Points to Ponder:
Better to die standing, than to live on your knees. [Ernesto "Che" Guevara]
Thursday, March 29, 2007
On A Possible Future Form of Enslavement:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
What occasioned this posting was review and reflection of the material at the following thread:
One Generation is All They Need (Toronto Star circa December 2006)
I wish I could say I found something logically specious in the above article's rationale but I am afraid I cannot. As a society becomes less and less interested in learning from history and literature, the greater the propensity for accepting in the names of "liberty", "equality", "fraternity", or whatever various forms of totalitarian tyranny which often masquerade under very nice concepts and slogans.
Among the history of which all people should strive to familiarize themselves is the social, legislative, or ecclesiastical anarchy{1} (at best) or terror (at worst) that inexorably flows from all forms of mob rule. As far as the oft-reiterated slogan of "liberty, fraternity, equality", it is intrinsically contradictory. Among the few postings where your host dealt with the myth of liberty and fraternity coexisting are these three found in short order from the archives posted in order from newest to oldest:
On Condoleeza Rice and Her Speech to the French, "Liberty"/"Equality"/"Fraternity", Etc.--An Audio Post (circa February 9, 2005)
Condoleeza is a very smart woman -indeed I heard her speak in college when she was a renowned Soviet expert- but on this subject, she is mistaken to no small degree.
[D]o not try to invoke some idea of government-enforced "fraternity" while you make demands for personal "liberty" because these two are logically antonymous of one another. The lie that liberty and fraternity can in any way co-exist was refuted over one hundred and fifty years ago:
It is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Or to again quote fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on the matter:
[T]he true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association. [Walter Williams (9/4/02)]
Hopefully the above pointers will lay the axe to the notion that liberty (what liberals love to claim) and fraternity (what liberals love to try and enforce via law) can at all coexist in any fashion whatsoever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 15, 2003)]
The above posting was written in defense of a friend's right to fraternize commercially with whom he pleased. The third posting is the classic exposition of Claude Frederic Bastiat from his magnum opus The Law which we ran on this humble weblog in sixteen installments between September 30, 2002 and March 3, 2003.{2} In brief:
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 31, 2002)]
The premise noted above should be obvious but as it escapes the comprehension of even some pretty bright people (such as Ms. Rice), we will restate it here in brief:
--If you promote liberty than you promote by logical extension freedom of association. The moment you try to make certain persons fraternize with those they do not want to, you have put a limit on their liberty and thereby made void the concept of liberty.
This contradiction is not the only one at the heart of the principle enunciated by the French Revolution but it is a significant one. And those who wonder why there is reference in this thread to the French Revolution can reflect upon how your host senses those who refuse to be chipped in the fashion so noted above may well be subjected to.{3} For the record, your host opposes this practice as any kind of a general norm{4} and so should anyone else who recognizes behind it the thin veneer of enslavement which it inexorably contains.
Notes:
{1} Among the latter we have in mind the medieval movement known as conciliarism which manifested itself to some extent in the later French Gallicanist movement which had to have played some role in the fomenting of the French Revolution, its Reign of Terror, and other bloody manifestations.
{2} The entire thread (with occasional host comments interspersed) can be read here with all the threads interlinked to one another.
{3} If they are not ridiculed, economically marginalized, treated as social lepers, etc. of course.
{4} Not to say that there may not be some limited applications which we could live with of course. (Such as convicted child molesters and serial killers.) But there is a huge difference between using it as a monitoring device on those who by committing of heinous crimes have been lawfully deprived of their freedoms to some extent and the general populace at large. Your host would never support the latter no matter how nicely it is dressed up. And that is the bottom line really.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
What occasioned this posting was review and reflection of the material at the following thread:
One Generation is All They Need (Toronto Star circa December 2006)
I wish I could say I found something logically specious in the above article's rationale but I am afraid I cannot. As a society becomes less and less interested in learning from history and literature, the greater the propensity for accepting in the names of "liberty", "equality", "fraternity", or whatever various forms of totalitarian tyranny which often masquerade under very nice concepts and slogans.
Among the history of which all people should strive to familiarize themselves is the social, legislative, or ecclesiastical anarchy{1} (at best) or terror (at worst) that inexorably flows from all forms of mob rule. As far as the oft-reiterated slogan of "liberty, fraternity, equality", it is intrinsically contradictory. Among the few postings where your host dealt with the myth of liberty and fraternity coexisting are these three found in short order from the archives posted in order from newest to oldest:
On Condoleeza Rice and Her Speech to the French, "Liberty"/"Equality"/"Fraternity", Etc.--An Audio Post (circa February 9, 2005)
Condoleeza is a very smart woman -indeed I heard her speak in college when she was a renowned Soviet expert- but on this subject, she is mistaken to no small degree.
[D]o not try to invoke some idea of government-enforced "fraternity" while you make demands for personal "liberty" because these two are logically antonymous of one another. The lie that liberty and fraternity can in any way co-exist was refuted over one hundred and fifty years ago:
It is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Or to again quote fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on the matter:
[T]he true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association. [Walter Williams (9/4/02)]
Hopefully the above pointers will lay the axe to the notion that liberty (what liberals love to claim) and fraternity (what liberals love to try and enforce via law) can at all coexist in any fashion whatsoever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 15, 2003)]
The above posting was written in defense of a friend's right to fraternize commercially with whom he pleased. The third posting is the classic exposition of Claude Frederic Bastiat from his magnum opus The Law which we ran on this humble weblog in sixteen installments between September 30, 2002 and March 3, 2003.{2} In brief:
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 31, 2002)]
The premise noted above should be obvious but as it escapes the comprehension of even some pretty bright people (such as Ms. Rice), we will restate it here in brief:
--If you promote liberty than you promote by logical extension freedom of association. The moment you try to make certain persons fraternize with those they do not want to, you have put a limit on their liberty and thereby made void the concept of liberty.
This contradiction is not the only one at the heart of the principle enunciated by the French Revolution but it is a significant one. And those who wonder why there is reference in this thread to the French Revolution can reflect upon how your host senses those who refuse to be chipped in the fashion so noted above may well be subjected to.{3} For the record, your host opposes this practice as any kind of a general norm{4} and so should anyone else who recognizes behind it the thin veneer of enslavement which it inexorably contains.
Notes:
{1} Among the latter we have in mind the medieval movement known as conciliarism which manifested itself to some extent in the later French Gallicanist movement which had to have played some role in the fomenting of the French Revolution, its Reign of Terror, and other bloody manifestations.
{2} The entire thread (with occasional host comments interspersed) can be read here with all the threads interlinked to one another.
{3} If they are not ridiculed, economically marginalized, treated as social lepers, etc. of course.
{4} Not to say that there may not be some limited applications which we could live with of course. (Such as convicted child molesters and serial killers.) But there is a huge difference between using it as a monitoring device on those who by committing of heinous crimes have been lawfully deprived of their freedoms to some extent and the general populace at large. Your host would never support the latter no matter how nicely it is dressed up. And that is the bottom line really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)