10

Freedom and Virtue

Posted by JohnBrown 10 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
242 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Is a high degree of responsibility necessary for the people to live in freedom? Do the people have to be responsible, honest, and hard-working—in a word, virtuous—before they can handle freedom? It can be a chicken-and-egg argument, certainly. Do the people lose their virtue and then lose their liberty? Or, do they gradually lose their liberty and then lose their virtue, in proportion? The cause and effect is important, because it provides a clue about how best to restore freedom. If the former, then the people must be taught virtue again, presumably by the State. But this approach is hopeless and absurd. Or, the people might somehow be drawn again to religion and absorb the moral teachings therein.

To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.
—James Madison

In any case, if the people lose their virtue and then lose their freedom, there would need to be a moral revival before we could return to freedom. But if the people lose their liberty and then their virtue, the approach is more straightforward: set them free. When people are free to face the full consequences of making poor or immoral choices; when sloth, greed, envy, lying, cheating, stealing, unreliability, and broken promises have real social and economic consequences, they will be induced to become more virtuous. When the State penalizes saving and investment, when it taxes incomes and wealth away, and when it provides unearned benefits for free, it not only discourages positive, productive behavior, it rewards bad character at the same time. It subsidizes bad behavior.

To reward responsibility and penalize irresponsibility, we don't need a moral revival first. Just set everyone free. Let people make mistakes, let them live by their own choices. Let them learn, let them experiment, let them cooperate. Wards of the State are not self-reliant, competent, independent individuals. In freedom, individuals build good character. In freedom, relationships are strengthened; societies become more virtuous. Harry Browne wrote an article on this topic that addresses the issue quite well.



All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 10.
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Somalia is not freedom. A few moments examination would show why. You need some basic things upheld or in common yes. Like the right to live your life as you see fit respecting the right of others to do the same. And like basis for economic interactions like currency, dispute resolution (courts), stopping offenders of above rule efficiently and with minimal unintended consequences. But not a great deal more and it is not clear that you need a government, a body that legally can initiated force, to do all of them.

    Freedom is contextual. It does not mean a freaking jungle. It is freedom to live and thrive as the type of beings we are with gives rise to ethics. They are not a free floating abstraction.

    It does not require "sacrifice". That is exactly what is NOT required. [Re]read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and get back to us. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not asking. I am demanding that the State be dismantled to only the functions that can only be done by it and nothing else. It is up to us to make it so or form a new nation where it is so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have a sickening feeling that the majority that vote will demand their goodies, that those who deal in force, not trade, continue to promise.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Retired24-navy 10 years, 8 months ago
    The bigger problem is socialist government. They bribe too many people with welfare, food stamps, free phones and free rent. The weak accept and loose all their virtue to the gov. This is happening now as the 47% have sold out to be taken care of. The riots are coming as the money is quickly running out and when it does there will be hell to pay for who is in charge. This might could be stopped in Nov, if the socialists (Democrats) are voted out. It might not be too late to save our nation. We will see.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I didn't say the economy is stagnating. The more common way to say what I said above, is that the economy is slightly above “stall speed.”
    And that is after years of the Fed started forcing ZIRP.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Very good.
    And why does the economy grow at a rate slightly above stagnation? It's like every time you step outside to do something you see state made tornadoes, floods and lighting...You step back inside.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 10 years, 8 months ago
    Freedom exists, we have choices, to accept being free, or flee from it. Virtue is learned. Freedom comes first. Even in communist countries, their are choices, albeit fewer than we have. One cannot be the most free without accepting the responsibility that comes with it. That in itself is the start of virtue. But virtue alone does not necessarily lead to freedom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 8 months ago
    Why is it that only humans can have virtue or lack it? Be good or be bad? All other creatures stay true to their natures, which makes them what they are, loveable, horrible, beautiful, fearful. They have no choice. Only humans have a choice, i:e: volition. Free will. In order to have free will, it's pretty obvious that one must be free to exercise it. Volition is as essential to men as hunting is to a tiger, or spawning upstream is to a salmon. When freedom is taken away to any degree, so volition is diminished to the same degree. When that happens men become something other than mankind. Put a goldfish in a plastic bag filled with water that's not much bigger than the fish, and you won't expect it to have a long life. But men are smarter than fish and will find a way to survive -- but as what?

    The desire to be free in men is easily illustrated by prisons. Even though all their needs are attended to except for freedom, most prisoners would give anything to be free. Free will and the exercise thereof is why repressive societies inevitably crumble, but the question yet to be answered is why do people fall for societies that go against their very nature? The problem is freedom requires self-reliance. At this point, I will need more space than would be feasible in order to cover the difference between true humans and those who have given up their humanity for the chimera of dependence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well said JohnBrown. This is kind of like channeling the founders. The Nation could benefit from the debates found here, but they are too buzy to be bothered.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 years, 8 months ago
    I would argue that virtue has to exist for freedom to have beneficial results, in agreement with Madison. Somalia is an example of a collapsed state with essentially no government, and freedom there means survival by any means possible.

    Virtue is a hard-earned state, denying self-indulgence and requiring sacrifice. American minorities poured their blood in military service to secure the freedoms promised in our Constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 8 months ago
    you are asking in essence that the state shut up and go away, which I believe that it should however, it is not going to happen and freedoms have been lost and more freedoms will be lost and that is the way it is going to be for a very long time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years, 8 months ago
    I agree.

    People are free because freedom is required for human beings, individually, to be the best they can be. Responsibility, honesty, productivity require freedom. So asking whether people have enough of these qualities to be free rather entirely misses the point.

    There is no such thing as virtue where there is no freedom to choose and act upon one's choice.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It always starts with (apparently) well-intentioned reformers. They move on from their initial success to other pet causes. Meanwhile, what they have started takes on a life of its own, growing and mutating, expanding its depth and breadth to the point where a formerly free people are restricted by papers, permits, registrations, authorizations, approvals, and licenses, removing their capacity to act in accord with their natural talents and inclinations. For those who refuse to obey the orders, laws, mandates, acts, regulations, codes, and statutes, there is the punishing force of the State lying in wait, its fines, prisons, and brutality lurking just beneath the surface. Where once everything not expressly forbidden by law was allowed to the people as their prerogative, everything not expressly allowed becomes, in effect, forbidden.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 8 months ago
    I strongly agree with your suggestion that most people will rise to the occasion.

    Maybe it happens like this. A few people don't rise to the occasion. Well-meaning people see we could easily force them to make a few better decisions and improve their lives. They sell these programs, though, as being for everyone. Once they're in place, people don't need to rise to the occasion. They start thinking, "if this investment, food, drug, or whatever were a bad idea for me, the gov't would stop me from using it." People's thinking shifts from what "what should we allow the gov't to do?" to "what should the gov't allow people to do?".

    I strongly agree with what you say: "Just set everyone free. Let people make mistakes, let them live by their own choices. Let them learn, let them experiment, let them cooperate." Yes!!!
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo