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 6.
1. Providing knowledge of technologies or science
2. Taking actions to generally affect a society's overall development
3. Taking actions which support one faction within a society over another
4. Helping a society escape the negative consequences of its own actions
5. Helping a society escape a natural disaster known to the society, even if inaction would result in a society's extinction.
6. Subverting or avoiding the application of a society's laws
7. Interfering in the internal affairs of a society
Several of these, particularly 4 and 7 could have come right out of AS.
I don't get where you brought up slavery from. It has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
My point is the expense of the military power was a mistake. Iraq and Afghanistan are not developed enough countries. Our interactions with them could not have resulted in good for them. The virtue must come first.
It is your own assertion which, if not entirely wrong, is certainly incomplete. Yes, what you create, you initially own exclusively. That however changes dramatically the moment you share even so much as the knowledge of its existence with another person. From then on, your ownership is no longer absolute. As far as having exclusive ownership under natural law of the idea or thought behind your creation, that’s just plain silly. There have been many documented occasions in history where at roughly the same time two or more individuals invented and created similar things based on virtually indistinguishable ideas, but completely separate from and unaware of one another.
How would you propose to solve that little conflict under natural law? And please don't yell "patents" because that would be circular reasoning now, wouldn't it.
What would inspire someone to develop new things, if they can be simply copied the day after they are developed? The sole driver for success would be to be the best manufacturer, and advancement would end in a few business cycles.
The people lose their virtue as the state gains power and corrupts them with cronyism, graft and re-education through state controlled education. For a people to remove the shackles and regain their virtue they must apparently feel the lash, find a few virtuous unrelenting leaders who inspire and once again... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
I think the thing that may be confusing to many who don't believe in God is the idea that God is controlling you - that you are only an automaton if you choose to believe and follow the dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth. This life is an understudy to prepare for the next. There are rules that govern it and we are given this probationary period in order to test our abilities to live them - or not. Call them the ultimate in natural law. How we fare on the test will determine our level of freedom in the next life - those who can not (or will not) live the principles of a free society will by those very choices live in a place not afforded all the freedoms of one who did. We build our own prisons - or mansions - through our actions here. The principles of God don't force me to live a certain way, they just tell me what I will have to do in order to secure the greatest amount of freedom hereafter.
But then again, since you probably don't believe in the hereafter, all this to you is moot. But if we both live the principles of natural law here, why such animosity because I claim knowledge of something greater?
And perhaps her being burned at the stake was the motivation for the French to drive the English from France. How could the Maid of Orleans intuit the need for national identity after a millenium of constant attempts at power grabbing?
Is that the same as living without concern or regard for others? It sounds like it isn't; the distinction being in how others define morality. A free person wouldn't care how others define morality. But his own concept of morality could include concern and regard for others. Do I have that right?
Load more comments...