‘The Universal Hunger for Liberty’

[roo_ster]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261350/universal-hunger-liberty-ramesh-ponnuru

One of the better responses to the magical/crusading mindset of the Usual Suspects, some of whom now want us to patrol the skies of Libya.

The article I linked quotes Charles Kesler:
"It is one thing to affirm, as the American Founders did, that there is in the human soul a love of liberty. It is another thing entirely to assert that this love is the main or, more precisely, the naturally predominant inclination in human nature, that it is “a power that cannot be resisted.” In fact, it is often resisted and quite frequently bested. . . . The president downplays the contests within human nature: conflicts between reason and passion, and within reason and passion, that the human soul’s very freedom makes inescapable. True enough, “people everywhere prefer freedom to slavery,” that is, to their own slavery, but many people everywhere and at all times have been quite happy to enjoy their freedom and all the benefits of someone else’s slavery."

That there is wisdom beyond the materialist and magical mindsets so common, nowadays.

[230RN]

My experience, without doing a "study," is that people always fall along a continuum of every human characteristic, and that the concept of a ""universal hunger for liberty" is false.  Some want freedom, some want to look to a higher power (either civil or supernatural) for guidance, protection, and control.

Those are two outlying points of that continuum, at opposite ends.  I do not mean to imply that this is a binary distribution, a "one or the other" type of thing, like flipping a coin, but that people fall along that continuum, with these two discrete points included herein as touchpoints for illustration.

The thing here is that those who wish liberty are the ones who are outspoken about it, whereas the more "passive" among us, who seek this external guidance, protection, and control, do not have the "passion," the fire in the belly" about freedom, and therefore do not display any passion for freedom --or lack of it.

Again, bearing in mind that this all falls along a continuum, and use of a "two-point" selection is only for illustration.

My conclusion is that the idea  of  a "universal passion for freedom" or hunger for liberty is a false premise, based on a biased sample.

Terry, 230RN

ETA

I just want to add that a "continuous" distribution can be generated from a set of binary outcomes.  Flipping one coin results in a true binary distribution, but flipping 1000 coins 1000 times looks more like a continuous distribution. And more so as the number of coins and the number of repetitions of the coin-flipping (or die-casting) experiment increases.  The point here is that if a "characteristic" of humans is comprised of a number of underlying binary factors, the more factors, and the more humans that are included in the experiment, the more the distribution of that human characteristic looks like a continuous distribution.

[makattak]

My experience, without doing a "study," is that people always fall along a continuum of every human characteristic, and that the concept of a ""universal hunger for liberty" is false.  Some want freedom, some want to look to a higher power (either civil or supernatural) for guidance, protection, and control.

Those are two outlying points of that continuum, at opposite ends.  I do not mean to imply that this is a binary distribution, a "one or the other" type of thing, like flipping a coin, but that people fall along that continuum, with these two discrete points included herein as touchpoints for illustration.

The thing here is that those who wish liberty are the ones who are outspoken about it, whereas the more "passive" among us, who seek this external guidance, protection, and control, do not have the "passion," the fire in the belly" about freedom, and therefore do not display any passion for freedom --or lack of it.

Again, bearing in mind that this all falls along a continuum, and use of a "two-point" selection is only for illustration.

My conclusion is that the idea  of  a "universal passion for freedom" or hunger for liberty is a false premise, based on a biased sample.

Terry, 230RN

ETA

I just want to add that a "continuous" distribution can be generated from a set of binary outcomes.  Flipping one coin results in a true binary distribution, but flipping 1000 coins 1000 times looks more like a continuous distribution. And more so as the number of coins and the number of repetitions of the coin-flipping (or die-casting) experiment increases.  The point here is that if a "characteristic" of humans is comprised of a number of underlying binary factors, the more factors, and the more humans that are included in the experiment, the more the distribution of that human characteristic looks like a continuous distribution.

And some of us believe that freedom only comes from God. It's a false distinction to believe that there is either freedom or the control of Providence. One cannot exist without the other, in fact.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Sorry, no real wisdom or insight there.

Desire for freedom is undeniably part of human nature.  It's obviously not the only element, and probably not one of the more sharp and urgent drives we have.  As a practical thing, freedom is often be set aside in favor of more pressing concerns, or flat out overwhelmed by force, or lost through simple failure and ineptitude.  But over the long term, freedom (and love, which is closely related) has proven to be one of the more persistent, universal, and durable aspects of human nature.  It's sometimes a quite thing, but it's always there.  Always.

I wouldn't bet against freedom over the long haul.  Fighting human nature is like swimming against the current.  You can do it for a while, but the long term prognosis is not in your favor.  Given a long enough time horizon, probability of success approaches 0.

The crumbling dictatorships throughout the middle east provide an object lesson.

[AZRedhawk44]

The crumbling dictatorships throughout the middle east provide an object lesson.

I'm not yet convinced that the ME uprisings right now aren't either:

1.  Iranian-created to weaken the US;
2.  CIA-created and directed by the Obama administration to cause the nooz to talk about something other than Trillion dollar US budget deficits and TeaPartyism;
3.  Or actually representative of the people in those countries.

[230RN]

It's a false distinction to believe that there is either freedom or the control of Providence.

I didn't say that.  I only included "spiritual" because it's an undeniable aspect of the whole picture.  An aspect.  I kind of figured some folks would jump on that, and was considering eliminating it on the theory that it would make the discussion devolve into a religious tirade.

Desire for freedom is undeniably part of human nature.

I'm not denying that.  I'm asserting that. 

Sorry, no real wisdom or insight there.

OK.  You've said that before about some of my posts. 

Terry, 230RN

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oops, I was responding directly to the author roo_ster quoted in the original post, Charles Kesler and his remarks.  I didn't mean to direct any of my comments at you, 230rn.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Balog]

Depends on how you define "freedom" doesn't it? People want to do what they want to do, but the majority care nothing for other people being able to do what they want. "Why should I care if they ban guns, I don't shoot?" etc

230rn: you are saying that desire for freedom and any form of religious belief are diametrically opposed. I submit this is a false dichotomy. One does not love liberty less, as one believes in God more.

[MicroBalrog]

The problem is:

1. People throughout the world today are undeniably freer than they were two centuries ago. More people - as a percentage of humanity and in definite numbers - live in free societies today than ever. (If by free societies you take the definition of 'at least as free as Colonial America or better'). And practicaly any nation that guarantees the basic arrangement of human rights for its citizens irregardless of creed, race, and gender would be better, by the way.

2. Almost every individual yearns to be free. What is difficult, however, is knowing how to arrange one's political life to be free. This isn't an inconsequential debate - look at Founding-era arguments. There were many people in the Founding era who opposed the American revolution. It wasn't because they somehow hated freedom (although I can argue Edmund Burke did... :) ). True, if you argue that you hate freedom if you are not a libertarian or libertarianish conservative but on this standard most Americans would fail, too.

It's easy to bemoan moral corruption around you if your bar for success is  set so high nobody may pass it.

[makattak]

The problem is:

1. People throughout the world today are undeniably freer than they were two centuries ago. More people - as a percentage of humanity and in definite numbers - live in free societies today than ever. (If by free societies you take the definition of 'at least as free as Colonial America or better'). And practicaly any nation that guarantees the basic arrangement of human rights for its citizens irregardless of creed, race, and gender would be better, by the way.

2. Almost every individual yearns to be free. What is difficult, however, is knowing how to arrange one's political life to be free. This isn't an inconsequential debate - look at Founding-era arguments. There were many people in the Founding era who opposed the American revolution. It wasn't because they somehow hated freedom (although I can argue Edmund Burke did... :) ). True, if you argue that you hate freedom if you are not a libertarian or libertarianish conservative but on this standard most Americans would fail, too.

It's easy to bemoan moral corruption around you if your bar for success is  set so high nobody may pass it.

It's nice that we live in a century of more freedom.

My belief is this is SOLELY due to the existence and power of the United States of America. Without the United States, this world will return to the more common state of man: rule of the powerful over the weak, oppression, famine, starvation, and slavery. Once Pax Americana is finally destroyed (from within or without), our world will revert to its normal state of affairs: misery and drudgery for most of humanity oppressed by the very few and very powerful.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's easy to bemoan moral corruption around you if your bar for success is  set so high nobody may pass it.

Now there is wisdom above and beyond.

[MicroBalrog]

The United States has as its population 300 million people - undeniably the freest people in the world. The most downtrodden American family today enjoys more freedom than a middle-class family in Founding-era America  - and these were the freest people in the world back then.

Then there is the European Union, with 500 million inhabitants - undeniably first-rate free countries. Add the population of Canada, Australia Japan, Australia - and pretty much a billion people can be racked up that live in high-grade freedom conditions. True, there are government regulations, and so forth, but the basic arrangement of human rights is secure there. One out of seven people in the world live in these countries.

Then there are countries like India, Indonesia, Mali - countries that are not quite Western, but have secured to themselves free speech, regular semi-fair elections, and a degree of private property. True, they have various forms of corruption and outbursts of ethnic violence - but they are not  more terrible than, say, the Antebellum South or even Jim Crow South.  Their achievement may be insignificant too us, but as compared to centuries of terrible oppression, it is not actually insignificant at all.

[MicroBalrog]

My belief is this is SOLELY due to the existence and power of the United States of America. Without the United States, this world will return to the more common state of man: rule of the powerful over the weak, oppression, famine, starvation, and slavery. Once Pax Americana is finally destroyed (from within or without), our world will revert to its normal state of affairs: misery and drudgery for most of humanity oppressed by the very few and very powerful.

I think you are only part-right, for two reasons:

1. I feel that this progress in not only due to the influence of American arms and trade, but American ideas. To what extent the ideas of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton are going to have an effect in a century, they will inspire people to act in favor of more freedom.

2.While the Americans have done more than any nation on Earth to stab horrific dictators in the face, crush their military forces like bugs, and burn their palaces, and the world would be a demonstrably worse place without America, America's more important achievement is developing what I call a technology of freedom.

It turns out that if you have regular fair elections – regular elections, rather than just have one election, elect a President for Eternity and shoot anybody who wants to have another one – your government is liable to improve, if ever slightly. It turns out that if you resist the urge to crush opposing opinion, your government is liable to improve – if ever so slightly. It turns out that if you insist on equality before the law, your government is liable to improve, if ever so slightly. Little things do add up.

We do not yet know – as a society – what precise adjustment is best for freedom. Libertarians have their own view, welfare-statists have their own, conservatives have their own, we all disagree. But we do know that if you have regular free and fair elections, even if they're not always 100% fair, if we're going to have a modicum of freedom of speech and vaguely-fair courts, conditions are going to improve, as long as we can maintain that. This doesn't seem like rocket science to us, but for millenia of human history, this wasn't known. We have America to thank for that.

[makattak]

I quite agree with you Micro that American ideas, not just trade and arms are what drives this freedom movement.

Once American arms and trade have disappeared, the ideas will not long survive. (Except to be read and acted upon again after a few thousand years as when Rome fell, perhaps less this time, though.) It's hard to fight for freedom when you're fighting for (1) your life against an expanding empire like Russia or China or (2) food just to feed your family for another week.

[MicroBalrog]

It's interesting that you bring up Russia.

Now, Russia is not by any stretch a free country today. But the Russian people have secured for themselves a degree of freedom unprecedented in their country's history since the 15th century and the fall of the Novgorod Republic. Not freedom in any Western stretch, but at least there is a degree of freedom of speech, people can call for Putin to go into exile or whatever.

And a very interesting thing has come up. Liberals - out and out self-confessed classical OR social-democratic liberals - are not popular in Russia at all. But individuals with no political affiliation at all, or who actually claim to be nationalists or conservatives - are pushing back against the Russian state in various ways. Take the blue-bucket movement. Ordinary people in Moscow or Vladivostok, whose only distinction is that they own an automobile, organizing to protest against upper-class privilege. Under Russian law, officials of any kind with a flashing blue light on their car have right of way, in traffic. The blue-bucket people? They're not liberals. They laugh at liberals. But they come out in the morning and slap a large blue household bucket on their car, to mock - mock! - their betters' car. And they refuse to give way to any vehicle that's not an emergency vehicle.

Or take Navalny. He's not a liberal. He's an anti-immigration nationalist. But he uses the minimal political freedom available in his country to locate information about corrupt government bidding, theft, and so forth in government, and then post it online. People like him are what I'm talking about. I'm sure he'd laugh heartily if you called him a liberal.