Simply by being within this civilization, we are constrained.
To be free but poor would be acceptable if only the means of lifting oneself out of the state of being poor were available in this state of freedom.
Me? I'd rather exist like the monk in the painting of the 7th Zen Patriarch.... simply resting in the sublime beauty of nature. But alas, that painting never shows you what happens when the Mongol hordes come swooping in.
I was not thinking so much in absolutes, but in degrees between liberty and security understood in a Lockean fashion. A current example is found in the debate over which civil liberties we are willing to sacrifice (again to a degree) in order to protect against terrorist attacks. In this instance, I’m wondering more along the lines of material/economic security vs. liberty, but anyone should by all means feel free to take the thread in any direction.
Swing it baby, swing it.
To be more specific: Would you be willing to give up, say, freedom of speech, religion, or association if tyranny promised you a house, a paycheck, and all the amenities of a comfortable life? The question is very real if listening to the complaints of some former citizens who lived under the Soviet block, and now struggle with transitioning from a centralized economy to the uncertainties of a market economy. At least, they say, they were more secure under the old regime (so long as they weren’t in the Gulag) and in many cases they’re probably right. For the moment.
But if you were they, would you trade back if given the option? Would you exchange the promises of an emerging democracy –-however tenuous it is under Putin-- for a system where you perhaps have to suffer through shortages and wait for hours in line for consumer goods, don’t have full authority over your existence, but have life’s necessities provided by the state?
Talking about the different experience and tradition of the former Soviet republics or Latin America is one thing, but I think I’d be scared of some the answers my fellow citizens would provide.
I’m looking all over the map for Snorkistan, and I just can’t see it. Is it nose shaped perhaps? I’ve got to get these maps updated.
As far as your point goes: I appreciate you outlining the dilemma posed by those caught between freedom, food, and reform. It demonstrates that although we make speak about ideals, history and tradition have a heavy hand in making this a grey matter on the ground.
I agree that in the real world, we—or the people from Snorkistan—have to contend with working out from a continuum our security vs. liberty arrangements, and this depends upon what needs are imposed in the historical moment. Corruption shouldn’t be confused with a valid need for imposition. And in American history as another example, it wouldn’t have made sense for Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus if it wasn’t during a time of national crisis and war. And in our case, because the Declaration and the Constitution articulate man’s natural right to be free, there could be no justification for such drastic curtailment of liberty outside of war or a national crisis.
I’d refer back to Dhun’s important observation: simply by being in civilization, we are constrained. This is true, as we move out of a state of nature and into civilization.
But why?
For the specific purpose of allowing our rights that we enjoyed in nature to be secured fairly and justly by an impartial governing entity. This entity is limited in powers to securing these rights, and bound by the rule of law.
So, the nature of this arrangement is crucial, isn’t it?
We give up some rights to have the rest our rights secured. But, here’s the twist: when did it become acceptable to trade one’s natural rights for a security of economic welfare? Before the advance of Enlightenment values and institutions, this was the very definition of feudalism. Marxism and the reaction against the harshness of 19th century industrialism I think explains well the modern thread. But isn’t that a devil’s bargain? History has shown that the prominent examples of this experiment haven’t been able to fulfill on its utopian promise and have only been a dehumanizing force in the process.
I believe it to be uncivilized, and I say this based on absolutes, not hypothetical’s. It’s human-kinds natural desire and right to be free, and freedom is the only acceptable way of making one’s fate in the world. Our choices and the weight of our decisions are what make us free and human. In this light, I would classify freedom as the imperative, and security as the necessary evil that may impinge on freedom, but only when necessary to preserve that freedom. Providing housing, a guaranteed check, free cupcakes on Sundays, and other material essentials are not securities that I would willingly allow to encroach on my right to liberty and freewill.
But I know that there are those that would, because the allure of material security without the responsibilities that come with liberty, are an enticing devil’s bargain to make.
I don’t remember the source, so I can’t verify its authenticity, but I recall coming across the results of a survey conducted in Latin-America concerning the question of economic security vs. rights, and more than a majority stated that they would be willing to trade away their rights. Now, if true, that’s a reflection of their political tradition, perhaps, but I still find it quite chilling, especially while wondering how the demographics in this country are trending for the next 50 years, and what kind of change that might bring in our “arraignments”.
Help me out here, because this raises a whole set of questions for me:
At what point is it decided that someone's fate is determined by their liberty or not?
Who or what body is to do this deciding, and based on what calculus?
What if we return to a state of nature, and someone’s welfare suffers but this is no longer due to a sacrifice of liberty for security? What do we then call that?
Agreed, the barbarians are indeed at the gate. There’s the difficulty, as we've discussed, in convincing many that there is this current threat without being labeled as culturally phobic, over-reactive, or partisan in the use of “fear tactics”. Many simply do not believe we are at war and are blind to this independent fact from them because of either their hatred of the current Republican administration or because they naively wish it were still September 10th.
That's why I think many are willing to entertain the notion that the restriction of some liberty is the act of an autocratic presidency, and not in response to a real and continuing threat.
7 comments:
Simply by being within this civilization, we are constrained.
To be free but poor would be acceptable if only the means of lifting oneself out of the state of being poor were available in this state of freedom.
Me? I'd rather exist like the monk in the painting of the 7th Zen Patriarch.... simply resting in the sublime beauty of nature. But alas, that painting never shows you what happens when the Mongol hordes come swooping in.
How constrained?
How poor?
Big question.
Big question, good point for clarification.
I was not thinking so much in absolutes, but in degrees between liberty and security understood in a Lockean fashion. A current example is found in the debate over which civil liberties we are willing to sacrifice (again to a degree) in order to protect against terrorist attacks. In this instance, I’m wondering more along the lines of material/economic security vs. liberty, but anyone should by all means feel free to take the thread in any direction.
Swing it baby, swing it.
To be more specific: Would you be willing to give up, say, freedom of speech, religion, or association if tyranny promised you a house, a paycheck, and all the amenities of a comfortable life? The question is very real if listening to the complaints of some former citizens who lived under the Soviet block, and now struggle with transitioning from a centralized economy to the uncertainties of a market economy. At least, they say, they were more secure under the old regime (so long as they weren’t in the Gulag) and in many cases they’re probably right. For the moment.
But if you were they, would you trade back if given the option? Would you exchange the promises of an emerging democracy –-however tenuous it is under Putin-- for a system where you perhaps have to suffer through shortages and wait for hours in line for consumer goods, don’t have full authority over your existence, but have life’s necessities provided by the state?
Talking about the different experience and tradition of the former Soviet republics or Latin America is one thing, but I think I’d be scared of some the answers my fellow citizens would provide.
I’m looking all over the map for Snorkistan, and I just can’t see it. Is it nose shaped perhaps? I’ve got to get these maps updated.
As far as your point goes: I appreciate you outlining the dilemma posed by those caught between freedom, food, and reform. It demonstrates that although we make speak about ideals, history and tradition have a heavy hand in making this a grey matter on the ground.
I agree that in the real world, we—or the people from Snorkistan—have to contend with working out from a continuum our security vs. liberty arrangements, and this depends upon what needs are imposed in the historical moment. Corruption shouldn’t be confused with a valid need for imposition. And in American history as another example, it wouldn’t have made sense for Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus if it wasn’t during a time of national crisis and war. And in our case, because the Declaration and the Constitution articulate man’s natural right to be free, there could be no justification for such drastic curtailment of liberty outside of war or a national crisis.
I’d refer back to Dhun’s important observation: simply by being in civilization, we are constrained. This is true, as we move out of a state of nature and into civilization.
But why?
For the specific purpose of allowing our rights that we enjoyed in nature to be secured fairly and justly by an impartial governing entity. This entity is limited in powers to securing these rights, and bound by the rule of law.
So, the nature of this arrangement is crucial, isn’t it?
We give up some rights to have the rest our rights secured. But, here’s the twist: when did it become acceptable to trade one’s natural rights for a security of economic welfare? Before the advance of Enlightenment values and institutions, this was the very definition of feudalism. Marxism and the reaction against the harshness of 19th century industrialism I think explains well the modern thread. But isn’t that a devil’s bargain? History has shown that the prominent examples of this experiment haven’t been able to fulfill on its utopian promise and have only been a dehumanizing force in the process.
I believe it to be uncivilized, and I say this based on absolutes, not hypothetical’s. It’s human-kinds natural desire and right to be free, and freedom is the only acceptable way of making one’s fate in the world. Our choices and the weight of our decisions are what make us free and human. In this light, I would classify freedom as the imperative, and security as the necessary evil that may impinge on freedom, but only when necessary to preserve that freedom. Providing housing, a guaranteed check, free cupcakes on Sundays, and other material essentials are not securities that I would willingly allow to encroach on my right to liberty and freewill.
But I know that there are those that would, because the allure of material security without the responsibilities that come with liberty, are an enticing devil’s bargain to make.
I don’t remember the source, so I can’t verify its authenticity, but I recall coming across the results of a survey conducted in Latin-America concerning the question of economic security vs. rights, and more than a majority stated that they would be willing to trade away their rights. Now, if true, that’s a reflection of their political tradition, perhaps, but I still find it quite chilling, especially while wondering how the demographics in this country are trending for the next 50 years, and what kind of change that might bring in our “arraignments”.
Help me out here, because this raises a whole set of questions for me:
At what point is it decided that someone's fate is determined by their liberty or not?
Who or what body is to do this deciding, and based on what calculus?
What if we return to a state of nature, and someone’s welfare suffers but this is no longer due to a sacrifice of liberty for security? What do we then call that?
In other words, is it all just about engineering the settings on this security-liberty continuum according to a consensus?
Or does justness trump anything in this picture?
Agreed, the barbarians are indeed at the gate. There’s the difficulty, as we've discussed, in convincing many that there is this current threat without being labeled as culturally phobic, over-reactive, or partisan in the use of “fear tactics”. Many simply do not believe we are at war and are blind to this independent fact from them because of either their hatred of the current Republican administration or because they naively wish it were still September 10th.
That's why I think many are willing to entertain the notion that the restriction of some liberty is the act of an autocratic presidency, and not in response to a real and continuing threat.
What happens next to the continuum?
Post a Comment