Do You Hate Oppression, Or Love Liberty?
September 10, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 4 Comments
And why does it matter? Is there a difference between the two?
Truth and freedom are synonymous with happiness, for as man aligns his thoughts, speech, and actions with eternal, immutable truth, he discovers personal freedom and is therefore happy; one cannot be free and unhappy simultaneously. Understanding this, we find that mere political freedom is simply one level of freedom on an infinite scale, and is not the ultimate goal of the pursuit of happiness — the former is merely a framework to facilitate the latter.
Many of us make the mistake of pursuing political freedom before internalizing personal integrity. In the pursuit of happiness, the question one must answer is, “Do I love freedom, or do I hate oppression?” On the surface level, these questions appear to be a redundancy, yet what naturally flows from the answers to each are worlds apart in their long-term consequences.
Virtue Isn’t Necessarily About God
August 21, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
How to Promote Virtue Without Appealing to Religion
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” -George Washington
It’s incontrovertible that no society can secure or maintain freedom in the absence of virtue and that enduring political philosophy must include the aspect of morality. The problem with persuading others of these facts is that the concept of virtue can be divisive since it’s so often associated with religion. However, virtue can and should a source of unity in America, rather than a source of enmity.
One powerful way to make virtue universally embraced is to make the case for it from a pragmatic — rather than a specifically religious — perspective.
Understand that the purpose is not to reduce or constrain virtue, but rather to create an expanded usage of the concept that allows you to reach more people in the struggle for liberty. Virtue is, by nature, mainly the purview of religion and spirituality, rather than reason alone. To quote George Washington again, “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
But this doesn’t mean that we can’t effectively use reason to unite others behind the importance of virtue; reason can be a powerful ally to reach a broader audience than those who accept virtue as a given on religious grounds. Stripping down the robed, metaphysical nature of virtue to the naked flesh of practicality can be an effective way to understand its importance in political philosophy.
The Natural Results of the Lack of Virtue
Forget your religious and spiritual attachments to virtue — or your aversions to virtue –for a moment and consider what happens to a society populated by untrustworthy, deceitful, selfish, and rapacious individuals. Suppose you’re a farmer in such a society. You take precious time and painstaking care to grow your crops, only to have them forcefully stolen by marauders. You try again and again but are continually met with the same fate. At what point do you give up (assuming you haven’t been killed by the thieves first)? When do you stop providing value to society by growing food?
You build a house, only to have it stolen by a conniving landlord. Will you be anxious to continue putting your time and effort into rebuilding, or will you eventually become discouraged and resign yourself to living in a shack that no one will steal?
As a freelance writer, much of my business is done over the Internet with people that I have never met in person and likely never will. What happens to my mindset and productivity if I continually complete jobs for clients — before getting paid — and then they take my work and run without paying?
In all of the cases mentioned, people resort to one of three things, if not all: 1) they will stop producing because they lose faith that they will benefit by doing so, 2) they severely limit their economic exchanges with others out of fear of being cheated, or 3) they will be forced to institute barriers of protection which cost time, money, and lost productivity; in other words, they stop the free flow of exchange and wealth creation.
The Main Supports of Prosperity
Economic prosperity is a function of two basic principles: production and exchange. Production means to consciously create value for others in such a way that they value what you offer more than what they have to give. In essence it represents service. It means to figure out what others want and provide it for them effectively and efficiently. Production can come in the form of tangible products, such as clothes, tangible services such as housecleaning, or intangibles such as information or the appearance of status.
Exchange occurs when two people value what the other has more than what they have themselves. You have pigs and want wheat, I have wheat and want pigs, so we have a natural and voluntary basis for exchange. Currency, of course, enables exchange to be much more efficient than the barter system, since it is a universally accepted symbol of value. The more exchange that occurs in society, the wealthier everyone becomes.
In the absence of virtue, productivity and exchange are dramatically restricted at best. Why should I produce if my production will only amount to wasted time, money, and effort when it gets forcefully or deceitfully taken from me? Why should I exchange when I continually get cheated? On the other hand, virtuous societies, wherein honest people can trust each other, always prosper because their production and exchange are optimized.
The natural result of deceit and coercion — in other words, a lack of virtue — is an impoverished, mistrustful, and corrupt society. There is a direct and intimate relationship between widespread poverty and a lack of virtue; the societies that are the most impoverished are those that are the most corrupt. The Dark Ages are a perfect example.
Time spent worrying about how others are going to harm you or take the fruits of your production is time that could have been spent producing and exchanging. The time spent building a moat and a castle is time that could have been spent growing crops and making bread. Castles and all other forms of defense are not human achievements to praise, but rather unfortunate monuments to the lack of virtue. Aesthetic beauty is one thing; labor compelled by danger from attack is another.
Beyond Economics
Does this apply to relationships beyond economic exchanges? What about marriage? A marriage comprised of two unfaithful and deceitful individuals is full of bitterness, resentment, and suspicion. They cannot work together for the common good, and so the household suffers, monetarily, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. The children are affected and perpetuate the baggage into their own relationships. In other words, forget about whether the lack of virtue within a marriage is right or wrong — it simply doesn’t work. It’s unsustainable. It creates conflict and limits cooperation.
The decline in virtue in society is accompanied by and directly correlates with an increase in litigation, violence, security-oriented industries and businesses, and, as a result, a decrease in productivity and exchange, ultimately leading to a decrease in cooperation, peace, and prosperity. It’s not necessary to appeal to a religion, a spiritual master, or an ecclesiastical leader to realize the factual, empirical, and pragmatic nature of and necessity for virtue.
“Statesmen…may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies…” — John Adams
Legal Plunder
There’s yet another angle to consider with virtue, and that is what happens when the government is authorized to take, by force, the fruits of men’s labors. Frederic Bastiat has already articulated this important point well in his classic The Law, so I won’t belabor it here. Suffice it to say that whether corruption occurs through private or legal means, the result is the same: mistrust, poverty, and violence. Whether my property is stolen against my will by the government or petty thieves, I will be less likely and able to engage in production and exchange.
Conclusion
Virtue can be an intensely personal, spiritual, and religious principle that you hold dear, as well you should. You may associate it with saints and spiritual masters, as do I. As we engage in the battle for liberty, we may try to convince and persuade others of the value of virtue by appealing to the concepts of “right” and “wrong.” This can be problematic, however, as it inevitably creates strife over differing opinions of right and wrong.
Lay hold upon virtuous principles for your own personal reasons, yet also learn to articulate the case for virtue based on pragmatics — or what works. While it may not be as ennobling and inspiring as we would like, it’s at least universally appealing and doesn’t require faith or belief to prove its necessity. Virtue is not only a religious or spiritual principle; it is also a practical necessity to maintain a free and prosperous society.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Changing Lanes
August 7, 2008 by James Ure · 2 Comments
How to Get Around the Individualism Roadblock With A Minor Turn in Jurisprudential Policy
The National Platform of the Libertarian Party[i] defends the view that “all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”
The platform opposes any regulation of obscenity, including pornography, “despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women,” as well as any speech codes at tax-funded schools, claiming that “[l]anguage that is deemed offensive to certain groups is not a cause for legal action.” It opposes eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, property taxes, resource management, public health legislation, and all regulation of abortion.
Finally, it holds that “consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships” and that the state does not have the authority to define the terms of marriage because marriage is simply a private contract.
Tellingly, the word individual appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences in the platform, but the words family and school only appear once each, the words church or religion only appear a few times, and the words community and neighborhood do not appear at all. Clearly, in libertarian thought, “respect for individuals, apart from family and other associations, is paramount to a just and virtuous society.”[ii]
This individualistic view of society is spreading through our government and our homes like wildfire. It has already caused a steep decline in national unity and promises to continue tearing societal fabric apart until nothing but individual, atomistic, autonomous shreds remain. Although there are many causes at the root of this individualism, I will only treat one in this article: the harm modern Supreme Court jurisprudence has inflicted on various societal associations that have previously been sources of societal unity.
Postmodern Politics: Individualistic or Relationship-Based?
August 4, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 4 Comments
Confidence in human institutions is fading. Modernism is slowly losing its foothold as many human beings are seeing that institutions are unable to deliver the happiness they claim to provide. In fact, many are beginning to see the authoritarian nature of most human institutions as a limit to their pursuit of happiness, an encroachment on their liberty, and as diminishing the value of their lives.
Over the past one hundred years, as this process has slowly taken hold, two political philosophers have described what the future (now the present) has in store and attempted to show us what options there are in a postmodern world.
These two main branches of postmodernism can be described as libertarian postmodernism (individualism) and humanistic postmodernism (a sense of responsibility to care for and better the situation of self and others). These two philosophers are Ayn Rand, promoting the individualistic branch, and Leo Tolstoy, promoting the humanistic branch.
Freedom for Bread
August 1, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 4 Comments
One of socialism’s fundamental tenets is its desire for the government to universally care for people, whether it be through single-payor healthcare or ensuring jobs and even equal wealth for all. These are lofty and admirable goals and desires. However, what are the potential costs?
Many conservatives will point to the actual fiscal costs of accomplishing these goals; that it will result in a higher tax burden and therefore a slower economy (because we know it’s all about an “efficient” economy). Others will point to the idea that if the government gets involved in providing everything for everyone, it takes away self-reliance, which is almost a god to be worshiped by many conservatives.
Philosophers and economists from the late 18th century put forth the argument that because the government receives its power from the people, the government can’t do anything that people can’t do. Therefore, because an individual cannot forcibly take money from one person and give it to another, the government should not be able to forcibly tax people and give the money as handouts to others.
Liberals will say, “but taxes aren’t forcibly taking money; we’ve agreed as a society run things this way.” Just try not paying your taxes and see how much force lies therein.
All of these points have some validity, but none of them are strong enough or philosophically fundamental enough to sway me. They don’t address the fundamental problem with government-mediated wealth redistribution or provision for all needs from cradle-to-grave. The fundamental problem has to do with agency and freedom. Let me explain.
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...