Freedom and Virtue
Posted by JohnBrown 10 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
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.
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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
One of the many lines attributed to the character Lazarus Long
The blush line, that is
I find for the most part that the anarchist, in their reliance on the NAP and voluntary association, neglect to consider that the reality of resolving the issue that might arise between two free individuals, requires that the two not only agree to submit to an arbiter but must actually do so. It may be and probably will be, that one party just refuses to attend the arbitration, or refuses to comply with the results of the arbitration. So, what happens then? What happens when someone murders or rapes?
At the other hand, the objectivist recognizes by relying on the protection of property rights (on the basis that the individual owns himself and the fruits of his productive activities, both physically and mentally) provides for a minimalist governmental enforcement of those rights. The only difficulty that I find with the objectivist (including the founders) is that they neglect to provide for the iniquity (in a realistic manner) of those that gravitate to filling the positions of government and of those in the population that are gullible or self centered enough to support that iniquity.
This site is intended for those that support the art, writings, and philosophy of Ayn Rand which allows for discussion and debate of the parts or whole of the subject matter, but arguing for other ideals or principles without discussing or detailing why that is relative to AR's ideas or concepts is non-productive for this site. IMHO
I don't pretend to be the voice of objectivism, I'm just an individual that finds that for the most part, that objectivism fits who and what I am.
Who was it who said that man is the only animal who can blush, or needs to? The responsibility of choice boils down to think or not to think. At times it's more comfortable not to think. Not to move. To enter a state of nothingness as the Buddhists revere. Instead of blanking out, you must think and evaluate and act. Remember, you are not a tree.
You are also an advanced nail-hitter.
By the way, no US president has followed these principles since Calvin Coolidge, my favorite president.
Load more comments...