LOCKE | JEFFERSON | HARARI
Posted on 11/18/2006 9:53:53 PM PST by humint
What was the driving force that created American freedom? It would be wrong to suppose the incremental steps occurred without the kind of Jeffersonian vision that George W. Bush subscribes to today. GWB didn't invent the philosophical architecture of American freedom and in many ways neither did Thomas Jefferson. John Locke among others articulated it first and arguably, best. What is significant however is that Americans have applied the philosophy of liberty with revolutionary zeal. For their effort, they demonstratively changed the world for the better. Progressive moves towards greater liberty throughout the world still happen every day, in America.
Seriously, how does it work? The mechanics of freedom are as spiritual as they are material. For our freedom, we trust in the most powerful concept any mortal can conceive- almighty God. We do not put our faith in each other to guarantee our freedom. With all due respect to the outstanding American men and women of law enforcement, society cannot depend on the law alone to ensure liberty. In God we trust! While free societies may not resemble each other, a resilient hypothesis is that any sustainable free society must have members at it highest ranks who interpret God's will on earth in a way that is similar to how Jon Locke and Thomas Jefferson interpret God's will.
To manifest freedom where it has never existed before - God must have a central role. At first glance, this analysis may sound like it is advocating Sharia law. This work most certainly does not advocate sharia law and neither does God. God is the wellspring of liberty. If a society is on track to freedom, God's role must be understood to be Lockean. Misinterpretations of God's will will send society spiraling away from liberty towards oppression and senseless violence. History has repeated this lesson over and over again; when religion is usurped in society for the purposes of political power for an individual or the state, the pain of oppression sets in and blood starts to flow like the turbulent waters of a mad river. The fact that chaos is still relatively common around the world is reprehensible. What is less reprehensible is that regular people in chaotic situations such as war, dictatorship or the lawlessness of a situation like "the Wild West" turn to spiritualism for answers.
The Wild West 1865-1889 --- While the Eastern United States was beginning to experience the Second Industrial Revolution (which started around 1871), the frontier was beginning to fill up. In the early days of the wild west, a great deal of the land was in the public domain, open both to livestock raising as open range and to homesteading. Throughout much of the Old West during this time, there was little to no local law enforcement and the military had only concentrated presence in the area at specific locations. Buffalo hunters, railroad workers, drifters and soldiers scrapped and fought, leading to the shootings where men died "with their boots on."
Where chaos is king, God is the law! The most observable of God's natural laws is individual liberty. Locke understood well because he observed it. Through observation Locke successfully interpreted God's will. The march toward freedom has remained on track because of American's unyielding subscription to Locke's philosophical interpretation of God's will. If American society begins vacillating in their faith in that philosophical interpretation - a retreat toward a medieval, anarchic America is eminent.
To mitigate vacillation, contemporary philosophers should emulate Lockian and Jeffersonian logic. The following sentences represent such an exercise. --- Conceive in your mind the most powerful being. Articulate all of the things your mind becomes aware of when thinking about this most powerful being. It is not unusual for individuals to conceive of such things on their own. It is important that they do. This is the first step a mortal mind takes toward God. It should come as no surprise that societies around the world put their faith in God. God represents righteous power, ultimate supremacy and eternal salvation. Earthy alternatives are lackluster in comparison. God endowed humankind with the requisite freedom of mind to conceive these ideas. Liberty is necessary on earth for mortals to approach God. Liberty is the key ingredient in faith's recipe. Without the liberty to choose "righteous power" over "despotism" - "ultimate supremacy" over "slavery" - "eternal salvation" over "eternal damnation" how can God judge a mortal soul.
For these reasons liberty is non-negotiable. Anyone who would name the cause and effect of political freedom in America an occurrence of chance cannot comprehend that the United States was - born of revolution to achieve liberty - extended liberty to all American men through civil war - extended liberty to Europe and much of Asia through world war - enfranchised women and deconstructed institutionalized segregation through non-violent political activism.
Successful Americans are often Jeffersonian. The behavior of Jeffersonians incite conflict. True Americans embrace these sorts of conflict. In a world where Americans still hold fast to their national identity and foreign leadership still clings to the belief that human beings are not free - there will be wars. When conflict degrades into war, why should Americans embrace it? Because there remains an imbalance of liberty in the world. In those corners of the globe where liberty is disregarded, law is of no consequence. Unfortunately that same imbalance distorts the perception of Westerners who, without geopolitical context, cannot conceptualize an existence without liberty. In their minds liberty exists everywhere. Haim Harari writes about the misperceptions of many Westerners and does so by delivering context in the form of analogy, describing familiar juxtapositions.
UNDECLARED WWIII:The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment[s]. It is trying to play ice hockey by sending a ballerina ice-skater into the rink or to knock out a heavyweight boxer by a chess player. In the same way that no country has a law against cannibals eating its prime minister, because such an act is unthinkable, international law does not address killers shooting from hospitals, mosques and ambulances, while being protected by their Government or society. International law does not know how to handle someone who sends children to throw stones, stands behind them and shoots with immunity and cannot be arrested because he is sheltered by a Government.
For the reasons declared by Haim, Lockean and Jeffersonian philosophy continue to carry weight inside and outside The United States today. Most of the world's inhabitants today subscribe to interpretations of God and God's will that stand in contrast to Lockean philosophy. The disagreement on God's will is highly problematic, with respect to attaining liberty for all, where all humankind is ready, willing and able to be free. or all, where all humankind is ready, willing and able to be free.
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Thomas Jefferson
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Think about how society's interpretation of God's will keep a free country free - or not.
LOCKE | JEFFERSON | HARARI
Much of the world's mindset is toward collectivism. The French version of the Enlightenment was spread through force & has been held in place by use of "the rule of law".
Good piece, humint.
~humint ping~ 
The Achilles heel of the liberalized judeo-christian western world - where great freedom is untempered by great responsibility. Where it is given that our enemies will use our children and grandchildren to destroy us. As was stated, the ability to perceive an intrinsic threat from people who would use every tool of our selfish and petty obsessions with "civil liberties" that have no definition, no rulebook, nothing but an undefined righteousness of personal selfishness.
This is the fight for responsible freedom, or surely the path to self destruction, for the enemies of our freedoms and vices will use methods and tactics beyond our comprehension - beyond our willingness to die to prevent, Because they are born only to die for their beliefs, and sadly we are born only to enjoy the vices of freedom, with our minds in a tiny box, blissfully unaware of the impending waves of death - or worse at our doorstep.
You call DHS Jeffersonian? Good grief.
Thanks for the ping. Even though I did not request to be on the list. May I inquire as to how you ascertained my interest?
DHS, Department of Homeland Security - ? If that's the DHS you're referring to as "non-Jeffersonian", you're only looking at the domestic side of the equation. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. A. Lincoln, in my opinion, is the archetype Jeffersonian. GWB's moves in the Middle East will have repercussions around the globe for centuries. The comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam in the press will not survive our historian's magnifying glasses. GWB will go down in history as one of the most important American Presidents ever. It is not GWB's fault that the world is more dysfunctional than the South before the Civil War, so he will not be able to make the kind of strides Lincoln did. One day the people of the Middle East will enjoy liberty, and in that era President GWB will be recognized, not before.
As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
Thanks for the references in post #3. I shall bookmark it for later investigation.
Previous communications... would you prefer I not ping you in the future? I put the list together from freepers who have either commented to me or I made comments to in the past. You've written something that earned my respect, hence the ping.
Please keep me on the list!
Thanks
I'm not sure where you're comin from, or what you're pushin, but I've always been a friend of philosopher Locke and Jefferson, as well. I sure don't like it when modern day Demonicrats try to act like their Party owns Jefferson, however!
Then what's the symbolism of the cross, star of David, the little thunderbird and the other hiroglyphics I can't decipher? Who is that female and why is she staring at those rotating symbols? What are you up to? Please explain yourself in BRIEF terms if you will... Are you trolling for those with high curiousity and intelligence quotients? What???
Oh! I git it!! Yer a blogger!!! Right??? I shoulda known...
The smoking skeleton is a painting by the late Vincent van Gogh - (entitled "Skull with Cigarette"). on one occasion I used the image as a ping, as if I were the smoking skeleton, waiting forever, burning a smoke to pass the time. I noticed that it had an unusual quality among portraits, that it was, from the observers perspective, looking to the right.
The woman's face is from a French painting about the French revolution. Liberty Leading the People, embodying the Romantic view of the French Revolution of 1830; its painter Eugène Delacroix. Again, I noticed from the observers perspective, that she is looking to the left.
I like to use images in my posts - here and elsewhere. Artistic posts like the ping your interrogating represent more intangible, artistic and spiritual concepts. Quantifying the American role around the globe, as this work Locke is the Key attempts to do, has many variables. A great number of them are intangible but nonetheless worthy of serious consideration.
Let's not be afraid to consider them! To break the ice I use art to make art. If the artistic embodiment of "time and patient contemplation" (represented by the smoker) and the artistic embodiment of "liberty" (represented by the woman leading the French Revolution) were to contemplate something, what would they be contemplating? Spiritual symbolism... in time sequence!
What am I up to? Expanding the time domain of the GWOT debate is what I'm up to. When you read an article or book, I recommend you consider the scope of time a piece covers. The time-limited scope that most journalist and authors function in today is extremely corrosive to democratic governance and the march of freedom around the world. Forums like Free Republic have the capacity to delve beyond the superficial and into the meaningful. Skeptical minds like yours have the capacity to challenge idealists, intellectuals and idiots alike - all share equal status in this HTML environment. Is that a sufficient cover story? The best cover stories are true - but I am as adept at fiction as I am writing fact.
I've thought for some time that philosophy is on the precipice of a major, progressive transformation due to the great leaps made in both cognitive and computer science. I can only speculate as to why philosophers are dragging their feet while engineers are capitalizing on all of the incredible revelations that have occurred in the last 20 or so years. I mention these changes only because Roussea was known for his philosophy regarding human interaction with nature and other humans. In that domain, most of their conceptions were guesstimates. I don't think Roussea's work approached the philosophical implications of the computational logical construct, the "for loop" The same is true of Marx. Marxist philosophy breaks down with the advent of robotics and a contemporary understanding of economics. In terms of individual freedom versus social freedom - we've witnessed over and over again, the empowerment of motivated individuals leads to collective progress in ways that empowerment of the collective, at the expense of the individual, cannot.
For example - Norway is a premier case study, relevant in many ways to the petroleum dimension of the GWOT. Rich in petroleum resources, they devised a system to reinvest their national wealth into private enterprise. The per capita income in Norway is higher than any other for a reason. In failed states across the Middle East, they failed for reasons as obvious as those that led to the success of the Norwegian economy.
Here's how it works. Cash flow from the government's petroleum activities—the state owns 81 percent of the aptly named Statoil—is funneled into the fund. Last year, the total came to 91.9 billion kroner (about $14 billion). The fund then hires external managers to invest, generally using low-cost indexing strategies. It's conservatively managed—more bonds than stocks, and investments divided equally between Europe and the rest of the world. (Here are the results of six years of active management.) Of course, the fund's history reveals some of the pitfalls of having socialists manage oodles of cash. The fund didn't start to invest in stocks until 1998, thus missing out on a big chunk of the boom. In 2001, it started a sub-fund to make eco-friendly investments—good social policy, dubious asset-management strategy.
In the realm of spirituality, existing philosophy is still very important. We mortals cannot put a price on the spiritually priceless. Imperfect humans cannot improve on what is already perfect. We cannot usurp the authority of the almighty and that is why each citizen in a free society must favor the Lockean view. Each of us must decide what is priceless and perfect for ourselves and that decision must be separate and apart from the state. Otherwise, any challenge to the collective on these issues would be tantamount to treason. Where collective rights supersede individual rights, for its own survival, free thought must be discouraged by the state. That's a horrible situation for an individual to be in!
If it's so clear, what's the problem? In the West we've become so materially successful that our connectivity to the philosophy that delivered us here is nearly severed. Rousseau would put the responsability on us to share our material success with the global collective. To do so would be irresponsible. It is our responsability to share the philosophy that delivered us to material success with the global collective in the hope that one day, each one of us, and them, are empowered to achieve our unique potential. An obvious symptom of individual empowerment is an improved quality of life for the collective. In other words, true socialism is in fact - individualism... IMHO Locke's philosophy trounces Rousseau's.
So does Ayn Rand in her "The Virtues Of Selfishness." Do you subscribe to any part of that philosophy?
I finally deduced the sorce of your screen name. I don't know what took me so long. Interesting FR home page, by the way...
Through observation - "selfishness", AKA, "self interests" or simply "interests" are complex emotions expressed by systems. A system can be an individual, family, community, race... and so on. Although insightful, interests are as complex as identity, so it becomes difficult to account for historical social behaviors or predict future ones from Ayn Rand's assertions. The more complex a system is, observers should expect more specialized behavior to occur. For example, individuals in society tend to adopt distinctly different rolls to facilitate greater efficiency. Individuals often make their life choices to symbiotically improve their individual and social systems at the same time. Under normal circumstances, one need not be sacrificed for the other. When a system is threatened however some of the most important specializations are those that exhibit altruistic behavior. If I recall, Ayn is not particularly impressed with altruistic behavior so we should ask, why is altruism so common in society?
Considering contemporary observations of individuals - as a cognitive system - we cannot escape altruism. Our cerebral cortex, the source of all rational thought, exhibits altruistic behavior during instances of crisis. For the most part, the benefits of our brain's altruistic behavior outweigh the risks. Our cerebral cortex basically shuts down, ceding authority to the brain stem, severely limiting our capacity for rational thought. Flight or flight human reactions are relegated to regions of the brain geared to saving rather than rationalizing our lives. The benefit of surviving however does not come without risk.
After surviving crisis, thanks to our brain stem, our cerebral cortex automatically re-engages and attempts to rationalize the behavior we exhibited that saved our life during the crisis. Most of our rationalizations and the behaviors they manifest are absurd but benign. Sometimes however those efforts to rationalize the irrational can lead to rituals that are extremely destabilizing, like drug abuse and suicide for the individual and ritual human sacrifice and suicide bombing for complex social systems.
In terms of functional as opposed to dysfunctional social philosophy, Ayn is an extremely articulate capitalist. Of economics, I believe value is dynamic. Sounds simple doesn't it, but it's not common sense. If you want to talk about communist or capitalist economics, fine, but we'll only make progress if we first agree that value in any given economy is dynamic. The belief that value is static is all too common in the world today. It's a big misunderstanding that is a big problem. The most ardent believers in static value tend to be proponents of the socialist redistribution of wealth. In their world, value is represented by a single pie chart and the capitalists are hogging nearly all of the pie. Only a small wedge belongs to the worker and or the people - where the worker is an blue collar archetype who produces widgets all day at the widget factory - the people is a more complex social construct, it includes the worker, the worker's retired parents and the worker's kids.
Society is far more complex than the widget making worker and his kin. In any case, there are far better methods to analyze society than misleading oversimplifications. Problem solving at any level requires first and foremost a willingness to understand the problem. For those that believe value is static, they do not realize capitalist leadership in free market economies play a central and irreplaceable role in creating the value that the "value pie chart" represents. They do not realize that the overall value in society decreases when captains of industry are admonished by law for their repeated successes. How could they understand such intangibles when everything in society is logically reduced to trading unemotional widget? They do not realize that widget ownership (when the widget is a home) adds value to a community, greater than rental units ever do, irrespective of their initial costs.
The fact is, a growing economy and improved quality of life is about creating value in society where none existed before. Economies are complex systems that evolve. Within economies there are sub-system industries that are specialized. Some industries thrive, others are rendered extinct. Monopolies under certain circumstances stifle growth but not always. Sometimes industries require monopoly rights in order to become established in an economy. Fortunately, there are no shortages of examples in history and in neighboring economies that can be used to assist in the decision making process.
To be sure, the final decision on any given social or economic issue will be both "virtuous" and "selfish" from someone's perspective.
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.