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.

Reflections on the Political Spectrum

The political spectrum of Right versus Left that we know today seems to have begun with the various revolutions against absolute monarchies in Europe. Those on the "Right" supported the Monarch while those on the "Left" fought to replace the institution of Royal Families with something new, though what exactly that might be was often left vague and ill-defined. One thing was certain for the Left: political power had to be wrested from the hands of a ruling elite and distributed more equitably. Over the years, political reforms have continued to arise, pushing the boundaries of the "Left" further along, while what was once "Leftist" and "revolutionary" became enveloped by the "Right." Under this depiction of the political spectrum, the far right is often understood as being "Statist" - in favor of political involvement in everything which might concern the community. The monarch is no longer absolute, but the State is, and if the State were governed by a monarch, why then, the monarch ought to be absolute. On the other hand, the far left is often understood as "Anarchist" - in favor of the abolition of all forms of government because they are inherently unequal and those in power necessarily exercise tyranny over their fellow citizens. If this results in chaos, so be it. However, in somewhat of a defense of Anarchism, one might argue that chaos will not necessarily ensue, but rather a "natural," "harmonious," and truly "equitable" political organization will arise - a sort of Laissez-Politique.  Unfortunately for Anarchists, such a Laissez-Politique contains too many inherent problems to allow it to be a palatable political theory.

The Conservative Illuminare

Conservatism, like Liberalism (and probably like many -isms), can be understood in a variety of ways. One form of Conservatism is to simply maintain the status quo... regardless of what that might be. These kinds of Conservatives are often those who benefit directly in some way from the current system or those who, through some sort of misguided sense of loyalty, act against their own interests. For such, I have little regard. If it were up to people of this ilk, humanity would never have left the hunter-gatherer stage, and despite the idealization of that form of social organization by some anthropologists, such a life holds no appeal to me.

Another form of Conservatism is to maintain the status quo, or at least some elements of the status quo, not necessarily because one benefits directly from it nor because of a sense of loyalty to it, but because of the conviction that such elements as one wishes to preserve are the best available options in the interest of the community, and through the community to the self. Such Conservatives wish to recognize and preserve the good done by their forefathers and to improve upon their efforts - to do away with "evil" traditions. These Conservatives are, therefore, quite willing to engage in efforts at reform, but not simply for the sake of tearing down existing hierarchies. They must be convinced of the merits of any proposed reform and shown that such a reform improves, or is highly likely to improve, upon the existing system. I am such a Conservative, and it is to such an effort of engaging public policy that this site is primarily dedicated.