There is no such thing as a free man
Man always had some sort of restrictions. Because nature, and human nature, dictated the order of all things.
Before civilisations formed, man was taunted by natural elements, thunder, cyclones, storms, floods, snow, blazing heat, draughts, and haunted by dangerous wild animals. To protect himself, he had to build certain protective structures or shelters.
Later he became challenged by neighbouring tribal groups for territorial and resource domination – land, water, food, fire, weapons and poison.
There were no apparent laws or rules to govern the way in which humans behaved, and so they got entangled in ruthless competition, using force, fear and might to get what they wanted or needed to survive, each one doing so solely to their own advantage – to outlive his neighbour and enemies.
Nature itself had many laws that could not be changed or challenged. It was just the way it was. The main most apparent one, kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. It was a contest of the strong against the weakest.
And the strongest, the most fierce, the most powerful, always survived, and for the weaker ones, life became lonely resentment.
For each man, the primary desire was for the necessities of life, food, shelter and clothing, and when these became scarce, there was no limit to the efforts a man would make, or to the violence he would resort to secure these basic desires.
And when that was satisfied and all his other basic needs had been met, he wanted more, and greed, rivalry, vanity and love of power became his masters.
At the start of bigger civilisations when groups came together, it made sense to create order among the resulting chaos as too many opinions restricted a way forward.
Chiefs and elders came together in newly formed institutions trying to unify rules according to a single moral system, or standard, that could and should be followed by anyone and everyone for progress, and to protect the governors’ interests.
In an ideal world, the rulers and citizens have the same moral systems where cooperation and joint efforts are the rule, with equal access to resources, where people live with equal rights, being treated as equals, and having equal opportunities.
In an ideal world every man has peace as far as he could hope to obtain it, to defend himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things, and be content with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.
But, such was not the nature of man, nor the state of nature.
Nature and all its creatures were bioengineered on a hierarchical system, and on each level different sets of rules applied. And on each level were limiting sets of abilities.
The same applied to any society. Since the dawn of days there had been a hierarchical system, with each level having different rules, and those ranked on this level, awarded with restricted capabilities.
As communities grew and developed into larger and more difficult to control cities, with more and more disputes to govern, sovereign states formed with a monarchy and sub governance structures.
Naturally, all people had to integrate into these state-society structures, and if they did not like it, or if they felt their freedom or self-induced importance were challenged, they were forced out, either by the rules and laws that governed it, or by their own discontent and resentment.
The iron law stated that all forms of organisation, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, or who governed it, would eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in larger groups and complex organisations.
And any society was a complex arrangement with various aspirations. All societies required from citizens to survive or thrive in a social setting or environment, to make true these aspirations.
They were required to establish communities and alliances by treaty, as it appeared better to join the ranks and play the game, rather than to fight them.
But an amiable peaceful social life does not come naturally to humans. So joining the ranks meant becoming an artificial man, with an artificial soul, when forced to fit into the social and hierarchical orderings.
Because all humans wanted freedom to do what they liked, and lived according to their own rule, their own moral standing, their own different set of rules, they would naturally approve their own moral views and disapprove the views of others.
Every person who thought he had a natural right to do anything, that which he thought necessary for preserving and protecting his own life, or thought he had freedom to live his life at free will, would soon discover various limitations, set there either by the state of nature, his own human nature, or the unchangeable order of things. It all became the invisible shackles that bound him.
And because he could not comprehend and understand this, he blamed others for it. Usually the ones higher up on the hierarchy who seemingly had the things he himself wanted, and so he demanded democracy.
Until he became in charge, the one ruling society. Then he wanted an oligarchy.
If anyone was not happy with the lot or station he was born with, he could move up or down, or sideways on these hierarchical orderings by gaining social mobility, which meant, having to know the rules of the game, the game he was not always prepared to play, and not willing to follow the game’s rules, because he wanted to be free from all restrictions.
To maintain law and order in growing kingdoms and empires, societies operated on this strict hierarchical structure to contain chaos and maintain order, with many decisions having to be made daily, and which could not be made by large numbers of disorganised people.
There was a base or substructure, which referred to the mode of production where people produced all the necessities and amenities of life. And there were the superstructures which referred to a society’s kingship, its military, its political structures, religious orders, rituals, culture, and institutions.
The superstructure always affected the substructure.
For the empire to function effectively, centralisation of the superstructure had to occur with power ending up in the hands of a few, obviously.
These few will use all means necessary to preserve and to some extent further increase their power, regardless of the promises made to those who voted them into power.
The hierarchical system downward, became a patterned arrangement in which people were classified and ranked based on the power, influence, or dominance they exhibited, basically to identify the right person for the right position or job to be done. Some were superior and others subordinated.
Classification was to identify certain aspects of society to categorise a system. And ranking was its position measured on a scale, either lower or higher than the others.
In ancient societies, the king of kings had the divine right to rule, which was the divine right of kings. They derived their authority from a God and could not be held accountable for their actions by human means.
They could use their powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, to summon Parliament, and give royal assent to bills passed by Parliament. They had the authority to create laws and act as judges.
They sometimes conducted religious ceremonies and led their armies during wars. They could use force to punish people who disobeyed any laws and sometimes make up their own laws.
And if this king was of poor character, it threatened the entire authority and power arrangement, turning an empire into unwanted direction.
Legal authority was based on a system of rules that were applied administratively and judicially in accordance with known principles. The persons who administer those rules were appointed or elected by legal procedures such as statesmen, priests, governors.
These superiors were also subject to rules that limited their powers, separated their private lives from official duties and required written documentation, so they were not as troubling as that of the powers of the king of kings.
The nobles and the territorial kings of the central region of an empire the sub-kings, agent-kings, the princes, the lords, and the barons – were seen as the elites, the ruling class and they, with their important vassals, enjoyed the privileges based on three dimensions wealth, power, and prestige.
Wealth was calculated as the total value of their property, land and goods. Their power was determined by their ability to influence others to do their bidding. And prestige was their status and esteem held in the eyes of others.
They thus had domination power, the authoritative resources that allowed them to control modes of production and allocated locally available, and from afar, resources for this production, allowing entities such as craftsmen to control certain material objects like gold and silver, who themselves obtain much wealth.
Some Barons and nobles had the ability to attract others and build loyalty based on their charisma and were admired because of specific personal traits, or unique qualities, and not because of any divine, traditional or legal authority.
This ranking was done on the basis of personal skills, abilities, attributes and characteristics that people were thought to need if they were to learn and perform the roles effectively, influenced further by their breed, class and intelligence necessary for the role they would play in society.
For the lower working class, jobs were rated as harder or easier, cleaner or dirtier, safer or more dangerous and people were judged slower, smarter or more skillful than others without directly implying that some were socially more important and others less because of these characteristics.
But as it were in a human’s nature, most were always dissatisfied with their position, and acquired other qualities to stand out from the rest among their own level of rank. People could, if they wanted, separate themselves from the rest by acquiring some level of status.
Status was measured through public opinion and reputation, and was generally associated with the admiration and respect gained from others in which individuals were assigned a relative worth, a degree of preference, and a priority of desirability.
It was a consensus developed within a certain group with a common set of values, which became the criteria for evaluating this status.
There were four dimensions of evaluation. Prestige, the honour bestowed on a person who acted with respectful, behaviour and stance. Explicit powers such as a military general, doctor or healer, and priest. Those who had admirable personal attributes such as strategy, hunting or warrior skills.
And those who became popular through personality and charisma.
Hierarchical levels and statuses, ranked and evaluated, were allocated different rewards in terms of the good things in life such as more opportunity, wealth, pleasure, love, and respect.
Which meant any man, if he wanted to, could gain power by his own volition. Such a man was considered to be of great character.
A great character is the sum of qualities that defined a person, his intellect, ideas, motives, intentions, temperament, judgement, behaviour, imagination, perception, emotions, loves, and hates. He was considered a reputable man of stable and sound mind, always delivering good and solid judgement.
This admiration gained for a man of high charisma and character created the opportunity to yield much influence and power, no matter his station at birth or his rank on the hierarchy. The more followers and supporters he had, the greater his power.
People of all ranks respected his views and listened to his ideas. They trusted him and considered what he said. His ideas had value, and others regarded him as a sound leader.
People who were susceptible under this power, desired to identify themselves with the same personal qualities, and gained satisfaction from being his follower.
But they would also stop being a follower should he show any misstep in character or an act of immorality as so determined by each follower’s values and criteria.
The word character came from the Greek kharakter for an engraved mark, considered a symbol, a trademark or imprint on the soul.
One can use this same concept in branding products, allocating prominent names, signatures, or personal superscription, to the goods that also portrayed the character and standing of the craftsman used, the potter, the painter, the sculptor, the metalsmith to indicate their personality, their character and that of the distinctive individuality of the article marked.
It was a visible token by which a thing was distinguished from every other thing.
The balance of all components within the soul of each man, or product of his making, was what made a character unique and set him apart from others. People liked being set apart from others.
Because character took the raw material of nature and temperament, and weaved these into the strong, well-knit texture of a fully moralised man.
Character was nature cultured and disciplined, so that natural individuality marked off a man from his fellows by clear and specific differences.
Which, naturally, evoked jealousy from certain other types of people.
To produce character it was to be brought under discipline, and delicately organised into the structure of a true moral being.
Most people lacked discipline, and most people operated only on their own moral principles or judgements (for want of that freedom) and not the moral and ethical understandings of a cultivated system (operating within rules).
Cultivating a character included making a choice, a settled habit or bend of will, which went against the notion of total personal freedom.
It took dedication, discipline, hard work and eventually habit, which implied there was no freedom of absolute free will to do what one wanted all of the time, but what was required in society to gain charisma, power and influence, and make of oneself a great man.
The king of kings may rule the empire, but they did not govern it. It was men with great influence who pulled all the strings and influenced the kingdom’s makings.
Economic power, and by default the reigning power within the empire, could be achieved only by voluntary means, by the discretional choice and agreement of all those who participated in the process of production and trade.
All prices, wages, and profits were predetermined, not by the arbitrary whim of the king, the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s greed or by anyone’s need, but by the law of supply and demand.
Men traded their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgement. A man could grow rich only if he was able to offer better values, better products or services, at a lower price than others were able to offer, or by a high price with value attributes no one else can.
Unlike the kings who took territories by force and gained from the spoils, wealth for the businessman was achieved by vote of choice, the sales and the purchases of every individual who took part in the economic life of the empire.
Whenever you bought one product rather than another, you were voting for the success of the business man, his manufacturers and craftsmen, and of the merchant, the trader who presented these goods.
In this type of voting, every man voted only on those matters which he was qualified to judge, on his own personal preferences, interests, and needs.
Economic power was exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value, something to use or bring pleasure.
Unlike the positivity of economic power, political power was exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of a king’s emotional instability, a statemen’s greed, or a priest’s judgement, followed by some kind of punishment, injury, imprisonment, or destruction.
But no matter if economic or political power was wielded, everything existed in constantly shifting networks of relationships, and nothing strong or permanent could exist outside these relationships.
To enforce and maintain such relationships, one first needed to break in with character and charisma power and bring something of value to the table, and only then one could make strong alliances and build relationships.
As Barons, they had to be apt in everything, merchandising, business, politics, society, military, religion due to the nature of economics. Which by their very nature, made Barons powerful enough to deliver opinion and influence direction.
Where kings may have been occupied by amassing more territories or losing some to rivals, Barons grew powerful in their own demarcated territorial domains where kings had no business.
Some Barons were stationed in the military, skilled at fighting on horseback and known as the Great Lords, or Supreme Commanders.
Some Barons were stationed in business where they were known as astute nobles of great wealth and prestige, referred to as a magnate or a tycoon, with much diplomatic influence and power, designating in relations with foreign empires negotiating in politics, trade and war.
Together in an alliance, Barons, kings and princes controlled sufficient resources to influence and used monopolistic tactics to hold power and dominate any region, any industry and any kingdom.
Strengthened by diplomatic relations with far off empires, they achieved immense wealth through controlling the ownership of multiple lines of enterprises whose goods or services were widely consumed.
Some were widely known throughout the empire in connection with their lineage, family of the ruling kings, others by their trading activities, others through highly-visible secondary pursuits such as military prowess, others demanded respect by their knowledge and education.
A lone wolf was a symbol of independence and freedom, but was exposed to much danger and hardship. But a pack of wolves ran together, symbolising strength and power brought about by a sense of belonging, loyalty to a community and the ability to call on each other in times of crises.
The wolf pack, the Barons, were at their most powerful when there was something they had committed to protect or guard.
Lions were the most generalised symbol portrayed in many entities. But the wolf pack which was a representation of bold power, living together, hunting together, unlike the lion who depended on the female lion to hunt and squandered time lying in the shade beneath a tree.
As per the law of nature wolves in a pack were supposed to obey certain commands – the basic principles of cooperation – the strength of the pack was the wolf, and the strength of the wolf was the pack.
The empire was united in by various and different governance structures, and the new kings would have to rely more on their own personal powers and strengths, to be able to cause a revolt, unless they have immense charismatic ability and reputation that would make others follow them.
The human brain is fluid and the moral compass will oscillate in the direction dictated by circumstances, personal and political.
If one man offers you democracy and another offers you a bag of grain, at what stage of starvation will you prefer the grain to the vote?”
There was no such thing as a free man
He had obligations towards his people and himself. His duty was first to himself.
When you either love someone, something, or yourself, and have desires of achievement in any capacity, and having to compete with others for these commodities… you will never be a free man.
Things that appeared to be of free will, always had some hidden or implicit cost to someone.
And most often it was to oneself.
We all want freedom, freedom to do what?
In everything you want to do in life, there will be constraints
Yes you seemed to be free to choose but each choice has a constraint and a consequence which means humans are bound by certain duties
There is only one freedom, freedom from misunderstanding the human condition.
The understanding of human behaviour and the ultimate improvement of all the underlying psychosis in human life, is what will help you become free within constraints.