Many times throughout the year and a half this club has been around, we have had some great discussions at great meetings. In order to fully appreciate and understand everything that was said, I would like to invite members to recap on what transpired in order to allow others who may have missed the meeting to hear what was discussed. I would encourage attendees to post their reactions and thoughts about meetings either in the comments or a separate post, to gather many sides and formulate an agreement.
During our last meeting, we briefly overviewed the philosophy of liberty. I opened with a short speech, outlining the three different aspects which are defined by John Locke, and consequently included in the US Constitution: Life, Liberty, Property. Here is my outline:
Introduction:A. Attention-Getter: Do you understand that everything single thing every human beings do on this planet is a result of an implied understanding of self-ownership?B. Thesis Statement: Based upon the ideas of John Locke, who indirectly contributed and laid the groundwork for modern free societies, realized that there are certain fundamental rights every person has simply for being alive.C. Relevance of Topic: We as people act, and do not act on certain things because we subconsciously recognize that we own ourselves, and other’s own themselves.D. Preview: There are 3 simple yet profound basic principles of self-ownership we assume: that being life, liberty, and the product of what we do with our life and our liberty.
Body:A. Life. We understand that we own our own lives.a. Because we are all equally human beings, there is not a single person on this planet that may be permitted to take my life through force.i. I cannot kill you, and you cannot kill me.ii. If I kill you, this implies that I have a higher claim of being a human than you do.Transition: Now that we recognize that we are alive and that everyone else owns their own lives, we must now be able to do something with it.B. Liberty. We understand that we own what we do with our lives.a. Because we own our lives, and everyone else owns their own lives, we can therefore recognize that we can do what we want with our life so long as it does not violate somebody else’s right to do what they want to do with their own life.i. I cannot enslave you, and you cannot enslave me.ii. If I enslave you, this implies that I have a higher claim of being human than you do.Transition: Now that we are alive, and that we are free to do what we want with our own lives so long as we recognize other’s lives, we show for it by acquiringC. Property. We understand that that we own what we do with our life and liberty.a. Because we own our life, and we own what we do with it, we can therefore recognize that we can own whatever is produced from our life and liberty, and that we cannot violate somebody else’s product of life and liberty.i. I cannot steal from you, and you cannot steal from me.ii. If I steal from you, or a group of people decide to steal from you, this implies that I have a higher claim over your life and your liberty.Transition: There is an additional fundamental relationship between these three basic principles.Conclusion:Brief Review of Main Points:A. If I take your life, if I kill you, I have just taken away your future.a. I have just taken away your future ability to enjoy your liberty and property. You cannot have liberty and property if you are dead.B. If I take your liberty, if I enslave you, I have just taken away your present.a. I have just taken away your present ability to use your life and your property. You cannot acquire property if you are enslaved.C. If I take you property, if I steal from you, I have just taken away your past.a. I have just taken away the past product of your life and your liberty. You cannot have both life and liberty if you do not have a means to acquire property.D. If you do not have all three of these principles, you cannot have any of them.Sense of Closure:A. This is the philosophy of self-ownership, but also the fundamentals of law. The law is designed to protect these basic principles… and this was the purpose of government. The next time you hear of a law or policy that is under consideration, I implore you to consider if it is going to violate either life, liberty, or property. If it violates any one of the three, it not only violates the other two, but also implies that some people have a higher claim at life over yours.B. Amendment V - “Congress shall make no law that may… deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
Afterward, we watched this cartoon, which summarizes the opening speech quite nicely (if I do say so myself):
Before entering the discussion phase, I read out of Bastiats' "The Law" when he described Property and Plunder, which I hoped would furhter engrain the importance of private property with respect to individual liberty:
Property and PlunderMan can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
In order to facilitate the discussion portion of the meeting, I wanted to illustrate that although the philosophy of liberty seems to be very quaint and simple, it becomes much more complicated when actually applied to the real world. This is a worksheet I passed out and allowed everyone to silently fill it out. While everyone was filling it out, I claimed that there are certain moral frameworks we take for granted when discussing liberty here in America, and I attempted to release ourselves from such constraints to see how fellow liberty thinkers deliberated on such situations.
Liberty: The quality or state of being free; the power to do as one pleases; freedom from physical restraint; freedom from arbitrary or despotic control; the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges; the power of choiceShould the individual have the liberty…• To burn tires in one’s backyard?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To torture one’s own dog?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To financially scam people?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To gamble away one’s money, effectively destroying his family financially?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To walk around naked?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To do drugs… around one’s children?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• Smack their children?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To have sex under the age of 16?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To euthanize someone else?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To secretly record another person, may it be audio or video?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To refuse education?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To spread lies about someone’s name?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To eat a human corpse?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5
Not a single person was able to reach a consensus, which is surprising considering we think alike on almost all issues.
Why is this? Is it because none of us have a strong understanding of the principles of self ownership and liberty? Or is it because we take a certain and highly varying untold moral and ethical code for granted when applying these simpler principles? A man who attended our meeting augmented the point and claimed that if an individual does not have responsibility to uphold his right to individualism, then it is the government's role to take responsibility for that individual in order to better society. This comment caused much rift in the group.
To conclude the discussion, I claimed that in order to have liberty, the individual must also have a guiding moral principle of love for one's neighbor and responsibility for one's self is in order for a truly free society to prosper.
In order for a society to be and remain free the citizens must be sufficiently moral and community-minded. That statement will offend most libertarians but the fact remains liberty presumes a moral people. An immoral people will eventually squander their liberty as a strong government will need to restrain them. A Hobbes-ist state of nature is not conducive to a functioning society.
- John Bambenek
Recap: Philosophy of Liberty
Many times throughout the year and a half this club has been around, we have had some great discussions at great meetings. In order to fully appreciate and understand everything that was said, I would like to invite members to recap on what transpired in order to allow others who may have missed the meeting to hear what was discussed. I would encourage attendees to post their reactions and thoughts about meetings either in the comments or a separate post, to gather many sides and formulate an agreement.
During our last meeting, we briefly overviewed the philosophy of liberty. I opened with a short speech, outlining the three different aspects which are defined by John Locke, and consequently included in the US Constitution: Life, Liberty, Property. Here is my outline:
Introduction:A. Attention-Getter: Do you understand that everything single thing every human beings do on this planet is a result of an implied understanding of self-ownership?B. Thesis Statement: Based upon the ideas of John Locke, who indirectly contributed and laid the groundwork for modern free societies, realized that there are certain fundamental rights every person has simply for being alive.C. Relevance of Topic: We as people act, and do not act on certain things because we subconsciously recognize that we own ourselves, and other’s own themselves.D. Preview: There are 3 simple yet profound basic principles of self-ownership we assume: that being life, liberty, and the product of what we do with our life and our liberty.
Body:A. Life. We understand that we own our own lives.a. Because we are all equally human beings, there is not a single person on this planet that may be permitted to take my life through force.i. I cannot kill you, and you cannot kill me.ii. If I kill you, this implies that I have a higher claim of being a human than you do.Transition: Now that we recognize that we are alive and that everyone else owns their own lives, we must now be able to do something with it.B. Liberty. We understand that we own what we do with our lives.a. Because we own our lives, and everyone else owns their own lives, we can therefore recognize that we can do what we want with our life so long as it does not violate somebody else’s right to do what they want to do with their own life.i. I cannot enslave you, and you cannot enslave me.ii. If I enslave you, this implies that I have a higher claim of being human than you do.Transition: Now that we are alive, and that we are free to do what we want with our own lives so long as we recognize other’s lives, we show for it by acquiringC. Property. We understand that that we own what we do with our life and liberty.a. Because we own our life, and we own what we do with it, we can therefore recognize that we can own whatever is produced from our life and liberty, and that we cannot violate somebody else’s product of life and liberty.i. I cannot steal from you, and you cannot steal from me.ii. If I steal from you, or a group of people decide to steal from you, this implies that I have a higher claim over your life and your liberty.Transition: There is an additional fundamental relationship between these three basic principles.Conclusion:Brief Review of Main Points:A. If I take your life, if I kill you, I have just taken away your future.a. I have just taken away your future ability to enjoy your liberty and property. You cannot have liberty and property if you are dead.B. If I take your liberty, if I enslave you, I have just taken away your present.a. I have just taken away your present ability to use your life and your property. You cannot acquire property if you are enslaved.C. If I take you property, if I steal from you, I have just taken away your past.a. I have just taken away the past product of your life and your liberty. You cannot have both life and liberty if you do not have a means to acquire property.D. If you do not have all three of these principles, you cannot have any of them.Sense of Closure:A. This is the philosophy of self-ownership, but also the fundamentals of law. The law is designed to protect these basic principles… and this was the purpose of government. The next time you hear of a law or policy that is under consideration, I implore you to consider if it is going to violate either life, liberty, or property. If it violates any one of the three, it not only violates the other two, but also implies that some people have a higher claim at life over yours.B. Amendment V - “Congress shall make no law that may… deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
Afterward, we watched this cartoon, which summarizes the opening speech quite nicely (if I do say so myself):
Before entering the discussion phase, I read out of Bastiats' "The Law" when he described Property and Plunder, which I hoped would furhter engrain the importance of private property with respect to individual liberty:
Property and PlunderMan can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
In order to facilitate the discussion portion of the meeting, I wanted to illustrate that although the philosophy of liberty seems to be very quaint and simple, it becomes much more complicated when actually applied to the real world. This is a worksheet I passed out and allowed everyone to silently fill it out. While everyone was filling it out, I claimed that there are certain moral frameworks we take for granted when discussing liberty here in America, and I attempted to release ourselves from such constraints to see how fellow liberty thinkers deliberated on such situations.
Liberty: The quality or state of being free; the power to do as one pleases; freedom from physical restraint; freedom from arbitrary or despotic control; the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges; the power of choiceShould the individual have the liberty…• To burn tires in one’s backyard?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To torture one’s own dog?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To financially scam people?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To gamble away one’s money, effectively destroying his family financially?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To walk around naked?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To do drugs… around one’s children?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• Smack their children?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To have sex under the age of 16?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To euthanize someone else?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To secretly record another person, may it be audio or video?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To refuse education?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To spread lies about someone’s name?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5• To eat a human corpse?NO MAYBE YES1 2 3 4 5
Not a single person was able to reach a consensus, which is surprising considering we think alike on almost all issues.
Why is this? Is it because none of us have a strong understanding of the principles of self ownership and liberty? Or is it because we take a certain and highly varying untold moral and ethical code for granted when applying these simpler principles? A man who attended our meeting augmented the point and claimed that if an individual does not have responsibility to uphold his right to individualism, then it is the government's role to take responsibility for that individual in order to better society. This comment caused much rift in the group.
To conclude the discussion, I claimed that in order to have liberty, the individual must also have a guiding moral principle of love for one's neighbor and responsibility for one's self is in order for a truly free society to prosper.
In order for a society to be and remain free the citizens must be sufficiently moral and community-minded. That statement will offend most libertarians but the fact remains liberty presumes a moral people. An immoral people will eventually squander their liberty as a strong government will need to restrain them. A Hobbes-ist state of nature is not conducive to a functioning society.
- John Bambenek
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
