Commentary
Origin: This document is a modification of a document known as Liber LXXVII, or Liber OZ. It was completed in 1941 by Aleister Crowley, as a promotion of individuality and freedom. Two major elements influenced the publication and its timing: the world at the time was plunged into war against authoritarian regimes, and the underpinnings of Crowley’s own philosophy and ethics. As this document is incorporated into the religious and philosophical writings of Thelema, his own mystical worldview, this document is a religious document and is protected as such wherever freedom of religion is protected. Crowley’s stated goal was to present his ideal of human liberty using (as much as possible) one- or two-syllable words on a postcard-sized page so that it could be read and understood by even the simplest of people.
Modifications: As mentioned, though, this document is a modification of the original. Followers and fans of Crowley and Thelema may be put off or ill at ease with the liberties we have taken. We respect your opinions. The intent of this website is not to promote Thelema – there are plenty others that can do that. The intent of this website is to take what is an excellently written and simple declaration of liberty, modernize its language so that it is applicable not only to our time but to persons of any philosophical or religious background. For those who are followers of Thelema or Crowley, and want to know more about the original document, there is a quality resource on this in The Rights of Man: A Commentary on Liber Oz by Frater Orpheus.
Crowley’s focus was both mundane and supernatural, with an intent to challenge secular authority alongside religious authorities. Crowley wrote the document during an era of masculine dominance in society and language, resulting in his statements beginning with ‘Man has the right to…’; this exemplifies one of the areas we modified. By saying “Each has the right to…” we expand on the inclusiveness of the document. Crowley also began his statement with the alarming phrase “There is no god but man”, and while we sympathize with what he may have intended here, we feel that the statement unnecessarily dogmatic. We have modified it to read, ‘There is no authority on earth with a divine right to rule over others.’ Whether this mirrors any of Crowley’s intent, our hope is that this phraseology will foment a distrust in humans who stake a claim to authority in the name of the numinous. We have also modified clause five, where Crowley more simply states “Each has the right to kill…” We give the reader more options here. The assertions of this statement put justice in the hands of those to whom it belongs; we expand upon the opportunities of justice to include variations in severity, including forgiveness and pardon.
Will: When Crowly meant “will” or said “Do as thou wilt,” the meaning of the word has a special nature. Indeed, the name of his religious philosophy Thelema is the Greek word for will. Crowley loaded the word with more than we intend here, but we want to make it clear that one’s will does not permit them to do anything. Your will is limited at the very least by the restriction of not violating the rights of others. Moreover, to bring the Crowleyan meaning to it, one is meant to seek out one’s will, or purpose in life, and act on that will for the betterment of the individual and others. In this sense the will is more akin to the vocation or calling of the individual, rather than compulsion or impulse.
Interpretation: The document is a very basic declaration of independence for the individual.
- Clause 1 establishes the individual as a sovereign in his or her own right. By stating that one will live, work, play, and die “as one wills to do,” we are stating unequivocally that there is no organization or collective of individuals (e.g., government) that has the right to dictate the life decisions of an individual. The individual is supreme. Implicitly, this clause denies the legitimacy of any state authority, regardless of its origin or type, without voluntary and uncompelled compliance. Whether the state is governed by a few authoritarians (dictatorship) or a majority (democracy), no clause permits the abdication of rights except defense of self, property, or liberty. The state, which is a collective and not an individual, does not possess the right of self-defense.
- Clause 2 asserts the right of individuals to consume what they wish, including alcohol and pharmaceuticals. It also states the rights that one may live where one wants and move around the face of the earth as one wants. Frequently governments impose regulations on the inhabitants of their borders pertaining to the consumption of intoxicants, certain foods and drinks, and pharmaceuticals for health. Moreover, states designate imaginary lines to enclose their encampments, and erect strongholds or ports along them to aggressively manage and impose upon the freedom of human movement. States that purport to uphold liberty are as likely to impose these regulations as totalitarians.
While we assert the right of geographical freedom, we also respect the right of the property owner and the homesteader, who may erect boundaries upon or about their properties to secure themselves and their privacy. We assiduously do not support the right of imposition on such as these. - Clause 3 covers the freedoms of religion, philosophical perspective, and educational liberty. It protects the individual from recourse having to do with thoughts, ideas, speech, religious differences, and variations in artistic expression.
- Clause 4 eliminates boundaries regarding relationships. In other words, it asserts that no state or authority can prohibit a relationship based on type, status, or other characteristics. We do insist that despite the simplicity of the clause, there is no license here for sexual relations with minors or with unwilling participants. Consent is foundational to the protection of liberty, and the object of one’s love must also consent and reciprocate. We assert that children cannot consent. We urgently state that this is a commonsense corollary.
- Clause 5 provides the moral imperative for self-defense. By this we not only mean protection of our lives, but protection of our liberties. Self-defense solely for the protection of life is akin to having freedom of religion without freedom of speech. Self-defense protects not only physical safety but also freedom and the freedoms of others from overreach, tyranny, crime, and more. This is also the right by which we assert that the arbiter of justice in any situation should be either the victim or the victim’s kin. We hold the state culpable for intervening uninvited between the victim and their pursuit of justice, placing judges, lawyers, and police in the questionable role of arbiters. We also hold that this clause maintains the right to bear arms and use them when appropriate.
Self-Ownership: Every individual inherently possesses the birthright of self-ownership and individual liberty. The violation of another person’s freedom leads to the forfeiture of these rights. The victim possesses the rights to either avoid or resist such violations. The principals of Liber OZ, the “Law of the Strong,” grants victims the right to mount a full defense against infringers, without fear of reprisals. In cases where victims are unable to avoid perpetrators, where they become repeated targets, or where grave distress is present, victims may employ extreme measures to eliminate the threat they face. Similarly, if an individual witnesses such behavior and determines that the victim is in severe danger or the perpetrator poses a threat to others, they may intervene at any cost to neutralize the threat.
Omissions: Property rights are the only rights not explicitly expressed in Liber OZ. Property rights can be derived by interpretation from the other clauses, but property rights are the point at which human liberties begin to complicate things. If we were to include a statement on property rights, it might read: ‘Each has the right to acquire property through means that do not infringe upon others’ rights, retain that property as long as desired, and protect it with minimal necessary force, up to eliminating an aggressor.’
Members of the litigant class (lawyers, judges, politicians) would easily manipulate the words of this document in the same ways that they have intentionally misconstrued the words of their nations’ constitutions and laws. The simplicity of the speech is the best armament against that, but with the ad hoc redefinition of terms, changes in language, and so forth, we can rest assured that these machinations will continue as long as humanity permits the litigant class to exist. There is no hidden meaning or sleight of hand intended in the words of this document: they are intended to be taken a face value.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law: Other changes include the removal of direct references to other writings by Crowley, as they do not serve our purpose. We do not intend to promote the religious, cultish, or mystical teachings of Crowley, but emphasize the words of this document and promote it as a societal norm. The only such phrase we leave is for the poetic aesthetic: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; love is the law, love under will.” This is Crowley’s signature phrase for greeting others, and we feel that it embodies the rest of our thinking on the matter of individual liberty. We do not consider this an invitation to libertine behavior, but a call to self-examination followed by intent and purpose in accomplishing your goals in life (while allowing others to do the same). While there are also items we may have added to this list of 5 basic rights, we did not do so, as it is possible with a little bit of creativity to arrive at any of the basic rights of humanity from these simply-stated declarations.