LF: Why Some People Will Always Bow to Tyrants

By Joshua Krause

As America continues to descend into a vicious police state, many have wondered how it all came to this. The easiest answer to that question, is that we let it happen. No matter how brutal a regime may be, tyrants never come to power unless they gain the approval, or at least the indifferent consent of their people.

So the real question is, how come so many people seem absolutely complacent in the face of our crumbling cultural values, and the steady march of tyranny? Even worse, how can so many people revel in it? It seems like the number of people who truly value freedom are severely outnumbered by idiots and power tripping busybodies. Granted, the number of people who want to be free has grown in recent years, but they’re still few and far between when compared to the glut of grovelling masses that we share the world with.

Here’s the awful answer to that question, and the dirty truth that most people can’t bring themselves to admit. Most people love freedom, but only as an idea. They like the idea that they can do whatever they want, they admire the archetype of the rugged individualist, and everyone loves underdogs and rebels. In other words, people love the banners and symbols of freedom, but do they love freedom in practice?

I would argue that no, many of them don’t. As strange as it may sound, most people really struggle with having freedom. Let me provide an example, of which there are many in the field of marketing.

In the year 2000, two psychologists conducted a study on how the number of choices we have affects our behavior. They went to a supermarket and displayed 24 different gourmet jams on a table, and provided $1 coupons to see how much interest it garnered. They did the same thing the next day, but instead of 24 jams, there were only 6. The large display attracted much more interest, but the small display generated 10 times as many sales.

Maybe you think that study is inconsequential, and I wouldn’t blame you for thinking that, but let me share another case that will clarify my point. One of the psychologists who conducted that study, did another study on the differences between end-of-life care in the United States and France. She interviewed parents in both countries who had children on life support. In France, the doctor makes the decision as to whether or not a child is taken off life support, and in the United States it is the parents' decision.

She talked to these parents a year after their children had died. The American parents were much more distraught over their decision to pull the plug. They still had nagging doubts about whether it was the right decision to make, and they felt like they had “executed” their children. The French parents, on the other hand, didn’t feel nearly as bad about the situation. They were well on their way to coping with the tragedy.

The point I’m trying to make here is that most people don’t like having choices, despite how much they’ll argue to the contrary. The more choices they’re given, the more likely they are to not like the choices they have or make. There’s much more doubt about whether or not that choice was correct, which leads to some pretty counter-intuitive conclusions. You can measure how free you are by the number of choices you have, and most people claim to love freedom, but in many cases those people are happier when they have fewer, or no choices. I think most people are simply happier without freedom, which is unfortunate and sad to say the least.

And that is why so many people accept tyranny, and why it will always be a problem for the human race. Because tyranny is so much easier than freedom. It is acquiescence. It means giving up. Tyranny is for quitters, and it amounts to handing over the reins to someone else. Most people are happier when they don’t have a choice, and they don’t even realize it.

However, there is another way to look at this odd human behavior.

There was another interesting fact that was gleaned from that study. The American parents who had chosen to take their sick children off life support, still regretted their decision. But when asked if they would have had it any other way, most of them claimed that they would have still made the same decision. Their decision made them unhappy, they knew it made them unhappy, but when they were asked if they would have rather let the doctor make that choice, they all said no.

And that right there is an example of people who truly want freedom, and not just the rosy idea of freedom. Those who truly want freedom are willing to accept the painful struggle of having a choice in life, and prefer it to the ignorant bliss that comes with not having a choice. However, it was only applicable to that particular situation. Would those same parents prefer to have a choice in every other aspect of their lives?

Unfortunately, that kind of person is a rare bird these days. If you could ask everyone in the world about their ethics and political beliefs, you’d probably find a wide variety, but most of them would have one thing in common. There’s always some part of their lives that they are willing to relinquish to a “higher authority,” and that part differs depending on their ideology. Most people don’t really want the full freedom package.

So it’s up to the rare few who really want freedom, without compromise, to make it a reality for themselves. The human race will always teeter on the edge of a tyrannical abyss, because there is an inherent weakness in our species. We’re happier when we don’t have so many choices (or freedom), which means that accepting tyranny is easy for us. It takes all our strength and moral fiber to rise above it, because we default towards tyranny (which is defined by the lack of choice in our lives) when we stop caring. It’s our natural inclination.

Just as human weakness and apathy leads to ignorance, violence, and hatred, it also destroys freedom. And the political and financial elitists of the world want you to give in to your weaknesses, and fall back on those baser instincts. They want you to give up. They want you to yearn for a simple life, where your choices are taken care of by someone else. They want you to be a slave.

But do you really want that? Do you have the strength to make that choice?

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger.

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.

You need at least the economic freedom to devote your free time in public affairs and you need to live in a society that does not have ethnic nor religious rivalries - i.e. in an ethnic or religiously homogeneous society.

The USA had almost unlimited free land that allowed even the smallest and laziest farmer to make a living and thus have the leisure to participate in govt and there had a arisen a society that was free of religious intolerance.

In the south where there was slavery we had ethnic slaves so tyranny for some was the norm there.

If our Founding Fathers were colonizing Syria they would not be libertarian types, I assure you.

The Founders were steeped in the classics. To the classicists like in Rome and in Athens the only free person was someone who lived off his own land and the food it grew. Employees - people who worked for a boss and had a salary were not free but slaves. In fact in the classical world the word for employee and slave were the same word.

Think about it - if you work as an employee - even if you make a lot of money and are well regarded and you can get a jib you are not free because it can be taken from you and your livelihood comes from another.

If you own your own land that can provide food for you and your family every year - the bare minimum that you have the ability to not be dependent on another and your decisions are your own and not easily coerced.

I didn't know that Aristotle grew his own food, made his own clothes and built his own house. Thank you for that enlightenment.

For generations, scholars have focused on the rise of the Greek city-state and its brilliant cosmopolitan culture as the ultimate source of the Western tradition in literature, philosophy, and politics. This passionate book leads us outside the city walls to the countryside, where the vast majority of the Greek citizenry lived, to find the true source of the cultural wealth of Greek civilization. Victor Hanson shows that the real "Greek revolution" was not merely the rise of a free and democratic urban culture, but rather the historic innovation of the independent family farm.

The farmers, vinegrowers, and herdsmen of ancient Greece are "the other Greeks," who formed the backbone of Hellenic civilization. It was these tough-minded, practical, and fiercely independent agrarians, Hanson contends, who gave Greek culture its distinctive emphasis on private property, constitutional government, contractual agreements, infantry warfare, and individual rights. Hanson's reconstruction of ancient Greek farm life, informed by hands-on knowledge of the subject (he is a fifth- generation California vine- and fruit-grower) is fresh, comprehensive, and absorbing. His detailed chronicle of the rise and tragic fall of the Greek city-state also helps us to grasp the implications of what may be the single most significant trend in American life today—the imminent extinction of the family farm.