Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


Whether Liberty or the Laws came first, is not a chicken or egg question. 

Whichever came first is not necessarily the thing to be left alone. Nor are all those which came later improvements of the first, in which case, Eve should have been an improvement of Adam. But as those who repose faith in the Biblical theology need to believe, Eve was intended to be a helper to man. That she had other ideas, including opening up of channels of communication with the Serpent on an ostensible intention for upgrading Adam’s status, is another story!

All laws are either discovered by man, made by man or informed that God told the man to give it to other men. There are NO LAWS besides these. By that very nature, man being fallible, ALL LAWS are prone to fallibility, including mishearing or even misunderstanding of God’s words.

But LIBERTY remains in the domain of the humane. The only test IN THE EXERCISE OF ONE’S LIBERTY is whether it is humane. If it is humane it has to be human and necessity based with kindness stamped on it.

LIBERTY operates in an unregulated area of human activity. For example, if  one goes to a virgin forest in his SUV or to a desert, He need not be shackled by the laws of the roads, because those are unregulated areas and ‘humanity’ would be the only consideration. A truck may park very close to the SUV but he may not have any right to oust the Liberty to park the SUV and have it removed from the place where he had parked it first. So LIBERTY operates on the principle of PRECEDENCE. When one had chosen to park his suv in a particular place first, the other has no RIGHT TO OUST THE FIRST PERSON’S LIBERTY TO PARK ON THAT SPOT. That’s Liberty.

To put that in first person, I owe no duty to obey his whims or his demands to remove my suv, except at my own will. The other could use FORCE OR SHOW A LAW TO OUST MY LIBERTY. If I have to submit to that law, which I was not aware of till then, I better obey. If the law shown is doubtful I go for dispute resolution. If by force, then I may make a whole lotta choices.

I could go to the authorities and make a claim and get my grievance redressed or I could use more force and subjugate his force and if my act spills into the society, I may have to face the consequences of my offence. If the other treats it as sport and allows me to reclaim my spot through my application of greater force and no crime is committed, then there are no issues to pursue .


That Liberty is given to mankind by the creator, not by man, therefore it is DIVINE.


Sumptuary Laws are laws relating to the dress and food habits of man, even in his private space . Consequently, they being laws, are MAN MADE and prone to fallibility. More than all the above, they are SOCIAL SANCTIONS ON THE LIBERTY OF MAN. If the society takes upon itself the task of making laws as to what its citizens should eat or shouldn’t, the society had started treading the toes of Liberty.

The response and the only response is to RESIST. Be vocal about your RESISTANCE. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AND NOT A FEUDALISTIC HIERARCHIFICATION!

When do Liberties dwindle? First the proponents ensure that you give up something as a CONCESSION, later they stabilise those concessions into RIGHTS AND THEREBY IMPOSE A CORRESPONDING DUTY ON THE CONCEDERS!

Liberty is gone and somebody’s RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED & duty is imposed on you.

In the book of DANIEL, in the Bible, during the regimes of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, a law was made prohibiting any person from making prayers to anyone but the king.

That was not merely an affront to the Liberty of man to pray to any God of his choice, but a Liberty regulated into a Law.

The targeted persons were Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego and Daniel.

The targets were chosen by the detractors of the targeted persons. They made a law making an activity in the domain of personal Liberty into an offence! The conspirers merely REGULATED AN AREA WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE REMAINED UNREGULATED, as that space was Subject to the discovered principles of  DIVINE LIBERTY.

Eating meat or not is my personal Liberty. That I don’t offend the society by slaughtering animals in public can be regulated, as that could offend the health and sensibilities of the spectators. But NOT PROVIDING MEAT THROUGH CLOSURE OF ABATTOIRS, OR GENTLY REQUESTING ME TO CONCEDE EATING MEAT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, IS SURELY TREADING ON MY LIBERTY.

I have the divine LIBERTY to eat what he wants and man should not only protect his own, but others’ LIBERTY too. Asking for concessions based on sentiment is the sneakiest form of whittling my LIBERTY.

Concessions are APPEASEMENTS, which over a period of time become RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE OTHER.

Let us not treat LIBERTY so lightly, as a man’s true innovative skills and character are visible only when he is called upon to show the strength of his sense of LIBERTY.

When Jesus was asked by Pilate: WHAT IS TRUTH? Jesus kept silent . I am unequivocally certain that Jesus’ silence stemmed out of his LIBERTY TO BE SILENT, to a query which a political administrator, who thought that Caesar was ultimate, could NEVER EVER COMPREHEND!

Seven years back APPS business did not exist, today the whole communication system through mobiles is built on it, why? Somebody went to that unregulated area and innovated. Let us leave the spaces meant for Liberty alone. IF WE DON’T we risk strapping our own people against those who would use those Liberties and grow and subjugate us EVENTUALLY.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: