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 3.
Where you see life as a straight line with fences of your faith from birth to death, I see it as a tree starting at birth with all kinds of branches to be explored in a limited amount of time. Some of those branches may lead to something I don't like, so I back up -- some may lead to a great experience, and some may just be so-so. There's even some that won't support me if I go to far out on it, so I back up or jump to another. But they're all there as a part of the one life I have on this earth and this reality.
The argument I have with the religious is their attempts to equate rational reasoning and life experience with faith, particularly on a site that supports AR, AS, and rational reasoning. Until and unless you can demonstrate a factual relationship between the two, why bring it up? You should know by now what response you're going to get.
I'm pretty sure there is a faulty premise somewhere in the thought that an atheist is excluded from expert knowledge regarding faith—just because of their atheism. That kind of logic could eliminate knowledge of atheism by the faithful...an amusing thought, but not a fair one. :)
I do think that responsibility gets in the way of profit unless your Sea World. Then, you have to come up with a clever way to make up for your irresponsible behavior.
Business will be responsible if consumers vote with their dollars. However, when it comes to things like oil, we're pretty much screwed. I can't teleport to work.
Granted, there are radicals from each of those countries, but there are enough people who are virtuous that their societies will grow in stature over the next generation. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Lebanon are not stable enough to improve any time soon.
Interviewer: If you were a hot dog, what kind would you be?
Zen Buddhist: I'd be one with everything.
The US has subtly enslaved much of the rest of the world (including itself) via debt.
Load more comments...