Posted on 12/28/2007 5:40:23 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
I argued previously that liberty means the freedom of each adult to do or not do whatever he or she chooses as long as he or she accords the same freedoms to others. The most powerful justification for government in a land of true liberty is to prevent individuals from stepping on the same rights and freedoms of others.
And while no one this side of sociopathy doubts the importance of keeping each of us from infringing willy-nilly on each other's rights, too many people regard organized infringement to be just fine. Indeed, some call it "progressive."
"Progressives" yearn to control society consciously rather than permit it to be organized spontaneously according to the plans of countless individuals, each adjusting his or her actions toward others constrained by the boundaries of private property rights and equality before the law.
[Snip]
Modern "progressives," though, are enamored with statistical abstractions and categories. They look at society as a physician looks at a human body: as a whole. In the case of a human body, the physician is correct; each of the countless individual cells that make up each body has no mind or purpose of its own. Each cell exists for the body. The health of the cell matters only insofar as its health serves the purpose of keeping the body healthy.
In society, however, each individual does have a mind and purpose of his or her own. Unlike a cell in a human body, an individual person is a moral being with desires, goals, fears, likes, dislikes and (as far as we can tell) free will...[snip]
Society, unlike a human being, has no mind of its own. Society is only the result of many persons each pursuing his own goals...
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
The guy obviously hasn’t researched and understood the Leftist techniques built around the Hegelian Dialectic and methods of repeatedly achieving group consensus on predetermined outcomes. Taken as a whole, a Marxist society may not look like a sentient being, but by breaking that society into small groups, i.e. a neighborhood association, a classroom, etc. and consistently pounding propaganda to that group and then milking the group for affirmation of the conclusions by repeatedly garnering consensus decisions from the group, the Marxist society behaves almost like a sentient controlled by the elites. And it’s not just the Marxists that can do this; Madison Ave. has been doing this for the last 120 years thus creating the worlds most vehemently consumeristic society on the face of the earth.
"Progressives" yearn to control society consciously rather than permit it to be organized spontaneously according to the plans of countless individuals, each adjusting his or her actions toward others constrained by the boundaries of private property rights and equality before the law.
An interesting take on modern Liberalism. I believe it is the Liberals condescending distrust of humanity in general and their arrogant assumption that THEY, the Liberal saviors, know best (being the smartest people in the world, just ask them) that is at the heart of modern Liberalism. If only we little humans - victims all - understood just how much superior the Libs are to us we would enthusiastically support them as our lords and saviors. Whats wrong with us? here is our salvation at hand and we have the gall not to fall in line with our would be saviors. I guess they will just have to take control of everything (for our own good of course) and force us to accept them for what they are - Our saviors here on Earth!
Doing even a cursory examination of the Lib media propaganda sheets (NYT, WAPO, etc) will prove their arrogance and mistrust of humanity.
Let’s become ‘progressives’ and get back our freedoms.
Paradoxically, it could be said that acting as individuals is the social thing to do, but acting as a society is anti-social.
In other words, individuals acting as a group create a social contract, but a group trying to act as an individual is a mindless mob.
Individuals can choose to compete or cooperate, to form a hierarchy, a division of labor, ad hoc associations, or to act as individuals. Therefore they have the flexibility to act in the most efficient manner, no matter the situation.
The mob, or herd, relies solely on group action, group impulse, group inertia and group momentum. Thus it is a far less flexible organization, that most often ends up spending its time trying to limit deviation from the group, instead of achieving anything.
Individuals are motivated to maintain their individuality by unique achievement. Thus they also reach far beyond the average in both individual success and failure. Among individuals, this extremism is lauded, grand failure seen as better than being average.
The herd, or social group, rejects deviation from the norm in either direction. It abhors success or failure that it not shared by all, so mediocrity is held up as the goal.
As a goal, even mediocrity is seldom achieved by the herd, so it satisfies itself with a bare minimum, a minimum that decays over time through over-use and becomes vitiated.
Once all the grass has been eaten in a spot, leaving only desolation behind, the herd grudgingly moves to a new spot to destroy.
Where does reason fit in here? Isn't the most rational or wisest man the most free? Basing freedom in choice seems to base liberty in will, a non-rational faculty.
Freedom of choice means we accord others freedom, whether or not we think they’re acting in their own best (most rational) self-interest.
That still doesn't answer my doubts. It looks like you're just repeating the author's thesis.
If freedom is superior to reason, there's no reason to be free. Political liberty is certainly necessary because human reason and will is imperfect. But real liberty in a sense wider than the political cannot be inimical to reason. Alas, lots of abbreviated arguments can't make these distinctions.
This might seem pedantic, but these kinds of errors in emphasis add up to make big problems.
Oh, and remember that self-interest isn't always the best, rational choice.
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.