If your statement is true, then it should pass this simple test:
Are freedom and liberty easier to preserve in the absence of authority, or more difficult?
In Somalia, there is a near total void in authority, so the people of Somalia experience near total freedom FROM authority, yet their freedoms are threatened each and every day by the existence of all kinds of thugs who take control by force.
So, the complete lack of a government exerting authority in the country, has created a situation where there is very little freedom or liberty.
Now, on the opposite spectrum, overwhelming authority used in the defense of freedom also destroys freedom...take as an example communism. It has always been sold as freedom from oppression for the masses, when in fact it became total oppression.
When Rudy describes the idea that freedom is about the willingness of human beings to cede to a LAWFUL authority, he is in fact simply paraphrasing the Founders when they said that governments (lawful authority) were instituted by men (willingly) to secure our inalienable rights.
"BTW, aren't you something of a libertarian?"
I'm a newly-minted Neolibertarian.
That means that I want to wipe the Islamofascists off the face of the Earth by any means necessary, and go back to discussing whether we should be allowed to run naked through Sweet Tomatoes only after that's accomplished.
I'm a newly-minted Neolibertarian.
That means that I want to wipe the Islamofascists off the face of the Earth by any means necessary, and go back to discussing whether we should be allowed to run naked through Sweet Tomatoes only after that's accomplished.The difference is that libertarians fight both battles at the same time. I agree with you 100% on fighting terrorism. However, would you agree that we should fight to dismantle agencies such as the BATFE and Department of Education, end or severely cut back on the unconstitutional Federal War on Drugs, end welfare, and overall slash the size of government and taxes at the same time?
As I initially noted, it's perfectly obvious that there must be some authority to secure liberty.
However you and Rudy have the whole thing completely backwards. Freedom may depend on authority, but it is most certainly not ever "about" authority; some kinds of authority, notably our Constitution, are about freedom. That's just the way it is.
Somalia is not lacking in authority, it has too much, albeit local. Warlords running various territories with iron hands and violence is not the lack of authority.
And regarding the line from the Declaration, I know you understand that it says that governments are instituted "at the consent of the governed."
You and I may not be in great disagreement on all this stuff. My problem with Rudy's statement is that he makes it sound like freedom is at the service of authority instead of the other way around. I'll be waiting to see if he clarifies the question.