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 7.
You and I will disagree where national treasure was used in a war. no choice. heck, as we showed in Germany, we'll help you rebuild. We like stable governments to trade with. No stable government was put into place in the hot wars over there.
Sounds like something God might say.
A truly free man doesn't need such a word or concept since he measures his life and achievements with rationally applied logic. It is a word that only applies to those wishing to be accepted by others, that relies on his image as reflected in the eyes of others to determine his worth, rather than his own happiness. That type of person, rather than the free man, never leaves his home without his mask of 'virtue' and lives in constant fear of being 'found out'.
The free man lives his life without concern or regard for the moral definition of others, confident in his own decisions and actions. Be mistrustful of any man that describes himself as virtuous and search behind his mask.
I was thinking of the Russian peasants, who so much wanted nothing to do with the "collective"
that they ate their seed grain and slaughtered their animals; then were sent to the Gulag.
Listen to Rachmaninoff's Variations on a Theme of Paganini; the feelings are written into the music.
Read
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Di...
It is a reasonable evolution of AR philosophy.
What you describe as faith is nonsense. I've jumped out of a plane several times. Never did I expect God to spare my life (but the damned chute packer better have done the job right, or they would have had some 'splainin' to do).
Thus, as you identify, the solution is readily apparent.
All property rights are the same in principle. Differentiating "intellectual" as a special class is a red herring. If I make a painting, that is a priori my property. If I choose to let you take a photo of it without attaching any conditions, then the painting remains my property and the photo of it is yours. If, before allowing you to photograph it, I obtain your agreement to refrain from showing the photo to anybody else or to distribute copies of it to your friends, then I have an enforceable contract, voluntarily (not coerced) entered into by you. If you subsequently break your promise, then you are committing a fraud upon me in violation of the LONA and my subsequent enforcement efforts are therefore defensive in nature, not a violation of the LONA.
This is no different from me letting you stay in my cottage for the weekend on condition that you refrain from bringing strangers or throwing a party.
Load more comments...