Liberte

Liberty - freedom of action.  There are many different interpretations of liberty, with some going so far as to advocate Anarchism, the absence of any systematic restrictions on the actions of individuals.  Oddly enough, such an extreme seems to actually result in less freedom of action.  Without any laws, there is no assurance that any two individuals are interacting with at least a basic common set of norms.  Thus, a state of complete anarchy will be roughly synonymous with Thomas Hobbes' state of nature in which "every man is enemy to every man" and "wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them.  In such condition there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the Earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  It is a seemingly strange paradox that liberty depends, to some extent at least, upon the restrictions which society places upon the individual.

The challenge, then, is to determine to what extent liberty relies on restrictions.  A failure to determine the boundaries may inadvertently result in an unwarranted amount of restrictions and the strangling and death of liberty.  I submit, however, that there is no hard and fast rule which delineates the appropriate boundaries.  In fact, my talk of boundaries is misleading.  Rather, one must recognize the essential dependency of the one on the other.  Just as liberty depends upon law and order, law and order depend upon liberty.  Should the pendulum swing too far in the direction of restrictions, the populace will revolt.  I do not think that concerns over too much liberty (in such an instance, it might be better to call it simply license rather than liberty) or concerns over too much law (repression) will ever be settled.  Rather, one must constantly evaluate any given law (or even the general legal framework) to determine whether it increases or decreases the general liberty of society.

Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternite

Liberty, Equality, and Fellowship - ideals which are inextricably bound with the tradition of Liberalism, and therefore, to both the right and left of American politics.  As one can imagine, these principles are not always compatible and many attempts have been made to create a completely coherent system based upon them, with varying results.  By no stretch of the imagination do I take any particular interpretation as authoritative.  They are simply informative in the development of my own views regarding the matter.  Similarly, I do not expect others to take what I write regarding liberty, equality, and fellowship as in any way authoritative.  I do hope, however, that others find what I have to say to be informative, insightful, and helpful in the development of their own views.

The Political Spectrum in Modern America

I stated in my previous post that "the far right is... Statist," while "the far left is... Anarchist."  However, the right and left wings of modern American politics mix and match various elements from these two extremes. The distinction which I am drawing is that between the right and left of the general political spectrum and the right and left of modern American politics.  Modern American politics has a complex history, but I believe it is safe to say that, generally, the modern American political spectrum has its origins in what is a rather Leftist tradition - Liberalism.  Liberalism can be understood as a belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.  Accordingly, Liberals tend to support such things as constitutional government, democratic representation, natural (or human) rights, and various other liberties including free trade, free speech and freedom of religion.

The American left wing tends to stress civil liberties, but they balk at what was a hallmark of early, or Classical, Liberalism - freedom in economic relations.  The American left argues for economic regulation (and sometimes outright governmental orchestration) in an effort to achieve economic equality and general freedom (liberty) from wants, i.e., food, shelter, clothing.  The American right wing, on the other hand, tends to emphasize freedom in economic relations, sometimes in neglect and to the detriment of the indigent, while arguing for greater social controls in the interest of order and stability.  Indeed, without law, order, or stability, people cannot enjoy liberties but, rather, are restricted in the actions which are practically open to them.  Is either side "correct?"  Probably not.  However, I take great comfort in the knowledge that, despite the sometimes vitriolic rhetoric, both sides in American politics are grounded in the same respect for liberty and are therefore both striving to create a freer society.