May 31, 2006
Back To Balderdash
Is freedom a primary? What is the proof and evidence that freedom is a primary? What cause-effect relationships support such a position? What does history say on the matter?
If freedom is not a primary, what are the conditions for freedom? What is the proof and evidence of this? What cause-effect relationships support this position? What does history say on the matter?
In discussing a post on a discussion list that Nicholas Provenzo reads, he touches on the relationship of freedom to reason.
Now I know that some readers of this post will think themselves why is Provenzo minding the mindless. The thing is, I see this kind of debate-all vitriol and zero substance-from both the right and the left and I see it with increasing frequency. When I talk to the proverbial "man on the street," I rarely find thoughtfully constructed arguments in defense of one's position (regardless of whether I agree with it or not). Murphy could just as easily be arguing for the war and against the left; the actual position he takes is immaterial.Philosophy Posted by Cyrano at May 31, 2006 8:29 PMWhat is material is the clear inability to communicate rationally-to identify facts and present them to others in a structured presentation. And that's troubling to me-deeply so. Why? Because matters of life and death for the nation have to be discussed and debated-clearly, coolly and logically-or the nation and the freedoms it exists to protect won't stand.
Ma! They're trying to embroil me in a philosophical argument again!
"Birthright liberty" is the cornerstone of my belief system. Though its roots predate the US with John Locke and David Hume, I agree with Speaker Newt Gingrich that it defines us as Americans. Europeans, he contended in his infamous Pepperdine course, believe that God hands the power to the sovereign who bestows it on the people.
Americans, conversely, are endowed by their creator with the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hope my Radian buddies will join me in allowing interpretive latitude to "our creator," If you have to live under a single line, I cannot expect any better.
Posted by: jk at June 1, 2006 11:06 AMNo latitude required, JK, though there would have been had you written big "C" creator instead. :) I have two creators, and I even know their names and addresses!
Yes, individual liberty is indeed a birthright. (And I must also highlight by distinction that citizenship in the United States of America, and the right to vote in determination of the nation's future, is NOT a birthright unless the parents are citizens.)
But WHY? Without a reason to support your bold claim of "birthright liberty" it is nothing more than another dose of "all vitriol and zero substance." Can you articulate some justification for this "cornerstone" belief that integrates it with other ideas that are more universally accepted? (And no, the statistic that 97% of Americans believe in "some sort of" God doesn't count as a more universally accepted idea.)
This is a philosophical argument about the very basis of philosophy itself:
Epistemology (n) The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
It is true that America's founders gave us a strong philosophical and moral base upon which to build an enduring civilization of birthright liberty (if we can keep it.)But in the war of ideas, the epistemological failures of the public school system, under the influence of anti-reason advocates like John Dewey and the like, have very effectively disarmed the majority of Americans under the age of 40.
Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2006 3:06 PMI called it a belief and not a fact because it is not necessarily provable. I'm not a Benthamite and know you'll not sparkle at the allusion, but old Jeremy had a point in bifurcating things that could be known and proven versus those that could not. I am perfectly happy believing this without proof, and using this belief as a foundation for other beliefs.
Your talk of epistemology leads me to bring up one of my newfound heroes, Dr. Karl Popper. By Popperian epistemology, my belief in birthright liberty is a theory and as such can not be proven true. Until you introduce me to the person born without a right to liberty, I can continue to believe in it and use its predictive powers.
Posted by: jk at June 1, 2006 5:19 PMWell, you could also say, "someone's belief that liberty does not exist is a theory, and by Popperian epistemology, cannot be proven true. Until you introduce me to the person born with liberty, I can continue to believe people do not have liberty, and to use its predictive power."
Your statement and this one have exactly the same logical status. You cannot differentiate logically between the two, on your premises.
Where is "personal liberty," after all? I cannot see it. I cannot touch it. How can I find "personal liberty" in a new born? He cannot tell me he has it. Nor could an older uneducated "noble savage" tell me. I cannot see "personal liberty" in how the baby acts -- if I could, then dogs and cats and rats and roaches would have "personal liberty," too.
Why did Locke know he had to write two whole books, "Two Treatises of Government," to develop the concept of natural rights? Why could he not just say "that's the way it is, and if you cannot understand it, I can't explain it; you ain't gonna get it."
It's important to know what you believe and why you believe it.
Posted by: Cyrano at June 1, 2006 7:17 PMYour counter-case is certainly legitimate to propose as a theory. But as you said, just one free person proves it wrong. I suggest myself, or a member of the Yanomami tribe, or a lost child raised by wolves to prove birthright freedom exists.
What I don't get is the value of a proof. While we who agree on the benefits of freedom discuss its base nature, what color it is, and whether it looks good in a gray suit, others are attacking it. Islamic terrorists would take my life, statist politicians would take my liberty and a Congressional representative from my home state in my own chosen party seems rather bent on taking away my pursuit of happiness by sending away millions who contribute to my wealth.
Given that siege. I would as soon take it as self-evident and engage those who do not see its benefits.
Posted by: jk at June 2, 2006 10:13 AMAnd engage them, how?
If you can logically and rationally prove that you alone own your individual life and all of its products, then the person you engage with will either be convinced by your proof and agree with you (and engage with you further on other subjects or in trade and commerce) or will not be convinced and may someday pose a threat to your life and liberty. At that point you will likely deal with them only by force.
If you can't make a better case than, "it is self-evident" then, as Cyrano observes, he is equally justified in taking something completely different as self-evident. This is the essence of human history before the Renaissance, and was the epistemology that led to The Crusades. Those Crusades, it is worth noting, were never resolved with a victory of one self-evident belief system over the other (Christianity vs. Islam) but merely ended with a truce between kings. It is not far fetched to argue that the terror war we're now imbroiled in is a direct result of that unresolved conflict.
Does this give you any insight into the potential benefit of a proof?
Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2006 2:56 PMHey! Don't say I said it! I was using your Popperian ideas for the sake of debate, to show his ideas don't work. I could also get an Islamist, who says he is a slave to Allah (and who says every human being is a slave to Allah) and he would be a "counter case to prove your theory wrong."
OK...check mate...now what do you do?
If freedom were self-evident, why didn't ancient man see it? Why did it take millenia of cognitive, conceptual, theoretic development on the part of man to discover the idea of freedom? And why did it take centuries more before the idea could be consistently put into action?
Why did the concept of natural rights have to be developed before freedom could be instituted among men?
Posted by: Cyrano at June 2, 2006 11:44 PMBut it is self evident because it was not discovered nor created. The first humans born were born free (don't sing the song! Don't!). It is tyranny that was created, though I'll confess it probably didn't take long.
Posted by: jk at June 3, 2006 2:13 PMKarl Popper's ideas "don't work?" His initials were not A.R. so he is a big fat loser?
Posted by: jk at June 3, 2006 2:16 PMG.G. was not a big fat loser, but didn't have the initials A.R. Same with K.F.G. Same with I.N. (That's Galileo and Karl Friedrich Gauss and Isaac Newton.)
Posted by: Cyrano at June 3, 2006 6:25 PM | What do you think? [10]