The Consequences of Freedom

What are the consequences of a society oriented towards radical freedom? What becomes of the artificially forged ‘unions’ known as nations?
If we recognize that the nation’s push for unity is a natural outgrowth of what can be termed the homogenization of control, then when this restraint is removed a new form of organization emerges- one given readily to a multitude of loosely interrelating groups. That these groups will be in creative conflict with each other is a given, but it is this very conflict which is necessary for the growth and development of society as a totality.
Unity, in the artificial sense, is a breeding ground for stagnation, and as mentioned above, merely the pretext for a supra-controlling structure to be put in place. This structure has generally been known as the government, and the etymology of the words that it uses to describe itself give us clues as to its nature. The term government originates from the latin gubernare, meaning to steer a ship. Those who govern then, see the people, whether explicitly or implicitly, as needing to be directed and guided by an authority, lest they drift blindly into the rocks and are sunk. Similarily, on examining words such as leader, and politics, we see patterns of meaning which reinforce a very real disequality between those in charge and their ‘charges’. Afterall, to lead is to show the way, which presupposes special knowledge not available to those being led. How they come into posession of this knowledge is never directly revealed, but we can see it as a watered down version of the legitimacy that monarchs claimed for themselves: divine decree. The leader is imbued with this quality of otherworldlyness, claiming an inherent authority which is nonetheless dressed in secular vestements. Politics pertains to the citizenry, who are understood to owe an alegiance to the state in exchange for its protections, and so on and so forth.
It is a language of heirarchy, nothing more. A free society, when considered in the light of what genuine freedom entails, proceeds from a point of disunity, and yet this disunity is not equivalent to disorder, or chaos.
A radically free society has no need of unity because it does not involve itself in the business of controlling peoples’ lives. How then is it to function, or go about the task of defending itself against assault?
If we construct for ourselves a system of democracy, in its original formulation as direct citizen decision-making, then we must also accept the consequences of its premise of equality. That being, if all are equal, and none should ever come to hold dominion over others, then we must all bear the responsibility for fulfilling and maintaining this delicate balance of power. We must each of us become the enforcers of our collective security, each of us must become the peace officers commited to holding order and creating the socio-political space where freedom can flourish. We must all become the living embodiment of the law and its application in our dealings with one another.When there are no ‘authorities’ then there remains only the authority of life as lived by those who are aware of themselves.