One quick caveat before I begin: I am not trying to describe how the two words are commonly used, nor am I attempting to prescribe how they should be used by all people in all contexts. Instead, I aim to distinguish two importantly different concepts and am appropriating the use of the terms “liberty” and “freedom” as designators so as to be clear when I am talking about the one concept and when the other. So in the context of this discussion, I will try to be clear as to what I mean by the two terms, while understanding that in much common use, they are used interchangeably. That being said, get ready for a long, but hopefully relevant post…
Freedom is the less nuanced term, in my mind, and to me simply means lack of restraint. I have the freedom to do anything that physics and biology will allow me to do. Freedom is value neutral in that its meaning is tied to a given potential action, which itself may be considered laudable, unacceptable or irrelevant. Unlike liberty (which we will get to in a moment) a person’s freedom is not related (except in a physical sense) to what other people think, do, and expect. I have the freedom to run about chopping people’s heads off (until I am restrained), but I certainly do not have the liberty to do so (in most countries). I would argue that we only want to spread freedom around the world insofar as we mean freedom from various constraining situations (like dictatorship, extreme poverty, disease, oppression etc). Deposing Saddam Hussein freed the Iraqis from many nasty circumstances, but it did not give them liberty (yet).
To me, there are two related distinguishing features of liberty. The first is that liberty derives its meaning from a social context and has no meaning outside of that context. The second is that liberty implies not just a permitted action or class of actions, but a related responsibility in exercising that liberty. The concept of liberty requires some power (which I will call the “governing power”) with the authority to grant that liberty, be it a king or a constitution and code of laws. In effect, (and this is taken from social contract theory) individuals in a society have given up all of their freedom and immediately received much of it back in the form of liberties, which are essentially writs of discretion covering certain sorts of actions. There is also an understanding, however, that this discretion (ie. in what one says, or in whether one keeps and bears arms) is granted with the expectation that it will be used with a certain awareness of the reasons for which it was granted. In other words, unlike the unbridled freedom of action that we assume everyone would have in a world with no society, liberties come with a covenant of trust from the governing power that grants them. In the case of a monarchy, the king could easily strip away a given (as in given by the king, to the subject) liberty if he felt it had been abused, just as people in America who commit certain crimes are stripped by law of their liberty to go where they please, to vote, and, in some cases, to live. Modern liberal societies are based on this implied trust in the responsible use of the discretion which liberty grants. Underlying all this is the idea that one has liberties because they have been granted to you by the governing power, and that your entitlement to them is, in an important sense, contingent on your acting in good standing with the power that granted them (in a democracy, this power is assumed to rest ultimately with the people, thus giving it a an additional sense of legitimacy in many people’s eyes).
Of course, many people hold to a philosophy that there are certain liberties granted us by God (or by virtue of our humanity, ie, Human Rights, if you want to cast it in a secular manner). But arguments of this sort are all normative, or prescriptive, which is to say, we may use these supposed universal liberties as grounds for criticizing the way in which certain governments are run, or for calls for reform, but ultimately there is no practical way to “appeal to God” and have him come down and enforce those supposed liberties. Thus these sorts of liberties, if we can call them that, are of a different sort than those granted by a government (which is defined precisely by its monopoly on the means to enforcing those liberties).
Of course, if liberty were merely a set of conditional discretions, with the constant threat of retraction by the power that granted them, they would be a pretty bad deal. Also implicit in a liberty is a protection from certain consequences of wielding that discretion. Thus, the governing power expects me to use my granted liberty responsibly, but also guarantees that I will not be punished by other members of society for doing so (and provides recourse (usually legal) if I am). Thus, we trade a free system (or state of nature for all you hobbsians out there) in which the only constraints on us are physical, but in which one is essentially on one’s own, for a system based on trust in which the members of society convert their pure freedom into a set of liberties granted by an agreed on (or de facto, in the case of kings and dictators) governing power.
So given this understanding of liberty, a liberal society is one which errs on the side of granting greater liberties to its members. There may be no clear boundary, as even in a theoretical state governed by Islamic law, one has liberties (just not about certain things and not to the same extent as in most western states). Every orderly and enduring society excludes certain things from the liberties it grants (short of capital punishment and self defense, it is difficult to find many functioning societies that grant people liberty in killing). So perhaps the recent row over blasphemous cartoons comes down to an argument over which things people can be trusted deciding for themselves (radical Islam says religion doesn’t fall into this category, western liberalism disagrees… with guns). Wittgenstein (wondering when he was going to show up?) said the following in On Certainty:
612: Where two principals really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic.
613: ... At the end of reasons comes persuasion (think what happens when missionaries convert natives)
Are we at such an impasse with absolutist religions and secular liberalism? Are we at the point where only persuasion (not argument) of one kind or another will bring people round to our view? And if people will not be persuaded? What then?
It is my hope that many of you will disagree with all or parts of what I say, so please comment liberally.
posted by Chris @ 3:31 PM
15 Comments:
The quote I used was with respect to individuals and to give it better context, Wittgenstein was pointing out that at a certain point, we are no longer able to give reasons (from within our worldview) but fall back on an attempt (which is often unsucessful) to persuade people to accept our framework.
As for dealing with illiberal states, history has shown that the prime impetus for liberalization of a society must come from within (ie from the members)or there is no hope whatsoever of change. External pressure, whether economic, diplomatic, or military, can sometimes provide help or hinderance, but an internal desire for greater liberty is always a necessary condition of liberalization. States are made up of people, even if they do not act as a single person might. In this sense, they can still be persuaded, but the pressures to which they respond are different. Again, persuading (and again, I do not say "reasoning with", although for some reason can be persuasive, given that they have a compatible enough worldview torecognize your reasons as such) a state to move across that gulf to a place where they understand (even if they do not accept or agree with) your reasons can only really be accomplished when you persuade much of that state's population to accept your system of reasoning. That is why the continued republication of the cartoons by European newspapers is so idiotic. The debate, as many have pointed out, is not a debate, since the two sides are not speaking the same language. The arguments made by the papers in favor of free speech are not even seen as arguments by the Muslims who are taking offense. Before there can be a discussion of the sort that the papers claim they want, they must first persuade Muslims to accept the rules of their argument system. And judging from the news in recent days, I'd say they are failing miserably.
I do have arguments with your definition of "liberty," and I think my points pertain directly to our problems with religious extremism.
To wit:
"Of course, many people hold to a philosophy that there are certain liberties granted us by God (or by virtue of our humanity, ie, Human Rights, if you want to cast it in a secular manner).... but ultimately there is no practical way to 'appeal to God' and have him come down and enforce those supposed liberties."
I think this misstates the case when it comes to God-derived liberties. It's not as though believers think that God has some 'goodie list' of liberties that is given, free of charge, which can be appealed to without warrant.
Our Enlightenment understanding of liberty - the ethos used in the founding of America - holds that each individual has the right of religious conscience. This idea was not pioneered in some fit of amoral atheism, either; it was agreed upon that morality would be better inculcated if each could follow the dictates of his own religion. But morality was still sought after: read the language of the founders, and see that they view morality as indispensable to a Republic.
That seems to me to be an admission that the state and its laws alone are not sufficient to shape society, and that only a 'higher power' (as it were) can compel the individual. So the absence of state intrusion and a regime of 'negative liberty' is in place.
But this does not preclude a religious organization from holding its members to a higher moral standard with far less 'liberty.' For example, would an Orthodox Jewish community have the 'liberty' to eat pork and drive on the Sabbath?
The more austere and fundamentalist versions of faith are, by their nature, absolutist. The idea that being a 'slave of God' frees you from slavery to earthly things is a common one. Membership in a community of believers is therefore to be prized much higher than membership in a nation-state.
This can be quite a liberating feeling - one feels part of something larger than mundane society, as well as a kinship with people across space and time.
But it doesn't mean God liberates the believer from adherence to any code whatsoever. God's liberties are only one half of the contract, and the other is obedience to the divine will.
So when an appeal to God is made for the state to allow a particular liberty, what is really being asked is "I think this liberty is vital to my ability to follow God's higher law, please allow me this right." This right may actually lead to the individual's behavior being MORE rigid and codified.
This is why appeals for marriage liberty make no sense to some: the petitioners are asking for the liberty to engage in 'sinful' behavior.
So that brings us to the ummah. Whether or not a state has the right to free speech is immaterial, because the putative (fundamentalist) universal Islamic society does not allow the Prophet to be mocked. Since the society is universal, all should adhere to this rule. Blasphemous speech, then, is not a liberty, but a violation of a divine rule.
Without some guidance (divine or otherwise), all liberty is licentious and hell-bearing. Secular Europe is viewed as licentious, as its legal rights have not led to personal piety but variant forms of sinful materialism.
That is what we are up against. If there are rights, there must be responsibilities.
So rather than stressing the 'inherentness' of our rights, we should focus on the pious outcomes offered by a regime of legal liberty. That is, if we do want to have that discussion with the Islamic world mentioned above.
Well here's the problem. If we can't agree on the higher power, we can't really agree on what's pious or sinful, now can we?
For instance, I wouldn't call myself materialistic, but anyone else on this site could assure you that I have my hedonistic moments. Why is this bad? Because it's a life centered around something other than God. Why is that bad? Because it's Godless. And why is that bad? Because it's godless. Ad infinitum.
I for one am a fan of the secular european licentiousness, particularly over the (usually) hypocritical piety shown on our shores. I've nothing against the genuinely faithful, but the system Tac is talking about is the reason we have the powers that be taking communion with one hand and bribes with the other. It hasn't done any better than the secularism, but at least we can be self righteous when it fails. Had to get that off of my chest.
Anyway, Soc... You can claim that a liberal society is the only kind you can recognize, presumably because it's the best, but we haven't agreed on what the aim of the society is. If it is to survive and thrive in an increasingly global community, then yes, liberal societies are best. However, if the goal is to create a worldwide holy land for Allah, the best suited society mind need to be a little more single-minded. And if the point is to set the stage in Israel for a rapturous apocalypse, a different society might be needed altogether. Now, if we can get Europe, The Middle East, and Bush/Robertson to all agree on what our aims are, then we might have a shot at agreeing on our methods. Until then, I agree with you, Soc. But that doesn't solve the problem.
I'll keep this short.
1) I was certainly not proposing a theocracy here in America, just to clear that up. I was saying that a libertarian secular legal culture need not create a totally secular society.
2) Do we want to convince the ummah and the Body of Christ that liberalism is best? Then let's not say how its goal is to inculcate secular licentiousness!
3) But we still haven't agreed that the 'liberalism' that is apparently so wonderful for a globalized world is an international order between and among states or a matter of domestic policy. Do we want all states to respect each other's legal cultures, or do we want all states to have the same legal culture?
To it back a bit from how this relates to Islam and the West, I'd like to talk about military conscription.
I bring this up because at yesterday's protest, the wingnuts were raging about the draft and how it was a threat to our civil liberties.
Barring the obvious (there is currently no draft), how does conscription square with our concepts of liberty?
It should surprise none of you that I think a government is completely justified in drafting its citizens, as long as the rule of law is followed in so doing. Conscientious objection is also completely justified on the same basis.
The arguments put forth yesterday against the draft, namely "it's your body!" only hold weight if we're taking about what Socratic would call "the state of nature." If you don't want to have anything to do with society in the least, by all means, it is entirely 'your body.'
But these protestors - who clearly benefit from the public goods of infrastructure, education, and police, to name a few - seem to me to be part of American society. Therefore some reciprocal arragement with the government is surely within the bounds of legality.
Thoughts?
Aside from the fact that's it's not just your body, but your life and free will as well, pardon me for saying that I doubt you'd be in favor of the draft if you weren't in favor of our current military conflict. I may be misreading that, but you can't make a case for a draft in a representative society. If the military can't get enough volunteers to serve it's goals, then it's goals do not have the support of the citizenry, plain and simple. Therefor, those goals are not the will of the citrizenry, and should be reconsidered. Being forced into serving in battle is not not the occasional result of living in society, but the result of living under rule, but perhaps that difference is for another thread.
For the record, while I think our involvement in Iraq has been clumsy at times, I do remain in favor of the project to oust Saddam and create a representative government in the country.
As for your comment that my support for the draft is predicated on my support for the current conflict (and my desire to see higher troop levels), you are incorrect. I also support peacetime conscription.
I think you're drawing a false dichotomy between the military and society, and this dichotomy has been made more popular by the lack of conscription.
For example, you say "its goals" when referring to the military, as though the military and the Republic were two separate things. You say "its goals do not have the support of the citizenry."
I, on the other hand, believe in the rule of law. Congress is granted the power to raise and support armies, as well as authorize their use by the executive. That's pretty clear, and it's part of "the deal" of being an American citizen and living under the rule (yes, the rule!) of law. If you feel that certain laws shouldn't apply to you for various reasons, by all means work to have them changed or disobey them and suffer the legal sanction.
If Congress has voted for something, we must assume it has the support of the people. If it doesn't, well, we can get new representatives, can't we?
First, the rule of law has no instated draft at moment, and isn't likely to any time soon, because we've seen what a disaster the draft is to both our military endeavors and our national morale and faith in good government.
Secondly, if the goals of the military and the goals of the citizenry are the same, and their's no dichotomy between them, then the need for a draft becomes obsolete - the peoiple will stand up and fight for their cause. What a draft accomplishes is allowing chickenhawks to fight without physical consequence or public approval affecting troop levels. Now, this second point may have an abstract benefit, but it does at the cost of feeding into this culture of leaders treating their people as dispensible fodder for their own ends. What you're talking about - and certainly the situation we would be in if the draft were reinstated - would not be 'rule of law" in the romantic sense you're imagining, but "rule of rule," in the ugly, realistic sense. But even if it is rule of law, let me give you a thought expiriment.
Suppose in twenty years, the U.S., led by a supremely radical leftist, regognizes population control to be the number one priority, and institutes a rule of law like in China today. Now, those with the resources and political connections could find their loopholes through this law, but most would be subject to the forced abortions we only now have in Saipan. However, as this is rule of law, it applies to the 'Zero Population Growth" movement as well as the Pro-life movement. But if the pro-lifers don't like it, they can go live in the woods for another four years or however long it takes to change the policy. Killing your second born is just the cost of living in society, after all.
A free society is based on the ideal that the citizens own the state. Wingnut liberal and Neoconservative ideals, each in their own way, require that the State act as if it owns the citizens. This is not, and will never be free. It will only be fachism. The death poenalty, the draft, and any number of other social constraints are the mars of fachism, which will never be free, no metter how many elections are held within that system.
"...because we've seen what a disaster the draft is to both our military endeavors and our national morale and faith in good government."
Yeah, all we ever did with a conscript army was save the Union, free the slaves, and defeat Germany (twice!). It's obviously a completely ineffective tool, that draft.
All snarkiness aside, let me ask this broader question to the group: what obligations does an individual, as a citizen, have to the state? How are those obligations determined?
I may be missing it, but how was the emancipation proclamation a miitary matter?
As for what obligations we owe our governments, I think the first question must be what the goal of our government is. The U.S., for instance, differs heavily from Canada in that Canada aims to provide for it's citizens, and not much else, while the U.S.'s self proclaimed role as the world's policemanis much more overreaching, bordering on hubristic, thus the U.S. demands much more of its citizens. That does NOT mean, however, that those are obligations. Ideally, in a free society, the only obligations to the government would be taxes and participation, including civil disobediance with the willingness to pay the penalty when neccesary. The citizen should not be required to pledge to die in the king's service.
The Emancipation Proclamation was very much a military matter, seeing as we had to defeat the Confederacy to make it a functioning document.
Lincoln waited until the victory at Antietam to publish it, too.
Second thought:
What does "provide for its citizens" mean?
The Emancipation Proclamation was an afterthought of a document - important, but already understood to be inevitable at the time. Sure there were those who were against it, but it was clear that slavery was coming to an end. Just in case your high school didn't cover this, however, SLAVERY WAS NOT WHAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT OVER!!!!! It's like if the country erupted into a second civil war tomorrow (sadly not unthinkable) and the history books said that it was about gay rights. That would certainly be used as a wedge issue, and a way to ensure that a certain part of the populace was on the same side, but the real issue would be a political divide, largely about state authority versus national authority and the need for all to be heard even as majority rules. The problem I have with where you've been leading in this thread is that you allow the majority to rule too much, and I still contend that one must be hawkish to defend the draft. As for "provide for the citizens, I mean all the things that are outlined in the preamble. And to make sure that I'm clear, "provide for the common defense" does not call for the singular offense, which is what we are currently, and misguidedly, involved in.
The Civil War was fought over states' rights and the preservation of the Union, aye, but it was very definitely 'about' slavery.
Slavery was the country's original sin, written into the founding document in 1787. The country allowed slavery for the first 75 years at the expense of building a more perfect union. The slavery issue HAD to be resolved or we truly couldn't have remained a country. You know, ' a house divided' and all that good stuff.
In retrospect, it may have been 'dying out,' but someone forgot tell the southern plantation owners, I guess. A coincidence that they quit the Union when an anti-slavery party took over, you think? And seriously, isn't the supposition that it was "clearly" coming to an end like saying "In 1939, it was obvious to everyone that Nazi Germany was doomed"?
Yeah, that would be totally fine.
Post a Comment
<< Home