Posted on 07/02/2009 11:14:58 AM PDT by Zanton
Democracy -- or rule by majority vote -- is a genuine political good. So is republicanism -- or rule by legitimate representatives. Both have considerable social and economic value to the individual and the nation.
Similarly, autonomy and self-rule are governmental goods and values which a given society finds very much worth having. And it's even worth while for that civilization to enjoy non-violation of their national soverignty and non-interference in their internal affairs by non-citizens.
But none of these political goods and values are anywhere near as important as freedom. In the life of the person and his nation, none are remotely as central and pivotal as liberty, justice, and individual rights.
Thus if some strange and hateful "foreign devils" decide to brutally smash another nation's democracy, republic, autonomy, and self-rule into the ground, while grossly violating their national soverignty, and interferring in their internal affairs, this shocking act may or may not be a true political and socio-economic evil. If the invaders -- no matter how distantly alien --do all this in a way which enhances the individual liberty of the given politiy -- and doesn't exact a large practical price in the process -- then this is a governmental good. The "bloody foreigners" have a right to do so, and the former local rulers and their supporters, in turn, have no right to complain. Certainly they have no right to militarily oppose them.
These external invaders can and should take their alien political values and "force them down their throats." If the foreigners' standards, ideas, and ideals are sufficiently superior to those they seek to replace -- and their imperialist behavior constitutes an act of overall liberation -- then they have the right to impose them upon the less civilized locals.
The fact that in the process these invaders trashed the democracy, crushed the republic, stomped upon their autonomy, and obliterated their self-rule is irrelevant. So too if the unwanted and even hated outsiders wantonly violated their national soverignty and relentlessly interfered in their internal affairs.
The simple fact is the locals have no right to violate the rights of their coevals. They enjoy no freedom to suppress the freedom of their brothers. No matter how properly and legitimately the local tyrants rule by some minor standards, they aren't allowed to set up or maintain a slave state. The supreme value of individual liberty forbids this. The absolute and untouchable right to freedom, justice, and individual rights forbids this.
Indeed, if a bunch of foreign devils and outside invaders decide to free some suffering nation, and they don't do appreciable damage in the process, the non-citizen aliens have every right to do so. The overwhelming reality is no political good is superior -- or even close to -- that of freedom. No social and economic value is superior -- or even close to -- that of liberty, justice, and individual rights.
Few people defend freedom as a moral value. I’ve been reading Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal” in which she does just that. We can defend freedom or capitalism on a utilitarian bassis - greatest good for greatest number of people, but that opens us up to statistical manipulation or anecdotal evidence that show that some people are hurt by a free society.
Rand defends capitalism and freedom on a moral basis, and in the process shows how everyone benefits, and that the poor benefit to a much greater degree than do the rich.
I love Ayn Rand! :-) I agree with her maybe 98% of the time. My main problem with her is not what she says but how she says it.
Rand writes as a kind of prophet or cult leader (not scholar or philosopher), with a tone of voice and approach which doesn't sufficiently respect the mind of the reader. Basically she says, between the lines: "Accept my authority and take it on faith. All who disagree are low-lifes who are being intellectually cowardly and dishonest."
I disagree somewhat with the mentioned standard of political value (which comes from Jeremy Bentham) which is undefined, undefinable (in my view), and implicitly collectivist. The proper disideratum, IMHO, is "the greatest good of the individual."
P.S. I read her book on capitalism many a moon ago, and find it absolutely brilliant.
Remarkable is the hubris required for two-bit con men to take it away for some made-up "greater good."
“Accept my authority and take it on faith. All who disagree are low-lifes who are being intellectually cowardly and dishonest.”
She’s not wrong. My only problem with her is her somewhat militant atheism. But, in only takes her a few paragraphs to totally destroy the concept of the common good.
Society and civilization needs to respect and serve only one thing: the Sacred Self and the Holy Individual. And the way we do that is via "the individual good." Once you champion, uphold, save, preserve, protect, defend, etc. the untouchable, invaluable, god-like Individual -- you maximally benefit every person on this earth!!! :-)
But as for free will...don't all semi-intelligent creatures have this? Pet cats and dogs definitely seem to. They don't always obey humans, or act with robotic predictability. And monkeys and chimps are much freer. I think Mother Nature gave us human beings free will -- to go along with our super-powerful minds.
Animals are bound by instinct, and I don't believe in a "Mother Nature," but thanks for the kind words!
Me, too.
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.