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 4.
#1. Business
#2 As a result of #1
#3 No problem
#4 No problem except as a result of #1
#5 Unless in self interest from #1
#6 Don't understand why one shouldn't avoid the application of other's laws.
#7 No problem except as a result of #1
Personally, I get uncomfortable with including the NAP under the heading of Objectivism. AR talked of not using force or coercion instead of your own productivity and as a response to others that attempted to use such against you or your property. But I still contend that pre-emptive action is allowable when it is obvious that some other has the means and intent to start such action. Nor do I necessarily agree that responsive force be strictly limited to some form of equitable force. If you're in a situation where you have to respond with force to get someone to stop or prevent them from using force against yourself, the rules are out the window. If you insist on only equitable force, you've obviously never been in an actual fight initiated by another intent on harming you.
As it applies to attacking Al Quaida directly and their supporters, Taliban. We were right. As to Iraq, I'll never agree that we had any business there, but once the reality of being there is brought in, then we should have stayed and finished it.
For your adherence to the NAP and the ideas of tolfa, I wish you well in your endeavors.
I totally grok that you seek a comfort zone and if objectivism gives you that, good for you. For my part I am not a follower of any *ism. I have concluded that my comfort zone is found in adhering to the NAP before all else. This means that I have no choice but to figure out - by my own capacity to reason - how to make that work as opposed to trying to argue it out of the way so I can remain true to the "one true faith". That is who and what I am.
One can have faith that if they placed a single bet on Red, let it ride ten times, they would have enough for their entire family.
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
Time Enough For Love.
One or more of the books where Lazarus Long appeared. It is a good line, and was used more than once.
I did a parachute jump once. It was fun. Never got around to a 2nd time and now my legs are shot. Don't think I'd like it as a profession, though.
A lesson in taking personal responsibility.
We are creatures of time and space. (Can't wait until someone tries to turn that sentence around!)
As a Native American about to be hanged by the British was supposed to have said:
Hang me quickly before I say something unworthy of myself.
Some people have wondered if Joan of Arc was an accident of history. I reply, depends on if you're looking at it from man's perspective or God's perspective.
Load more comments...