Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On the Corruption of Liberty
Article V Blog ^ | April 24th 2017 | Rodney Dodsworth

Posted on 04/24/2017 2:29:44 AM PDT by Jacquerie

The meaning of words change over time, which presents problems to historians and patriots alike. Liberty, being so important to the American psyche, is one such word. With that in mind, hang on for a rocky read.

Few words conjure more and varied impressions than the word, ‘liberty.’ Long before the American Revolution, liberty was the means to overthrow a tyrant, or alternatively, of appointing a chieftain whom all were obliged to obey. In the 17th and 18th century, no other political ideal was invoked more often, but with less precision. As opposed to today, where many view liberty as nearly unrestrained freedom of action, Americans of the Founding Era came to associate liberty with republics, with representatives entrusted to make law on behalf of others.

What is Liberty? Is Liberty a God-given right to do as we wish?

Algernon Sidney, the 17th century opponent of Stuart tyranny wrote, “Liberty solely consists in an independency upon the Will of another.” Liberty appears to encompass perfect freedom to do as one wishes. But, Sidney recognized that those who enjoy liberty are within a society, and the circle of acceptable actions is subject to limitations. This rule of liberty, of doing what the law permits, was Charles de Montesquieu’s working definition. Here, within society, law isn’t limited to man-made statutes, but includes the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Statutes are ‘just’ when they do not violate God’s higher laws.

So, liberty isn’t license, of doing that which violates the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Can the context of liberty from Sidney and Montesquieu be that of our Founders, who wrote of God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: articlev; constitution; liberty

1 posted on 04/24/2017 2:29:45 AM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I have studied this issue for quite a while.

Liberty:
Freedom from restraint
No compelled performance

It is inevitably tied to the common law, because without true law, liberty doesn’t mean anything.


2 posted on 04/24/2017 2:37:18 AM PDT by djf ("She wore a raspberry beret, the kind you find in a second hand store..." - Prince)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

At the time of the founding of the nation, freedom meant not being harassed by the King’s tax collectors.


3 posted on 04/24/2017 2:39:00 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
"No compelled performance"

That's the only definition that doesn't create logical contradictions.

The right to property, to liberty or even to life itself cannot rightfully be transmuted into any right to make others your unwilling slaves. Valid rights can do no more than keep others out of your affairs; they cannot conscript others into your army.

If we "owe" society for all the good deeds performed without our consent to pay for them, then we must also "owe" society for all the bad deeds done without our consent or approval. That would make us guilty for every theft, every vandalism, every rape, every murder and every genocide, just because we are members of the society or community.

Transitive debt also entails transitive guilt. One fully and ineluctably requires the other. But such a theory of transitive responsibility (whether blame or credit) has no social utility. And it would create logical contradictions. And a logical contradiction is an absolute falsification. Fortunately, that's not how the ethical algebra works:

We don't owe "the community" anything just because we live in it, because debts can only accrue because the debtor has agreed to them or because the debtor violated someone's rights. But if all of a person's interactions with others are consensual, and all contractual obligations are met, then there is no residual debt to anyone, and therefore no debt to the community as a whole.

At most, a person living in a community (or in a society) would owe specific people the remaining balance on any loans and/or for any violations of rights that had occurred. But even if that's the case, owing finite amounts to specific people is not any sort of debt to "the community" (or to society.)

Society (or the community) has no just claim to some percentage of our property or our profits just because we live in it and do business with others who also live in it. If doing business with others gave those others a residual claim against a person's property or profits that remained after the person had transacted with them as agreed, it would not be society who had any such claim, but rather those specific individuals.

Transactions only give the counter-parties those rights and obligations that are specifically agreed to by the parties. If you don't agree that having bought eggs from the grocery store at an agreed price also (without any such statement in the agreement) gives the grocer a claim on your income, then no such claim is ethically valid.

Bottom line: We each own ourselves, and so own our labor. We don't owe anyone else anything just because we exist, or just because we perform work, or just because we exchange goods and services with others who agree to make those exchanges with us.

Others do not own you because you are of the same species, live in the same locale, speak the same language, or exchange goods and services with them by mutual consent.

4 posted on 04/24/2017 2:45:25 AM PDT by sourcery (Non Acquiescit: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Forcing healthy people to buy health insurance at ridiculous rates so the insurance companies can cover people that can work but don’t is not liberty.

Liberty is dead in America.

It’s been dead for a long time.


5 posted on 04/24/2017 3:09:52 AM PDT by FreedomStar3028 (Somebody has to step forward and do what is right because it is right, otherwise no one will follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

“Give me Liberty or give me death.”

It also means self-government.


6 posted on 04/24/2017 3:23:11 AM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Very nicely and clearly stated. Thank you.


7 posted on 04/24/2017 3:28:02 AM PDT by Pecos (Actual justice must be defended against the newspeak of social justice crybullies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All

Post; thread BUMP


8 posted on 04/24/2017 5:12:59 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Liberty is given (endowed) by our creator . .
Freedoms are granted by government, and has been the preferred term since the Civil War.


9 posted on 04/24/2017 5:32:11 AM PDT by impactplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

:: within society, law isn’t limited to man-made statutes, but includes the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Statutes are ‘just’ when they do not violate God’s higher laws ::

Liberty is Freedom of Conscience; human ^desire^, not human will. [Ref. Book of Concord 1580].

Those who desire liberty are rightly called, liberals.


10 posted on 04/24/2017 5:39:10 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (When will we hear of a shooting where the gunman shouts 'YHWH is Great"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Liberty is commonly used in many different ways to mean many different things. But two of the most common are:

Collectivist Liberty... This is most often seen in liberation movements... The Black Liberation Movement BLM which recently repackaged itself as Black Lives Matter but is the same movement. It repackaged itself because it is thought that lives now matter more than liberation. In other words, lives in slavery matter more than liberty.

But Collectivist Liberty movements can be seen all over the world.

Individual Liberty is another common usage of Liberty. Its extreme can be found in Libertarians. Most Americans who believe in individual Liberty are cafeteria libertarians. They oppose other people taking away their liberty.

But they don’t mind taking away other people’s liberty in some specific part of society. They are against Medicaid but for VA Hospitals which are a lot more Socialist/ Collectivist than Medicaid.

Or pick your issue.


11 posted on 04/24/2017 6:05:56 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impactplayer; Cletus.D.Yokel; spintreebob

I appreciate you all for taking the time to compose such thoughtful posts.

If only more Americans spent more time noodling first principles.


12 posted on 04/24/2017 11:57:57 AM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson