Originally posted by TeinosukeSpeaking in his time and circumstances, of course.
"Thank God I am not free, any more than a rooted tree is free."
Does anyone think that Lawrence had a point?
What values might be more important than freedom? To what extent should we be grateful to be "rooted"?
The traditional dilemma is finding the best balance between freedom and security. But here is one voice that claims it is a false choice foisted by government.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-ceo-press-freedom-v-security-false-choice-201258573.html
Ben Franklin said that those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Originally posted by JS357Very pithy comment by Franklin.
Ben Franklin said that those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Now tell that to someone that's been raised in fear of having their lives snuffed out by anyone that comes along and see how much they would value freedom over security.
Originally posted by JS357But I don't think that Lawrence was interested in "the balance between liberty and security". If anything, he's saying that freedom is illusory; if we think we free, we're wrong. If you pull a tree out of the soil, it dies. Lawrence isn't making a political statement, so much as saying that the human condition is unfree. Of course, this might have certain possible political implications, but probably not the ones that Ben Franklin was thinking about.
Speaking in his time and circumstances, of course.
The traditional dilemma is finding the best balance between freedom and security. But here is one voice that claims it is a false choice foisted by government.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-ceo-press-freedom-v-security-false-choice-201258573.html
Ben Franklin said that those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Originally posted by TeinosukeTruisms yet operative: freedom without authority is anarchy; authority without freedom is oppression. Lawrence appears to value stability factors as well as citizens learning to accept restraints, becoming easy in the harness of principled law.
"Thank God I am not free, any more than a rooted tree is free."
Does anyone think that Lawrence had a point?
What values might be more important than freedom? To what extent should we be grateful to be "rooted"?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyFrom your exposition, it sounds as if Lawrence would have got on with the founding fathers - you make him seem like an eighteenth-century liberal. But isn't Lawrence really advocating something more like a kind of Amish-style social organisation - "rooted" in the community of one's birth, conditioned to its values and norms? I don't see any evidence in Lawrence's words that he's pointing to the necessary pragmatic limitations on freedom - his formulation seems the opposite of pragmatic - he says "Thank God I'm not free"! For Lawrence, it seems that "free" means "deracinated", and his ideal is, in that sense, anti-liberal.
Truisms yet operative: freedom without authority is anarchy; authority without freedom is oppression. Lawrence appears to value stability factors as well as citizens learning to accept restraints, becoming easy in the harness of principled law.
Originally posted by TeinosukeFreedom is very much a good thing. My case rests on the fact that progressive taxation places very, very little imposition on the personal freedoms of the rich, and their ability to live a rich lifestyle. The rich lived just fine in the 1950s, with a top marginal tax rate of 90% and 91% (I forget which way around it was) for the rich and corporations. For another thing, the rich get most of their wealth from inheritance (first and foremost) and capital gains.
"Thank God I am not free, any more than a rooted tree is free."
Does anyone think that Lawrence had a point?
What values might be more important than freedom? To what extent should we be grateful to be "rooted"?
There's scope for discussion about other abstract values besides freedom, but progressive economic beliefs don't depend on it. We're best to instead challenge Reagan's deceitful propaganda that freedom depends on fiscal conservatism.
1 edit
Originally posted by karnachzSays freedom is a good thing.
Freedom is very much a good thing. My case rests on the fact that progressive taxation places very, very little imposition on the personal freedoms of the rich, and their ability to live a rich lifestyle. The rich lived just fine in the 1950s, with a top marginal tax rate of 90% and 91% (I forget which way around it was) for the rich and corporations. For a ...[text shortened]... to instead challenge Reagan's deceitful propaganda that freedom depends on fiscal conservatism.
Doesn't know what freedom means.
Thinks forcing your ideals on unwilling citizens is freedom, oh dear.
Originally posted by TeinosukeFreedom is most important to those who feel secure.
"Thank God I am not free, any more than a rooted tree is free."
Does anyone think that Lawrence had a point?
What values might be more important than freedom? To what extent should we be grateful to be "rooted"?
Security is most important to those who feel free, but insecure.
The dilemma is as old as humanity, but security over most of time has been the preference, although often it has been surreal.
I think Ben Franklin had it about right, in that real freedom has to include security, and real security has to include freedom.
Originally posted by Teinosuke"If anything, he's saying that freedom is illusory; if we think we free, we're wrong."
But I don't think that Lawrence was interested in "the balance between liberty and security". If anything, he's saying that freedom is illusory; if we think we free, we're wrong. If you pull a tree out of the soil, it dies. Lawrence isn't making a political statement, so much as saying that the human condition is unfree. Of course, this might have certain possible political implications, but probably not the ones that Ben Franklin was thinking about.
Could the opposite also be true, that formulation would be "that security is illusory; if we think we are secure, we're wrong."
"Lawrence isn't making a political statement, so much as saying that the human condition is unfree."
That always comes down to a political reality. Accepting some kind of government for common defense, which may or may not be adequate. Depending on authority for protection against criminal acts, which sometimes are just and sometimes not. Humans are not trees, any more than other animals are. Security for most species is desirable, but illusory, as is freedom. Freedom is most to be desired, and first to suffer in a crisis of security.
Originally posted by karnachzI don't quite know how you got sidetracked onto progressive taxation, or the source of most wealth.
Freedom is very much a good thing. My case rests on the fact that progressive taxation places very, very little imposition on the personal freedoms of the rich, and their ability to live a rich lifestyle. The rich lived just fine in the 1950s, with a top marginal tax rate of 90% and 91% (I forget which way around it was) for the rich and corporations. For a ...[text shortened]... to instead challenge Reagan's deceitful propaganda that freedom depends on fiscal conservatism.
You've got both wrong. The rates of 90% marginal tax rates are somewhat deceptive. Hardly anyone paid those rates, due to shelters which existed to reduce gross taxable income. Think on a personal level for a moment. If after a particular level of income, that even 75% was to be taken in taxes, what incentive would there be for you to continue working at that point? It really doesn't matter what you earn as wages, if three fourths were taken away, would you continue to work? The simple answer is no, and that is just as true of high or low earners. If the work isn't worth doing, you stop. Tax shelters were invented to keep high earners doing what they do, working and producing, which by the way is where most wealth comes from. Inherited wealth has a habit of being squandered pretty quickly. Most winners of multimillion $ lotteries are broke ten years later. Why? Simply because preservation of money involves the same principles as earning it in the first place. People who inherit or win money in lotteries are predisposed to pissing it away, much as government does when it gets unearned billions of $ from the rich.
Originally posted by TeinosukeWhen Lawrence thanks god that he is not free, he is saying that the Libertarian ideal of the wholly autonomous 'homo economicus' is a fiction. People are social creatures, born into pre-existing societies, with mores and rules which they had no part in shaping, which both condition their development and place boundaries on their scope for possible action. This condition comes ready made with a host of social obligations, both toward society and toward other individuals, that each individual is expected to observe. It is the recognition that man is inter-dependent with society and that he can no more be examined in isolation than a tree can be from the soil in which it is rooted.
From your exposition, it sounds as if Lawrence would have got on with the founding fathers - you make him seem like an eighteenth-century liberal. But isn't Lawrence really advocating something more like a kind of Amish-style social organisation - "rooted" in the community of one's birth, conditioned to its values and norms? I don't see any evidence in Law ...[text shortened]... wrence, it seems that "free" means "deracinated", and his ideal is, in that sense, anti-liberal.
The entire Libertarian notion of 'freedom' is predicated upon absolving oneself of any such social bonds and obligations. It is the childish attempt to renounce any sense of social inter-dependency by atomizing and isolating individuals into the model of their wholly self-centered 'homo economicus'. Indeed, people like Margaret Thatcher may even go so far as to claim that there is "No such thing as society. That there are only individuals." For Lawrence, such a "freedom" is not worth the terrible cost it would exact upon mankind.
Originally posted by rwingettBut the atrocities of history, are not committed by anarchist libertarians, but by governments committing murder, genocide, and torture on their own people.
When Lawrence thanks god that he is not free, he is saying that the Libertarian ideal of the wholly autonomous 'homo economicus' is a fiction. People are social creatures, born into pre-existing societies, with mores and rules which they had no part in shaping, which both condition their development and place boundaries on their scope for possible action. T ...[text shortened]... als." For Lawrence, such a "freedom" is not worth the terrible cost it would exact upon mankind.
History is replete with positive examples of how liberty has led in civilizing humans, in aiding the to social cooperation without coercion.
Originally posted by normbenign'Freedom' and 'liberty' are not absolute terms. Lawrence, in my opinion, is not reacting against 'freedom' itself, but against a certain conception of freedom. A Libertarian conception of freedom, which, by atomizing mankind, has the effect of increasing freedom only in theory, while reducing it in practice.
But the atrocities of history, are not committed by anarchist libertarians, but by governments committing murder, genocide, and torture on their own people.
History is replete with positive examples of how liberty has led in civilizing humans, in aiding the to social cooperation without coercion.