Liberalism began by emancipating the heretics, proceeded to emancipate the serfs and slaves, turned its hand to emancipation of the women, and has most recently been striking the manacles from off the wrists of sexual deviants and thieves. [Link added for emphasis. -Grim]There is a Pollyanna liberalism that believes emancipation must always be followed by improvement, that is full of childish self-confidence and hatred of restraint. Like a child sulking and chaffing under the restraints of his father’s house, Pollyanna liberalism does not see that there are dreadful possibilities in freedom. When a young man comes of age and is emancipated from the restraints of his father’s house, he soon discovers that he is free to stay up as late as he pleases, and also, if need be, to sleep on the street. He soon realizes that he is now free to eat whatever he likes, and also, if need be, to eat nothing at all.The dreadful possibilities of freedom become clear.
The idea is properly a significant challenge to those -- like myself -- who advocate for human freedom in the strongest terms. What should be done with those described? Plato's answer is a sort of ancient totalitarianism; Aristotle, a kind of slavery-for-their-own-good. Kant likes execution, frankly; he is high on the value of capital punishment. Probably I mostly like removing the protections that keep them from realizing the natural consequences of their actions, and letting them learn -- or letting them die.
What we've done instead is driven the idea out of the mind, which seems more and more popular as an approach. No good will come of that for certain. Hard ideas might breed hard men, but they might also engender thoughtful resolutions. Or both: we could do worse than having hard but thoughtful men, and probably will.
7 comments:
Surely there is vast middle ground between indigent birthright freedom and productive lifelong bound-service.
Prisons, reform schools, community service sentencing, the Légion étrangère, the Arbeitslager or the Conservation Corps...
Men may be assigned to fixed and relatively short term of custody during which strictly supervised hard labor in a dangerous -- or at least unpleasant --environment enforces upon those who have not acquired them previously those virtues of teamwork, persistence, honesty, courage, etc, useful in later life, all the while those in such custody and accomplish some great and useful task. The canal is dug, the rail is laid, the wall is erected and new furrows are etched upon the barren ground into which tender green seedlings are gently planted.
By honest labor, one learns and earn the means to become free.
"Work makes free."
What great evil that such a positive concept has been so diabolically tainted in the expression.
And there's the "slavery as punishment" possibility. Someone too dangerous to keep in the village (no such thing as a prison) can be exiled by selling him to a more distant village. It's that or kill him, and he's probably kin.
One huge problem with "natural slavery" is, who is fit to be a "natural master?" Parents, in the early years, hold a superficially similar position over their children, but love fits them for the temporary role. If you were to give me a clutch of adult slaves for whom I was to be thereafter responsible, I'm not positive that I would be able to maintain a true benign paternalism for long, nor am I sure I'd always know what was best for them. "What's convenient for me" would tend to intrude.
An excellent point, James. The British telling at Orthosphere only gets as far as who is fit to be free.
Plato had his thoughts on this, which he put forward in the Republic, and again in another form in the Laws. You can read my commentary on the latter on the sidebar. I find his final answer rather chilling.
"Probably I mostly like removing the protections that keep them from realizing the natural consequences of their actions"
I've used the analogy of The Penny in the Fusebox. Back when houses had fuseboxes instead of circuit breaker panels, idiots would deal a power problem by putting a penny in the fuses receptacle. This might keep the lights on or the toaster toasting, but might well also burn down your house.
A lot of the problems we have today are the result of putting pennies in fuseboxes...the refusal to deal with school discipline problems in the one that first brought the analogy to mind.
In an article written for Britain’s Spectator magazine in 1943, C.S. Lewis wrote, ‘I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man … I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people who believe advertisements, and think in catch-words and spread rumors. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters’.
A friend once told me, "Jesus never forbade slavery." I said, "Yes he did: He said, 'Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them."
"Like a child sulking and chaffing under the restraints of his father’s house"
1. You (orthosphere) aren't my father. You don't have my best interests at heart.
2. The state damn sure isn't my father. They don't have my best interests at heart either.
3. Independent adults aren't your children, and their free will and thinking can't simply be dismissed in condescension.
3. Slavery has never been imposed in the interests of the slaves. It is, and always has been brutal (unavoidably so), evil, and predatory.
So, yeah, .... this one gets both middle fingers from me. It may be natural that humans, in their dominance games, attempt to enslave each other, then make excuses for it. But it's also evil.
-tp
Post a Comment