselfish. Otherwise you
will remain in absurdity and sorrow,” Kant points out.
“You must always resist instinct and appetite, showing yourself to be
balanced, thoughtful and wise on every occasion. If you don’t, we will
brand you with the mark of archist infamy and treat you as a tyrant,”
Armand passes judgment.
In short, they all want to impose the rule that mutilates life and turns
human beings into equal puppets that perpetually think and act in the
same way. And this occurs because we are surrounded by priests: priests
of the church and priests who oppose it, believing and atheistic
Tartuffes. And all claim to catechize us, to lead us, to control us, to
bridle us, offering us a prospect of earthly or supernatural punishments
and rewards. But it is time for the free human being to rise up: the one
who knows how to go against all priests and priestliness, beyond laws
and religions, rules and morality. And who knows how to go further
beyond. Still further beyond.