True Freedom

I hope this doesn't come across as too deep, because I don't believe it is. But in my reading I have come across an idea about human freedom which I had never heard before, and dearly wish I had heard it eons ago. If it is correct, and I argue that it is, it cuts to the very heart of the problems we have in the world, not just today, but essentially for all of human history.

Simply put, real freedom is not personal autonomy. It is not the right and ability to do what is right for you, whatever that means and whatever it entails. True freedom is the right to do what is objectively right. 

That is a fantastic little statement, if I do say so myself. It takes off the table any and all ideas that the individual person, or by extension society, has the right to determine what is right. If we are free it means we are free to do what is right, to do what is good for ourselves and those around us, and not whatever we please based on our collective psychology or personal preference. True freedom would never allow error. It has too much dignity to do that.

The secular world doesn't like that idea because it naturally involves judgment. We ain't s'posed to do that. Never mind that we can and must judge. Must I point out that saying 'don't judge' is, in a very real and tangible way, a judgment? Saying we cannot judge is a self-contradiction. It is, quite frankly, nonsense.

In truth no one has the freedom to do wrong. They may indeed do wrong as a result of free will. We may even have to tolerate certain poor actions for various practical reasons. But no one is in any rational philosophic sense right to do wrong. It is beyond true human freedom, which is the right to act rightly. And only that.

We're Dune-ed

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

The above quote is from the science fiction author Frank Herbert, who penned the classic Dune. It was first brought to my attention by my eldest son. There is much truth to it.

At the risk of kicking up the sand, although as I've said before (in intent if nothing else) I see no reason to allow a chance of controversy to get in the way of my blog, the quote is an on spot indictment of the modern American Progressive. I mean it.

Do you think it not so? Well, consider this: years ago when I would decry the reprehensible or gratuitous content of music or television programs I would be told by my liberal friends something like: 'Just turn off the radio' or 'Change the channel'. If you don't like it, don't listen to or watch it. Why was I told this? So that I would not suppress freedom of expression. Because it would be wrong, obviously, to keep anyone from expressing something in any way or manner they deemed fit for themselves. Didn't I, after all, believe in Freedom? To that challenge I reply with one name.

Dave Chappelle. 

Why, my dear progressive comrades, can he not be afforded the same freedom of expression, the same platform as the depraved scripts and tunes of yesteryear? Why can you not simply change the channel? The only reason I can see is that because your ox is being gored this time around. The obvious conclusion is that the thoughts and actions with which you disagree can be questioned, denigrated, and denied a seat in the arena. Why is this?

Because the modern progressive doesn't really believe in freedom. It is merely a tool for their use when their side isn't carrying the day. Yet when it feels as though it is winning the culture wars, freedom is out the door. It's that simple.

I really think I must read more Dune. It makes me wonder what other gems Mr. Herbert has among his volumes.

A new day

Life is so different today.

One week ago today, this minute, I was on the subway in New York City. We were on our way to Liberty Island. I saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time. Now I'm half dressed and switching between the Detroit Tigers and the PGA Championship.

Huh.

It feels odd. Reality feels odd, doesn't it, especially when it comes around again as it will?

It is serious business. It feels unusual. What's up with that?

Equality is just another word

We are in this world almost daily deluged with calls for equality. It all sounds so good, and everyone seems to want it. But there's only one problem with it.

We are not, any of us, really equal.

This is not to say that we are not political equals. Yet even that phrase leaves a bit of uncertainty: we are only equal because my vote should count as much as yours. That doesn't strike me as equality. It strikes me as justice.

In the same manner, and I have employed this tactic when talking about freedom, education, peace, and so forth, so too do we find that we must apply it to any calls for equality. We need to ask what the supporters of equality really mean. Because any absolute and final equality can only be of circumstances and must actually be something which applies only in very, very few cases. Take equal pay for equal work, for example. Notice that we are asking a question whose answer only applies to very strict and definite circumstances. A woman cancer doctor, 50 years old, with 20 years of practice, who graduated from the same schools with the same grades as a complimentary male cancer specialist in the same place of work, and with the same proficiency of work, should get the same pay. No rational mind would argue otherwise. But the case is so limited that only answer is the right anyway. Again, that's because of justice, not equality.

As to the other facet of the argument, well, calls for equality must ring hollow on their face. A brain surgeon isn't a plumber, no matter how much more we want the latter when the faucet breaks or the basement floods, and no matter which is male or female. As a matter of decency, we should not look well on the surgeon nor ill on the plumber. But yet again, that's a point about justice, not equality.

We could refine the case further, but we trust the point is made. When we are demanding equality we are often (if not in fact always) demanding justice. We are asking that we be treated rightly and properly in light of the circumstances which surround us. We are not asking for equality. We are asking for justice.

So, and I am sure many people may have grown tired of me asking yet I must, when you demand equality, do you really want that? If so, how? Why? For we need to remember that the only sure way to make folks equal is downward, to the where no one is above the lowest common denominator.

That the average person means equality in the sense of true justice I don't doubt. Still, it is when we use terms wrongly that we have the greatest troubles. It is then that the radical fringe of any given group may take the day. Yet when we clarify our thoughts, when we strive to end misunderstanding by calling things what they are, then, indeed, justice wins out. Isn't that what we really want?

Why I cannot be libertarian

I have said to many folks, particularly my libertarian friends, that I want to be a libertarian so bad I can taste it. And I mean that. So what keeps me from signing on?

A handful of issues, for starters: as a group, they support abortion; they don't care for an aggressive foreign policy; and I simply can't quite come around on drug questions. Further, and this will sound very odd coming from me, they have too much of a distrust of government. Like it or not, there are things which only a government can do. Keeping order, for one, and keeping real and potential enemies at bay with the aggressive measures necessary. Then there's that pesky fact that freedom, which they champion to excess quite frankly, is a means rather than an end. Freedom is how we do things, not why, and while as a conservative I believe that the society which is best is one with the greatest rational amount of freedom, freedom as freedom cannot justify one solitary thing. This leads to I think the root problem with libertarianism as it stands today. It is the belief that the individual is the final arbiter of morality, the one who sets the standard for right and wrong.

No individual can hold this kind of power. On a practical level, it invites anarchy, or worse: a might makes right society. On a philosophic level, it begs one very important question: if I, as an individual, can make up my own mind about people and things, why should I ever listen to you? No progress can be made from such a starting point in ethics, which certainly means nothing can be done in any other area either.

If libertarians were to admit that it is not the individual (or that weak sister, consensus) which dictates what can and cannot be done, that justice and rightness exist outside of those realms having a genuine being of their own, I may reconsider my position. Until then, they are as bad as liberals: they want what they want because they want it. It is a poor substitute for critical thought on critical issues.

Just saying...

Democracy is the worst political system...except for all the other political systems.

Capitalism is the lousiest economic system...outside of all the other economic systems.

Why are they the best, yet the worst? Because they are based on human freedom and dignity. People have a great capacity for good, but a terrible propensity to do ill. Freedom unfortunately feeds both these notions.

But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Freedom From the Afterlife no Bargain

We believe it was Jean-Paul Sartre who opined, roughly anyways, "If there is no afterlife, then the only honest response is despair". Maybe he said it, maybe it didn't. But the point behind the idea is quite true nonetheless. If there is no afterlife, then all that we do, every single thing that we do in this life, is for naught and devoid of meaning.

You don't think so? Then, dear friend, you delude yourself. If making this world a better world, whatever that means, entails doing what you can when you're here, well, all of that can be undone very easily. Much of what has happened in history was readily outwitted by events after the principals had died. But it won't matter to you any way you slice it. You will be out of existence, with no say in the matter. Your work, your life, will disperse into the mists of history, wafting away as the steam from your morning coffee. No one will notice, at least least once your generation passes. And you too will be forgotten. Every nonentity will be released from memory. Everyone's memory.

You fight for freedom, eh? Yours, or someone else's? As it is, that indeed may serve you well. While you're here. If we leave everyone else alone you can be left alone. It sounds profound. Annoying profound, perhaps, because it really stands for nothing more than what you want. If there is nothing beyond your human frame, then what you want seems rather petty, if you give it a moment's thought. It's nothing but a great sounding idea tied to a caramel latte. It seems great, yet is quickly gone. Freedom within decay, freedom with no bounds or construct, isn't freedom. It is at best reaction to nothing more than animal desire.

We aren't pessimists. We're optimists. But we can't help but see our atheistic, agnostic friends as naive at best. We feel that their philosophy, whether freedom loving or socialistic, must at its root be pessimistic because it isn't based on anything but what they happen to want, for their own selfish pleasures. If that isn't the basis for pessimism, what is?

In the meantime, we will keep trying to do what is right because its right. We will keep believing in people because they have a dignity which is beyond modern times. It is there because, one way or another, people last forever. If you can't believe that, well, don't believe it. It's your funeral.

Celebrate What?

A new commercial has been airing the last few days, the theme of which is 'celebrate differences'. Yes, we're about to go on that rant again, the one where we ask just what the hell do they mean. It's a personal favorite.

Celebrate differences. Before going any further, we do in fact know what they mean. They mean for us to accept the 'differences among people', and to an extent that's okay. The commercial speaks of loving those of different colors and backgrounds and lifestyles; to wit, whomever they see as worthy of acceptance. Some of those, the ad makes quite clear, are outside right wing celebration.

And there's the rub. Will they accept conservatives who will not accept everyone or every idea they support? Somehow we doubt it. And we haven't even gotten into the notion that merely being asked to celebrate differences is little but a vacuous and hollow platitude. In the first place, we know it because we know they will not support us and our differences along with theirs. In the second place, by themselves the words don't actually mean anything in particular.

Murderers are different than most of us because few people murder. But you know we don't mean that, the celebrators will assert. Well, then, say it, even though it will mean little. The point is simply that any phrase left to itself is innocuous. It's the affects and effects that such trite catchphrases have and cause which matter. Have no doubt in your mind then that such blithe remarks will cause some people to want support for the unsupportable. After all, such would be as different as anything else might be when making mere comparisons between people and concepts.

So, onto the dust heap, celebrate difference. You belong right there with education, peace, liberty, freedom, and all other large sounding words employed by many yet without real meaning. Come celebrate that with us. The bonfire, being fueled with the best fuel (you know what we mean), will burn quite nicely.

Light Rail Saturday

So the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un thinks that the new Seth Rogan and James Franco movie The Interview is an act of war. He obviously has not seen The Green Hornet.

Speaking of communist countries, China has said that it will not allow Hillary Clinton's book, Hard Choices, to be sold there. Apparently in it she is critical of China and Beijing doesn't like that. What does this tell us about China? Simply that an more enlightened economy doesn't necessarily translate into real freedom.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it's okay to protest on a public thoroughfare. Indeed, that it's okay to protest right in front of abortion clinics. That this is a victory for freedom of speech is significant; that it is a victory for the Pro Life movement even more so. But again we hear crickets from our libertarian friends who otherwise cheer almost rabidly for 'freedom', whatever that means. To them it clearly means freedom to do what they like done. Being in favor of abortion, the freedom to protest against it is frowned upon by the image makers of libertarianism, even though all it does is promote freedom. Isn't that what they want?

On July 28th the construction of the Woodward Avenue light rail system will begin. It is little more than another attempt by the powers that be to make people travel on their schedule rather than on their own. One wonders whether it will have the success of the Detroit People Mover, that notoriously unused loop of concrete which winds around the downtown areas (and perilously close to the sports arenas as well). Yet some business owners are keeping the stiff upper lip, hoping that in the long run it will help their retailing. Let's say we're skeptical.

That's it, that's our Saturday morning, cough, light railing about this and that. You are welcome.

Modern Hedonism

A popular viewpoint in modern culture is that our lives are not leading somewhere but are instead simply a journey. We might be searching for ourselves, whatever that means, or seeking meaning, whatever that means, or seeking enlightenment. Yes, whatever that means. But there's one glaring problem with each of these approaches.

What do they mean?

The answer is, on their own accounts, not much, really.

If the point of our lives is only that life is nothing more than a journey, well, then, won't any old journey foot the bill? And as we're all surely going somewhere whether by accident or design it appears we've all accomplished that. There you go, the mystery of life solved. Sixpence, please, and tell your psychologist to shove off.

The trouble is that a journey really doesn't mean anything at all without a destination. And a destination really doesn't mean anything at all unless the destination is worth the trouble of traveling towards. Yet having a destination means judgment; it requires us to ask, should we be heading that way?

And what is judgment? It means considering the well from the ill and consciously accepting that we should travel towards the well. But ouch; that means introspection, and introspection might lead us to condemn what other folks do or, horror of horrors, condemn what we do or want to do.

That really is the major problem in today's world. We want to do whatever we want (on whatever grounds, but the grounds don't mean anything either without introspection, do they?) yet we don't want to make judgments. So we develop an opinion which tells us we can't judge the actions of others, simply and conveniently so that we may assert that they can't judge what we do. We call it freedom.

Yet at one time that attitude was called hedonism. Civilization may not be developing; it may be regressing.

Libertarianism at war with itself

Libertarianism is, in an odd sort of way, like communism. Both look good on paper, yet neither is practical.

You don't think so? Well, what about these concerns:

For libertarianism to sustain itself, it would require a guaranteed, eternal majority. This will not happen or, at best, it will only happen during short runs. People, being people, will use their free will and shoot libertarianism out of the sky.

It might work with an iron first under a benevolent dictator. But there are two problems with that. One, we see how that has worked for communism, and two, that also would rely on an eternal march of benevolent dictators. That won't happen either, and, further, would actually mock libertarianism.

Then there's the business of freedom. Libertarians preach it with an almost religious fervor. It's their end-all be-all. But 'I'm for freedom' isn't really a tenable position. It begs an entire litany of questions, not the least of which are questions like, freedom to do what, freedom to be what, and whether what we want are things we ought to want. Libertarians forget, or refuse to accept, that freedom is only a means. It is not an end. That is, unless you want total, complete freedom to do absolutely anything you want. To be sure, they don't believe that. They believe there are some limitations on human behavior. But note that that means they aren't actually in favor of freedom anyway because they do, when it suits them, restrict it.

Next there's the matter of how they might get their agenda in place. In the United States today that cannot happen except through revolution or politics. Yet they abhor politics and politicians, and even should they approve of a revolution (which would be dangerous as such things tend towards going out of control) and perhaps a contradiction within their philosophy. How can you force people to become libertarians against their will? You can't, outside of confessing that freedom is not without bounds. Unless, again, and we love hammering this point home, you don't believe in unfettered liberty.

At the end of the day, libertarian philosophy contradicts itself. We believe that is evident in the above comments. You simply cannot preach freedom as an end and then argue that it can be restricted in any way, shape, or form.

They sound good and they look good. Yet all they do is bang an empty drum.

The Free Market isn't Everything

We conservatives like the free market; that declaration ought to surprise no one. But we also know that it is not and never will be truly free. Why is that?

Human imperfection, for starters. We aren't perfect, and it is silly to believe that a perfect system can come out of less than perfect people. Every human construct will be flawed and there's no getting around that. Markets, being human constructs, will not always lead to the right or best result. Of course, we think that free markets are the best there is at getting beyond error. Yet that doesn't mean they always will. As one of chief arguments against government interference in the economy is that too much is going on for governments to efficiently regulate, it applies as well that in free markets too many people and too many decisions are involved for every single effort to work out well. Yes, markets will organize themselves to a certain degree. But not exactly right and not necessarily in everyone's best interest in every single instance.

Then there's that pesky fact that not every economy in the world is free. True, that is not the fault of free market economics. Yet is another reflection on that pesky idea that people aren't perfect. Simply telling folks that they need freer markets won't lead to them. Government interference alone will see to that, and the simple assertion that open markets are better won't convince everyone that they are. It may be honest disagreement, stupidity, power, or just plain obstinacy which prevents accepting the free market rationale. The markets will never overcome all such obstacles. As such, completely free markets will never exist. There's no point to pretending they will. There will always be interference in them; about the best we will ever have is to limit that through the political process the best we can.

Now we come to those pesky social issues which drive the more rabid free market enthusiasts mad. Not every human trade ought to be in the open market. An easy example is slavery, but it goes beyond that. Prostitution comes to mind, and of course the entire abortion industry is simply wrong. What we're leading up is this: merely because people could do something doesn't mean that they should. Some activities must be banned simply because they're so wrong that an enlightened society must not tolerate them. We can argue where the line should be drawn: that there is a line is another question. There is, and we must find (or at least get as close as we can) and adhere to any legitimate market parameters which exist.

Finally, and this comes directly from our third point, free markets are not the end all be all of human existence. Right and wrong are; doing what's right and avoiding what's wrong the best we can should be our goal. Even the concept of free markets itself recognizes this. Proponents essentially say that markets ought to be free because justice demands it. Yet once we say that, we are effectively arguing not for free markets but for justice. It appears that free markets are a subset, albeit a very important subset, of justice. That also makes it appear that justice can make demands of markets, and that markets not only cannot but should not be totally free.

The freest market possible market is the best market because it allows for the most possible good for the most people. Yet it would still be flawed, it would still commit error, and we need to realize that if we are ever to improve upon it.

Markets are coercive too

Our libertarian friends make a big deal about how laws are coercive. Some go so far as to assert they do 'violence' against people, whatever that means, and as such are at least arguably wrong.

Maybe so, maybe no. It seems reasonable to allow that government when acting within its proper sphere must be allowed that strength. Still, the coercive ability of government certainly is indeed powerful and as such must be limited. But as the typical libertarian also demands freedom (whatever they mean by that) and free markets, we find ourselves asking, isn't freedom, aren't the markets, coercive too? Cannot people acting freely nonetheless be doing violence to others through whatever coercive measures may be at their disposal?

When a large corporate structure makes its employees work on what are holidays for most of the populace, isn't it being coercive? When a large corporate structure leans on its vendors for better prices and service, isn't it being coercive (and arguably violent, to use the libertarian catchphrase)? Why aren't such 'violences', which most certainly infringe on the freedom of others, as wrong as government action?

Perhaps because those involved in private endeavors realize what they're up against and accept the cost. That appears fair enough, so far as it goes. Yet how far does it really go? If you need your job but would like the time off with your family and friends, you are at least, again, arguably, having a violence done against you when made to work when most others are enjoying days off. If you have no realistic choice but to take the job you've got or are offered, isn't that still a demand against your freedom and free will? If Large Corporate Structure leans on your company or you employer's company to give a better deal or else, isn't violence being done to you and them? Why is that less of an affront to human dignity that a law?

Don't misunderstand our point: we would far prefer freer markets and freer people than we have in America today, and freer markets would surely give people greater choices in where they work and what they buy. We are simply not impressed with the violence argument with regard to government action. The question isn't whether government actions are coercive but whether they are right. So long as they are right, issues of freedom are superfluous. But more, if freedom is the real point of libertarianism then the movement ought to be a bit more concerned with a decided lack of real choice on the part of many people much of the time, and realize that often they are at the mercy of forces if not as powerful as government, still very strong and still to some degree oppressive. That was part of the point of Pope Francis's recent encyclical. Threats to freedom and dignity are not all at the hands of a congress or parliament.

Whither Liberty?

The gay marriage issue appears settled, in both the United States and much of the western world. That's not surprising, considering the widespread application of 'liberty' we have seen over the last few decades. We have no problem with liberty per se, of course; a well regulated liberty is to be sought and prized. But we wonder how many folks actually consider what a well regulated liberty means.

It surely does not mean that we can do absolutely anything we want. Were that to be the case, then we would be supreme hypocrites to call any action by anyone else wrong. It would impossible to call the terrorists, not to mention the murderers and rapists, wrong. So there are barriers to liberty. Or, at least, as any rational observer would say, that we are not at liberty to do ill to others.

The next question becomes, then, are we at liberty to do anything we want with ourselves? This question involves the aspect of liberty which calls on us to be self regulating, and, interestingly, it is also the aspect of liberty most libertarians, we think, anyway, wish to avoid. We cannot help but feel they would like if it did not exist at all, for it demands of the individual that he, perhaps, should not do things he may very well wish to do. Regulating the self means telling the self that some things may be wrong even if they don't, on the surface, violate that old libertarian bugbear of not doing violence. It may mean being forced to admit that violence against another is more than an overt act. It may mean having to conclude that violence against another may constitute actions which seem wholly personal but in fact still harm the body politic as well as the person.

It goes almost without saying, though it must be said so that everyone hears, when you do wrong, it may encourage others to do wrong. That's simply the other side of the equation which involves doing right; if we lead best by example, as is so often said, then examples of doing wrong surely encourage wrongdoing. Even when the wrongdoing 'doesn't hurt anyone'.

This puts the civil libertarians in a pickle. They must either argue that we don't need to be self regulatory, or they must argue that certain (presumably nonviolent) acts almost universally accepted as wrong (before now, anyway) are in fact right either on their own standing or, as the supporters of gay marriage and the like argue, if the person or persons involved think so.

The obvious problem is that, should such be true, then all any person would need to do to justify doing wrong is to assert that it's right for them. What we have here in the long run is a recipe for the end of all liberties, real or imagined. If we are not obliged to be self regulatory, if we are not obliged to ask ourselves whether we should commit an act or not even if it seems to affect no one else, then we have no obligation at all. And if we have no such obligation at all, any talk about freedom and liberty is spurious.

We have said before that we believe libertarians to be moral relativists. We stand by that assertion. This is why.

Texas and Abortion

Texas has passed an 'extreme' abortion bill, one which would close most abortion facilities in that state. Several other states have passed similar measures, almost all of them in the South or more conservative areas of the nation. What does this mean?

For starters, it means that the abortion debate is alive and well. That is a good thing. Once measures such as what have been passed in Texas and other states are no longer controversial, we will have seen the end of the abortion debate. Until then, the cause must endure.

Why should anyone be for abortion? Outside of rare cases, most abortions involve women who freely consented to sex. Isn't part of being free the accepting of responsibility? Don't those women know that they could get pregnant? In knowing what might happen yet committing the act anyway, haven't they in fact accepted the potential consequences and all which goes along with that?

And there's the rub. The presumed right to abortion allows women (and we wonder how often their boyfriends, husbands, or ships that pass in the night) to avoid responsibility. Abortion allows everyone involved to have their fun without living up to the potential results of that fun. Abortion is ultimately and in the overwhelming majority of cases for the undisciplined to act without regard for what may happen as a result of that act. It is indeed about freedom, but exactly the wrong kind of freedom: the freedom to act without consequence.

That will not help the cause of freedom. But it will indeed make us a selfish nation.

Why Libertarianism is Wrong

There is a definite allure for libertarianism within the conservative movement. It would be quite easy to become one. Honest. So why should we conservatives not sign on?

A handful of critically important issues, for starters. As a group, libertarians support abortion. They don't care for an aggressive foreign policy either, and although they may make quite compelling arguments it's difficult to come around on the drug questions. Further, and this will sound very odd considering the source, they seem to have too much of a distrust of government. Like it or not, there are things which only a government can do. Keeping order, for one, and keeping potential enemies at bay with the aggressive measures necessary. Roads jump into the front of the mind as well. Yet libertarians are likely as not all right, at least in essence, on those subjects. The root problem with libertarianism as it stands today is the belief that the individual is the final arbiter of morality, the one who sets the standard for right and wrong.

No individual can hold this kind of power. We are not talking about the individual's right or ability to choose for himself among reasonable options, but you must notice that even that idea, the one on which we certainly base our freedoms, implies that our options must be reasonable and that therefore what makes our choices right is in fact something beyond our wishes. But the fact is that, on a practical level, wholly or entirely individual interpretation of right and wrong invites anarchy or worse: a might makes right society. Then on a philosophic level, it begs one very important question: if I, as an individual, can make up my own mind about people and things, why should I ever listen to you? No progress can be made from such a starting point in ethics, which certainly means nothing can be done in any other area either.

If libertarians were to admit that it is not the individual (or that weak sister, consensus) which dictates what can and cannot be true, that justice and rightness exist beyond the person and having a being of their own, we may reconsider libertarianism as a creed. Until then, they are as bad as liberals: they want what they want because they want it. It is a poor substitute for critical thought on critical issues.`

Freedom is a Means, Not an End

There is a certain allure to libertarianism within the conservative community. The stress on individual freedom definitely has its merits. Human freedom, personal liberty; these are terms which are deeply embedded in the American psyche, perhaps more so than anywhere else on Earth these days. So why aren't American conservatives more overtly libertarian seeing as so much of their rhetoric employs libertarian phraseology? The irony involved in answering that question lies in the very same ideal of freedom which is at the heart of the libertarian movement.

Libertarians preach freedom. But the trouble is that freedom is a means, and not an end, as libertarians assert.

When someone says that they are for freedom, can we ever really drop the subject at that? Might anyone actually say: Oh, he's for freedom, so we know where he stands? If we do, we are pretty close to talking nonsense, don't you think? In order to really understand what our libertarian friend supports, isn't it necessary to ask: Freedom from whom? Freedom from what? Freedom to do what, and why? How might this freedom be attained and secured? Indeed, why should we think we are entitled to any sort of freedom and liberty at all? When we ask these questions, there appears one important point which sort of encompasses them all (and a great many others), a critical point which few people rarely consider.

Once we begin asking these questions, we aren't really talking about freedom, are we? Aren't we actually saying that we can only support freedom in the context of the question involved?

We're in fact talking about what might be called doing justice; it might be called The Golden Rule; it might be called ethics and morals or plain old right and wrong. But whatever we call it, we cannot call it freedom. Freedom of action, so far as it goes, must be seen as valuable only insofar as the action in question is right and just, or encourages rightness and justice. For it goes without saying (even though we are about to say it; don't you hate that?) that freedom as freedom simply means doing what you want because you want to do it. Freedom as freedom does not necessitate reflection upon whether we ought or ought not do something. It means nothing at all, on its own terms, except that Joe Smith wants such and such done and has the ability to do it, so he does it.

But when asking whether are free to do something, or whether society should sanction or prohibit a given action, well, isn't it implied that we are only truly free to do it if it's just? Isn't it in fact putting restrictions and qualifiers on our freedom? In this light, when our libertarian friends say they're for freedom, well, it's hard to take them at their word, for in the very act of making that assertion they themselves must mean they support something beyond mere freedom. When they protest torture, are they really protesting the lack of freedom of the persons tortured or the fact that torture is wrong, even if part part of the affront is denying him his freedom? When they clamor for homosexual rights, they must mean that such rights are worth support in themselves, or what's their point? Indeed, when they protest oppressive taxes and regulations, something which we right wingers can agree with them about, they must be claiming that the government is wrong to aggressively tax and regulate citizens and businesses and not, ahem, that the government is free to do so. For if freedom is our measuring stick, who's to say that the government isn't free to overtax and overspend?

We don't see how anyone can be for 'freedom' any more than they can be for 'education' or 'civil liberties' or 'peace'. But we can see how people can want to support what is right and disdain the wrong; we can understand why they would want to encourage good and discourage evil. We understand that doing good and avoiding bad is precisely what the individual and the broader society needs. That, perhaps, is the key difference between libertarians and conservatives. And it's all the difference in the world.

Canada Day

Today is Canada Day. It celebrates the anniversary of Canada being granted dominionship (we hope that is a word) within the British Empire on July 1, 1867. Called Dominion Day until 1982 when Canada earned full independence, it is essentially Canada's Independence Day.

It is one of those subtle ironies of history that such great friends as Canadians and Americans celebrate their anniversaries so closely together. Particularly in border cities such as here in Detroit, where we are able to enjoy the relatively free interchange of people, ideas, and goods with our northern allies, we ought to be somewhat awestruck by the kinship between our nations. There are few nations who truly have the sort of bond which we have, and we in Michigan are able to partake of that friendship every day in almost every way.

Though technically a newer nation than the United States, Canada is in many ways older and more distinct, more nuanced than we are. It gives Canada a depth which the US lacks in certain areas, as it allows her a better connection to the Old World (such a quaint yet endearing term nowadays!) than ourselves while living fully in the New.

Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, true sister cities bound by proximity and shared interests, keenly aware and appreciative of one another even though in separate countries, share many events during these days. There are of course the massive fireworks, while each city supports various other events: the Windsor Summer Days in Ontario and Detroit River Days. It is something of a shame that they are no longer called the International Freedom Festival, as they were until 2007. It seems to break the unity of the celebrations. Still, their common history marks the anniversaries of each nation's independence similarly and faithfully. The parties remind us of our bond.

We should count ourselves fortunate indeed to have such tremendous associates, such stouthearted and true friends so nearby. It gives us a perspective the rest of the United States may not have, and shows us profoundly what true friendship must mean.

Happy Canada Day, Canada!

Consenting Adults; So What?

One of the most pervasive while also one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of certain presumed freedoms is the one about consenting adults. Simply put, it makes moral a given action on the grounds that the folks involved are in agreement as to their joint participation. It is ultimately a wholly untenable position.

To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.

Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution for example is one key area where the adage is often used, it is something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.

The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, actual immorality.

This is not to say that a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.

In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.

The LLC Connection

We have written several times herein about the political spectrum of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Indeed, we have gone so far as to say that libertarians are really just liberals who happen to be fiscal conservatives. This is an idea which was, it seemed, cemented at a recent time when we read that some some libertarians have come to like the term 'liberaltarians'(we must thank a friend of a friend who pointed this out). But sometimes other things come along which give us pause.

In a speech given at Hillsdale College here in Michigan and reprinted in their neat little pamphlet called Imprimis (the particular article can be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp) William McGurn, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, makes the case that libertarians and conservatives are actually much closer. Why? Due to the libertarian emphasis on economics and economic justice.

It is a fascinating speech and we will not attempt to repeat it in detail. But the gist is that what conservatives and those who share the ideal of economic freedom have in common is the belief that it is freedom which drives the machine which improves the human condition. This is because freedom allows greater innovations and deeper thought in decision making than any type of state controls might allow. Freedom invented the wheel, the cam, and the steam engine. Freedom eradicated disease. Freedom improved agriculture, advanced science, and opened minds. And why does freedom work?

Because it offers a positive trust in the individual.

This is not to say that what individuals may or may not do is boundless. But it is to say that, where there is no moral affront involved, freedom works. To be sure, and Mr. McGurn points this out, there are differences between libertarians and conservatives, and the differences matter. Still, it is at least arguable that the right wing and the libertarian are closer than the latter may be to the liberal because the liberal ultimately believes in government control of people and things despite how he may protest otherwise. That's why they go to the bureaucrats and the courts when the don't get their way. They believe in force, not freedom.

We are closer, perhaps, to libertarians than liberals are because we share, even if from different starting points, the same essential belief in individual human beings. The full bodied libertarian and the blue blooded conservative are so much concerned about human relations that it makes differences more acute, precisely because we are seeking to do and support what's right. Liberals believe in a vague, amorphous humanity, defined ultimately by their whim. Conservatives and libertarians believe in real, flesh and blood people.

Mr. McGurn suggests that we are sides of a coin. It is an idea which deserves more discussion.