John Donne once said that “no man is an island”. Society has evolved, does evolve, and will evolve, with the actions of each to one degree or another affecting it and being affected by it. Society isn’t some abstract idea or social construct of the conspiratorial vein. The libertarian ideal that everyone can do what they want and anything not affecting others in the strictest 1st degree will not have a depreciative or dilatory effect others, and thus society, is based upon a blind faith that the way, the truth, the light, of Randian enlightenment can not, and will not, be snuffed out a la Anthem because the choices of others does not, in the strictest 1st degree, command another.
But this is based on an overly idealistic view of mankind. It is the idealistic view that once a great evil is purged, that a true utopia will arise once properly established; it is the idealistic view shared by Communists, Progressives, and other assorted socialists.
A society where people are free to chooce as they like, but where the great swath of the populace have the wisdom to choose correctly, is a rare one. It can not be constructed. It, indeed, is a result of a strange and unlikely confluence of history. America is that confluence. It can not be rebuilt ex nihilo. It can not overwrite an existing bias or set of mores. It can not be written upon a tabula rasa, as such hypothetical musings are antithetical to human reality. Despite the intentions otherwise, “their passions forge their fetters”.
It is something that must be conserved. It calls not for magicians to alchemists who can bring forth purity of essence from some invented and contrived trick. It calls for stewards to keep and protect our civic inheritance, and to protect society’s evolution from the hands and machinations of intelligent design by unintelligent designers.
There is no “social contract” between some hypothetical founders ex nihilo of society.
In a way, though, “Society is indeed a contract”, as Edmund Burke noted:
“Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure — but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primaeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and the invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place. This law is not subject to the will of those, who by an obligation above them, and infinitely superior, are bound to submit their will to that law. The municipal corporations of that universal kingdom are not morally at liberty at their pleasure, and on their speculations of a contingent improvement, wholly to separate and tear asunder the bands of their subordinate community, and to dissolve it into an unsocial, uncivil, unconnected chaos of elementary principles. It is the first and supreme necessity only, a necessity that is not chosen, but chooses, a necessity paramount to deliberation, that admits no discussion, and demands no evidence, which alone can justify a resort to anarchy. This necessity is no exception to the rule; because this necessity itself is a part too of that moral and physical disposition of things, to which man must be obedient by consent or force: but if that which is only submission to necessity should be made the object of choice, the law is broken, nature is disobeyed, and the rebellious are outlawed, cast forth, and exiled, from this world of reason, and order, and peace, and virtue, and fruitful penitence, into the antagonist world of madness, discord, vice, confusion, and unavailing sorrow.”
Something that “doesn’t” affect you, thus, DOES.
Take, for example, the entire push for “LGBTQ&c.&c.” so-called “rights”.
We were told that it was about the “right” of people to do as they wanted in private. Since this was consistent, rather than antagonistic, to the American weal and civic vitue, great swaths of sexual activity was legalized and protected. After such legalization, the argument then proceeded to dismissing how anything that is legal be considered immoral and something to be opposed; one doesn’t want to oppose freedom, after all. Anyone who would have a problem with such activities must be a bigot and thus harbor secret plans to criminalize behavior and thus discriminate against those who engage, or are inclined to engaging in, such activities, because, after all, such Leftist viewpoints presume an oppressor and oppressed dichotomy. Thus, any dissent is considered proof of evil and oppression.
That just and reverable tendency towards tolerance was used by those who oppose both liberty and virtue to force those who hold both dear into positions that negate both.
We are still told that such eventualities are always “crazy” and will never come to be, despite that fact that they always do. As Lord Melbourne noted:
“What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”
From an appeal to tolerance, when out of power, to crushing dissent when in power, certain truths become manifest:
Thus, in the name of “equality”, we now have special privilege and power by the select few:
“This, along with recent actions by President Barack Obama’s Department of Education and Justice Department, illustrates the evolution of the push to manufacture special privileges for a select few.
“The pretense that such demands don’t affect the lives of others now has been abandoned, replaced by two options: (1) get over it and get in line; or (2) be pushed to the margins of society, losing your reputation—and possibly your career—in the process.
“In version 2.0 of the New Regime, even if you can point to a direct, immediate, and significant intrusion on your life, your opinion is irrelevant (and perhaps bigoted) when compared to ‘social progress.’
“For example, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that wedding photographer Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jonathan must set aside their freedom to peacefully live according to their faith, a concurring justice stated that the pair ‘now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.’ Chillingly, the justice added that this compulsion ‘is the price of citizenship.’
“As the situations in Minnesota, North Carolina, and elsewhere demonstrate, the latest test sites for this theory of ‘social progress’ are locker rooms, showers, and other private changing facilities.
“In what would have been an unthinkable battleground just a few short years ago, these tile-floored, plastic-stalled, chrome-fixtured, and (formerly) sex-specific sanctuaries are now ground zero for experiments in the subjective theory of gender.”
Because “no man is an island”, natural societal tendencies towards tolerance, which a just society that had not only the liberty to choose as they will but the virtue to choose correctly can endure, is turned against such liberty and virtue to destroy both and institute some crazed intelligently designed utopia created ex nihilo and developed en vacuo by self-evidentiary unintelligent designers. It is a fallacy of first principles.
As Burke noted:
“But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths.”
True liberty is not the function of a mere lack of government. Liberty can only exist when the conditions of society are conducive towards it, and people’s mores, customs, and folkways are steeled against deconstructive tendencies; otherwise, freedom will eat itself and society degrades and falls, only to be replaced by something stable—not necessarily good or bad—but just stable.
Further, as James FitzJames Stephen notes:
“To me this question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing. It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what cases is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete solution of the problems which such a history would offer.”
The private actions of two individuals in the privacy of a private bedroom in a private house, indeed, does not directly affect others in the 1st degree. Re-writing social norms, mores, and folkways, however, does unequivocally affect others by the tyrannical and conniving mutation of society, taking advantage of and abusing the natural tolerance of a society that has become so used to great liberty with the concomitant wisdom to choose virtuously, in order to unintelligently design a utopia ex nihilo in vacuo that is antithetical and ablative of the very virtue and liberty that made such tolerance possible!
A “private” right ceases to become “private” when it impugns in any way, shape, or form on others, particularly in an intentional, economic, and political way.
If we are, indeed, authors to each of our abilities and influence to greater thread that is our society, our heritage, and our endowment to the future, than it behooves us to be the crystallizing lens that focuses what was, what is, and what could be to a perseverance and a potential that is a future and a promise that is worth striving, laboring, and even fighting for.
For that liberty and virtue that has so optimized both freedom and true tolerance, I shall fight, I shall strive, I will never surrender.
There is not a liberal in this entire country who would read this essay through to the end.
More’s the pity.
Coming here from AOSHQ my first thought was “I’ve never heard of this movie”
Well done, Hat.
Although the people who most need to see this won’t, and a bumper-sticker length version would be needed to get them thinking.
OneEyedJack says:
“Coming here from AOSHQ my first thought was “I’ve never heard of this movie””
When you go back tell DrewM that I said he was a F***ing Piece of Sh*t for Censoring me. F*** him and the horse he rode in on!
Even so, he probably did me a favor. I was wasting far too much time over at that website.
Also, the problem I was bitching about (Liberal Media control of the information streams) is now worse than it ever was.
A whole lot of us were in that “wasting too much time somewhere else” boat…alas. I tried a few times recently to re-engage but my life’s just elsewhere now. Saw Ace get into it with a friend of mine today over some bullshit and it all just made me sad.
Great piece, Hat. I’m going to go share the hell out of it now…lol
If this is WordPress, why can’t I “follow” it…lol I’m assuming you’re self-hosted like I am…?
“Saw Ace get into it with a friend of mine today over some bullshit and it all just made me sad.”
Ace was usually tolerant, but he occasionally had these flashes of despotism that were unbecoming to a man of his intellectual capacity.
Yes, I know it’s his football, but is it too much to ask that people be willing to compete on an equal footing in the open marketplace of ideas?
Holy sh!t! A D-Lamp sighting! Good to see you still commenting somewhere. Your commentary is missed. Over at Ace, there are those of us that still post “D-Lamp Was Right” on every “media” post” that comes along.
“Your commentary is missed. Over at Ace, there are those of us that still post “D-Lamp Was Right” on every “media” post” that comes along.”
Well thanks for that. Good to see I was appreciated.
We are in the place I feared we would be. The media controls elections by manipulating the people with misleading information, and by hiding information from them.
I keep trying to get people to recognize the threat that one party media posses to our freedom, but people keep getting stuck in the weeds by focusing on various issues instead of the source of the left wing power in government.
I post over at Free Republic pretty often, and I am still sounding the alarm about what a threat the left wing monopoly of media posses.
You assume they think. Thesy dont. They are animals with an instinct for control.
Unfortunately wide swathes of our country has been indoctrinated with “feelings” based decisions and “first stage thinking” (Thomas Sowell). The last candle of liberty will be snuffed out with a Clinton victory in November. I’m glad I got most of my armory in hand.
This is your best work. Well done.
Congratulations on your Instalaunch.
Now you’re hitting the big(er) time. 🙂
Liberty is not licentuousness. The latter is characterized by an untethering to morals, a lack self consciousness of the impact of one’s acts on another, an insistance to be at liberty to be a known source of social discomfort to others.
Remarkably insightful. Sadly, I must point out two typos. I think “free to choice as they like” should be “free to choose as they like”. And “an appear to tolerance” should be “an appeal to tolerance”.
Fixed. Thank you for letting me know.
The concept of tolerance being two-way street is anathema to the Progressive Mindset. You will be made to care or comply or else.
God’s truth – the progs are the least tolerant people on the face of the earth. Hillary’s slip of the tongue is about Trump supporters is exactly what they think – the only difference is where they set the slide rule too
Please vote: Presidential Straw Poll – 2016
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2016/09/presidential-straw-poll-2016.html
ps. Would you consider adding CC to your blogroll?
Hey Hat? There is this philosopher, Lydia McGrew who has made a very similar point to yours, calling it the phenomenon of “choice devouring itself”. You should enjoy this:
http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/03/choice_devours_itself_so_much.html
Well, not really enjoy, as who can enjoy the spectacle of our society going to sh*t, but she’s a very clear, articulate thinker.
Ok….. Get ready.
” A society where people are free to chooce as they like, but where the great swath of the populace have the wisdom to choose correctly, is a rare one. It can not be constructed. ”
Implying that somehow, putting together a group of elite people with the “authority” to impose their will on others is somehow just, and that selecting the most intelligent/informed people to do this is even possible.
—
“There is no “social contract” between some hypothetical founders ex nihilo of society. In a way, though, “Society is indeed a contract”, as Edmund Burke noted:”
No social contract, but society is a contract…. not sure what the difference is, but that’s irrelevant because neither of these are contracts.
con·tract
noun
noun: contract; plural noun: contracts
ˈkäntrakt/
1.
a written or spoken agreement
If you can prove to me when I consented to be governed, then you can execute the terms in said contract. Good luck though, because the contract never existed. The group of people called “government” imposed their will on you without regard for your consent from the day you were born. Definitely not a contract.
—
“Each contract of each particular state (none of which exist) is but a clause in the great primaeval contract of eternal society (also doesn’t exist, unless he is talking about the “social contract” which he admitted doesn’t exist), linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and the invisible world, (as if words written by men somehow have divine powers), according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath (oath of whom?) which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place.”
This is all just emotional drivel. All it does is demonstrate how poorly thought out this is.
—
“This law is not subject to the will of those, who by an obligation above them, and infinitely superior, are bound to submit their will to that law.”
Laws are written by men, not gods. Laws are not necessarily just. It’s astonishing that one could consider humans are fallible when espousing the need for government, but deny it when vowing to blindly follow the words of men.
—
“It is the first and supreme necessity only, a necessity that is not chosen, but chooses, a necessity paramount to deliberation, that admits no discussion, and demands no evidence, which alone can justify a resort to anarchy. This necessity is no exception to the rule; because this necessity itself is a part too of that moral and physical disposition of things, to which man must be obedient by consent or force: but if that which is only submission to necessity should be made the object of choice, the law is broken, nature is disobeyed, and the rebellious are outlawed, cast forth, and exiled, from this world of reason, and order, and peace, and virtue, and fruitful penitence, into the antagonist world of madness, discord, vice, confusion, and unavailing sorrow.”
Laws are not synonymous with nature. So often people conflate society with government/the state. These laws which the author holds with reverence are nothing more than edicts written by a few power hungry men, and they have nothing to do with society or the countless voluntary interactions that happen every day which are the reason for societal progress. Reason, order, peace, virtue…. these are all qualities of a stateless society, for when you have a state, you have a group of people who can act in any manner they wish without consequence so long as people like this author make up irrational excuses as to why whatever crime the state committed is actually just, that actually you consented to having your freewill violated. It’s sickening.
—
“We were told that it was about the “right” of people to do as they wanted in private. Since this was consistent, rather than antagonistic, to the American weal and civic vitue, great swaths of sexual activity was legalized and protected. After such legalization, the argument then proceeded to dismissing how anything that is legal be considered immoral and something to be opposed; one doesn’t want to oppose freedom, after all. Anyone who would have a problem with such activities must be a bigot and thus harbor secret plans tocriminalize behavior and thus discriminate against those who engage, or are inclined to engaging in, such activities, because, after all, such Leftist viewpoints presume an oppressor and oppressed dichotomy. Thus, any dissent is considered proof of evil and oppression.”
You can disagree with someone’s choices without using the government as a tool to force peaceful people to behave in a manner you would prefer. Yes, that is oppression. No, being anti oppression isn’t necessarily a leftist viewpoint, just one held by all advocates of peace.
—
” Thus, in the name of “equality”, we now have special privilege and power by the select few:”
And this is my objection to government/the state. The author fails to realize this, but the state IS a select few with special privilege and power. Leftists, in the case of gay rights or whatever minority you wish to consider, are trying to take control of this “special privilege and power” so that they may use it to satisfy their own ends. I submit that the “special privilege and power” should not exist in the first place. Nobody has the right to force a peaceful person to do something against their will.
—
“But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths.”
It is not your responsibility to forcibly stop people from acting in a foolish manner, so long as their actions have not harmed the life, liberty, or property of another. If a person has not violated the rights of another, then you have ZERO authority to impose your will on them. But perhaps the better response to this line is, what is government without wisdom and virtue? Has the state ever been wise or virtuous? Even Washington betrayed the principles of freedom for which he fought when he decided to use deadly force on those unwilling to give a cut of their whiskey sales to the all-holy government. The state is predicated on their ability to violate your rights. It is the only distinction between the state and any other group of people.
—
“True liberty is not the function of a mere lack of government. Liberty can only exist when the conditions of society are conducive towards it, and people’s mores, customs, and folkways are steeled against deconstructive tendencies; otherwise, freedom will eat itself and society degrades and falls, only to be replaced by something stable—not necessarily good or bad—but just stable.”
Well if this guy really prefers a fascist dictatorship to a representative democracy, he could have just said so. Because right now we have a society that has eaten itself, but it wasn’t due to lack of government, which he clearly thinks is not an option.
—
“To me this question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing. It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what cases is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete solution of the problems which such a history would offer.”
You don’t need a complete knowledge of history to understand the following:
1) Individual freedom is something you are born with. It is your natural state, a consequence of being human.
2) There are many things in life that must be done whether we like it or not, such as eating or sleeping. These are consequences of nature. When an individual of moral agency (ie any human) imposes their will on another, it is a violation of your individual freedom. This is a divergence from nature.
3) Because your humanity is what makes you free (ie you own yourself), any violation of your life, liberty, or justly acquired property is to violate your natural state, and is morally wrong.
However, if we do look at history, we see the states which have existed over the course of millennia have always resulted in failure. Politicians claim to have a “complete solution” to all of society’s problems, but really they are just trying to gain command of the guns of government, so that they may impose their preferences on others. The state is the opposite of virtuous.
—
“The private actions of two individuals in the privacy of a private bedroom in a private house, indeed, does not directly affect others in the 1st degree. Re-writing social norms, mores, and folkways, however, does unequivocally affect others by the tyrannical and conniving mutation of society, taking advantage of and abusing the natural tolerance of a society that has become so used to great liberty with the concomitant wisdom to choosevirtuously, in order to unintelligently design a utopia ex nihilo in vacuo that is antithetical and ablative of the very virtue and liberty that made such tolerance possible!”
And with this, we can conclude that the author has wasted his words and our time trying to justify the actions of those who would forcibly interfere with the peaceful interactions of others. This kind of authoritarian thinking is a mental disorder. People often wonder how Hitler was able to acquire the power that he did, and it is because of people like the author that enabled him to do so.
It would seem that you are fundamentally misunderstanding. You are assuming that I am arguing from “first principles” or suggesting that a chosen elite impose morality and what not. I do not imply that a “group of elite people” be put together; on the contrary, it is the concentration not just of power, but of authority, that is the destructive problem we face.
I argue that society is evolutionary. Beliefs and morals will either be conducive towards the success of society, or destructive thereof. A society where the norms favor the former are good and individuals, all and singular ought to support that; conversely, a society where new norms are being introduced as in the later case, ought to be opposed. What works and what doesn’t tends to sorted out by experience, and thus customs and traditions ought to be generally favored, unless you can pass the test of Chesterton’s fence. Society is always evolving, but it ought to be natural evolution, and not an act of intelligent design.
Burke states that “society is indeed a contract” in a non-literal sense, in contrast to the more Lockean argument. Rather than being “poorly thought out”, he is talking of society as a going concern where the bulk of custom, mores, and folkways act as a check on contemporary culture; by such, no one in contemporary society will have the predominant power; this, thus, preserves society for future generations.
Laws may not be a part of some noble savage ideal of nature, but mores, customs, and folkways have evolved in society and are part and parcel thereof. They either are conducive to the survival of society, or they are destructive theretowards.
It is ironic that you attack my disagreement of the elite few acting as intelligent designers, including using the power of government and other concentrations of power, as advocating what I have advocated against: The use of power, government or otherwise, to invent and impose a morality on others by a self-selected elite few.
A state, constrained by the customs, mores, and folkways of society, evolved and built up over countless ages, is not controlled by an elite few, but constrains those elite few, or even broad temporary majorities, by the weight of those customs, mores, and folkways.
One can only enjoy liberty is a society where such customs, mores, and folkways are conducive towards liberty. Social norms against destructive tendencies allow for the few to follow their destructive tendencies while preserving a society resilient enough to survive it. Destroy such customs, mores, and folkways, and society will not be stable, and will evolve into something stable. Most likely, such stability will have less freedom than we enjoy now. Thus, that strange confluence of the liberty to do what one wants, and the wisdom of most to choose well, is something to be preserved, particularly against those unintelligent designers who would destroy the good in the belief that they can impose the perfect, or that the perfect will spontaneously arise.
I oppose Fascism, and all other forms of collectivism, particularly those based on Hegelian dialectic. Pointing out that conditions conducive to liberty are required for there to be liberty, does not in any way, shape, or form suggest that a “fascist dictatorship” is preferred to a “representative democracy”.
Yes, individual liberty to say and do what you want, and to voluntarily collaborate with others to such ends, are indeed inherent and natural freedoms. The ability to exercise such freedom, however, is determined by the customs, mores, folkways-and yes-even laws of society. Hobbes was wrong on many things, but the default of humanity being “nasty, brutish, and short” was spot on; the idea that perfect liberty “in a state of nature” as touted by idjits like Rousseau via his “noble savage” ideal is delusional at best.
Rather that “justify the actions of those who would forcibly interfere with the peaceful interactions of others”, I promote ideals that are conducive towards the freedom of individuals to interact freely with free individuals.
This is not authoritarian. It is antithetical theretowards.
Do you believe in the necessity of the state?
First, you will be governed. You will either govern yourself, or others will govern you. This is not a principle of one side or another, but an immutable law. The only way to escape it is to be the top one governing – the king.
Second, why should not the <5% be "compelled by law to compromise the very … beliefs that inspire their lives"? Was not this the case in the past? The very mall minority of homosexuals were made to live as if they were not, in order to accommodate the ~85%. Somehow, now, the 85+% must follow this rule. This is not healthy for society.
(Yes, I know it's mainly a tactic and not a real belief for the progs.)
Third,
Extremely well-put.
Very well-written. I’ll have to remember to return here to read more.
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
All of this is well and good, but it ignores the change-over of generations.
Certain realities always come back to the surface: Children are empty vessels that you poor love into. Love is sacrificial. Parents have a fair shot at doing it, governments will fail every time (at raising children). The Power of government and sacrificial love are contradictory at a basic level.
So therefor, in a libertarian society, the government will stop raising children, and parents will make their own arrangements. I know, public schools will never go away, this is a thought experiment. In a libertarian society, licentious behaviour becomes common, but the next generation is no longer raised in a destructive manner. The end result is probably pretty “socially conservative”, even though freely chosen. That next generation will then encode in law their (true) beliefs in virtue and self-restraint. The libertarian society then only lasts for 1 to 2 generation.
That is, if it weren’t impossible to create in the first place.
Good stuff Hat, as usual. Certainly a better synopsis of liberty and the implicit Social Contract than you’re likely to find in any Intro to Political Theory course on most university campuses.
This was an excellent read and I really enjoyed the breakdown.
I hit a link on the Moron sidebar at AOSHQ and what a delight it was!
The spread of evil in a society is as cumulative as it is inexorable. What may not affect you immediately and directly TODAY surely will the longer and further it spreads. There’s no longer an ‘off the grid’ far enough to escape it. Just ask Randy Weaver.
I found my way to this post via a link in the ‘9/16/2016 – In The Mailbox’ post at TheOtherMcCain.com – compiled by my nearly lifelong friend (literally) Wombat-Socho.
This post has got to be the best explanation of the following quote:
Why is this true? Because a moral and religious people would be more likely to have the wisdom to responsibly husband the liberty that our Constitution provides, without becoming libertines. Without said wisdom…. well, recent headlines tell the story.
Thank you for your clear reasoning and eloquent arguments. They shall be useful for fighting the good fight to reclaim and and restore our Republic.
Pingback: Equity vs. Essentialism | The Political Hat
Pingback: Why The Alt-Right Doesn’t Get Conservatism | The Political Hat