Posted on 08/27/2010 9:48:43 AM PDT by Zanton
When it comes to politics, economics, and sociology -- as well as individual happiness and greatness -- freedom is 100% good in theory, and 100% good in practice. How is it people don't understand this? Freedom, free enterprise, free trade, capitalism, laissez-faire, live-and-let-live, voluntary social cooperation, unfettered personal interaction, socio-economic libertarianism, and other such similar ideas and lofty goals, are all flawless, and without conflict or contradiction, in both philosophic principle and real-world application. All are end-of-history correct and ideal, both intellectually and pragmatically. How can anyone not know this?
“How can anyone not know this?”
I forget who said something to the effect: “The biggest problem is not ignorance, it’s what people know that isn’t true.” There’s many people in the world—especially in academia—who “know” what you claim is wrong. Don’t ask them to prove this with evidence or even argue it intelligently: propositions that are the exact opposite of the ones you state too often are a shared assumption in many circles.
You can’t expect critical thinking from individuals who can’t or won’t think critically!
100% freedom is chaos.
I think your quote comes from Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Actually, 100% freedom results in a fantastical and stunningly-detailed control and organization of surreal deftness and delicacy. Everyone fully exploits their brain and it's like a billion computers all used in tandem. Beautiful and utterly non-chaotic! :-)
Conservatism is about ORDERED liberty — not “absolute liberty” or anarchy. “100% freedom” is a mess. Government (which is inherently restrictive of absolute freedom) should be limited, but is necessary.
SnakeDoc
“How can anyone not know this?”
They might, but with respect, you’re asking the wrong question.
The right question is, “Why do they oppose this?”
The answer is, they know that in a free society, they’d have to compete on merit, not cronyism. They would lose their wealth and power. Therefore, they oppose freedom. And they don’t care what’s good for anyone but themselves. (Of course the fallacy here is that when the host dies, so do most of the leeches, but they are all gods in their own minds and think that they’ll come out on top.)
Dimwitted libtards are motivated by feelings and immediate interests and prejudice rather than reason and true interests.
100% liberty doesn’t result in or entail anarchy, chaos, social disorder, or personal libertinism. And under 100% laissez-faire and libertarianism gov’t still exists. But all it does is defend life, liberty, and property. The best social order is one based on 100% individual freedom and 100% individual responsibility, with a ton of natural, benevolent, voluntary, social interaction and cooperation.
Good point! :-) People everywhere mostly KNOW freedom is the definitive political answer for everyone’s best economic and socio-personal life. But personal corruption, and a desire to get something for nothing, and a secret wish to hurt innocent others, lets many folks come out in favor of some sort of semi-tyrannical, Welfare State gibberish.
Bingo! :-)
>> But all [govermment] does is defend life, liberty, and property. The best social order is one based on 100% individual freedom and 100% individual responsibility, with a ton of natural, benevolent, voluntary, social interaction and cooperation.
First, people are not necessarily benevolent or cooperative when granted absolute liberty.
Second, the very premise of a government that defends life, liberty and property contradicts the possibility of absolute freedom.
- With regard to “defending life” — if abortion is not legal, then freedom is not 100%. The government has restricted what you are permitted to do.
- With regard to “defending liberty” — if immigration is not completely free-flowing, then freedom is not 100%. The government has restricted where some are permitted to go.
- With regard to “defending the right of property” — if there are any taxes at all, for any purpose (including police and defense ... tools necessary for defending life and property), then freedom of property is not 100%. The government has told you what you are permitted to do with a portion of what you own.
I’m not sure you’re saying exactly what you think you’re saying. Freedom is preferable to tyranny ... more freedom is, generally speaking, better. But there are limits.
SnakeDoc
Yes, they are. At the least, their benevolence and cooperativeness is at its zenith under absolute liberty. Even without these two, life is still PARADISE under pure freedom.
Abortion is part of liberty -- at least for the first 5 months or so when the fetus isn't viable.
"Freedom" of immigration means freedom of trespass and invasion, so it isn't a part of liberty.
Taxation is the hardest problem of all to solve, and pretty much only *I* can solve it (believe it or not). But not here, and not for free.
There are NO limits to liberty, so long as you understand there's no such thing as a right to violate rights, or the freedom to take away freedom, which would be contradictory.
But good and incisive and intelligent observations, SnakeDoctor! You probably just need to study libertarian theory more.
Kindly tell us exactly what you mean by “ordered” liberty. Whose orders? Who enforces those orders? WHO DECIDES??? MY liberty is bounded ONLY by the exact same rights as my neighbor. My “orders” come ONLY from God Almighty. If your “ordered liberty” does not meet these two criteria, it is anathema to a FREE Society. So please elucidate. Too many of you use that term without definition, something more attuned to the Pel-Lousy/Dingy Hairy/Obambi playbook than to a site devoted to a small, CONSTITUTIONAL government.
In this context, “ordered” means “organized”, not “commanded” (as in the antonym for “disorder”, NOT as in “taking orders”) ... i.e. liberty within a structure, such as that set out in the Constitution. It is based on the belief that liberty is generally a good thing, but that society does require a certain amount of order to function properly.
I did not coin the term. “Ordered liberty” is actually a fairly common phrase. Dictionary.com defines “ordered liberty” as follows ...
“Main Entry: or·der·ed liberty
Function: noun
: freedom limited by the need for order in society.”
SnakeDoc
Yeah, but your dictionary definition doesn’t define WHO DECIDES what “order” is NEEDED in a society. Now, if it were to franchise a government solely to protect society from actual predators, you know, like robbers. rapists, murderers, child molesters and the like, who commit actual CRIMES, I have no beef with that. Or actual outside threats, such as Nazi Germany and the like (note the word ACTUAL, as opposed to POTENTIAL, as many RULERS like to keep their subjects in line with some vague, unspecified outside threat. See, for example, “1984” or similar.) But if, in your society, you want government to “protect people from themselves,” then I want no part of you. Because pretty soon that definition gets stretched to cover any private behavior that doesn’t gel with whoever’s on top, running the show, and we have a situation such as this nation and our society face today. And THAT is unacceptable.
Like I said, I didn’t invent the concept. I’m pretty sure I didn’t mention “protecting people from themselves.”
The founders themselves were proponents of “ordered liberty” and wrote the concept into the Federalist, the Declaration and the Constitution. The Founders, Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley, and Russell Kirk are far more capable than I at elaborating ... they’ve written entire books about the subject.
SnakeDoc
People would rather have safety over liberty.As for financial freedom being generally good for the economy,for the most part that is true.
I still think we did ourselves a disfavor by bailing out the banks moreso then letting them play the sub-prime market.
True. Most people are morons and dirtbags. They're sheep and lemmings. But intellectuals, and their ideas, rule. We need to promote the lofty idealism and utilitarian practicality of freedom to the thinkers of the world.
Don't look now, pal, but your unviable ass has been aborted.
zot
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.