On one issue, however, I would acknowledge Hobbes's contract theory as a precursor to Ayn Rand's theory of government. His commonwealth was premised on an individual's selfishness which, he averred, is not sinful: "The Desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no Sin." (Chapter XIII of Leviathan). Furthermore, Hobbes speaks of an individual as having a "right to all things" which must be mutually circumscribed with other citizens in order to attain the peace necessary to pursue his own ends (Chapter XIV). Locke says the same thing, but his ultimate justification for selfishness is God's plan for humanity. Hobbes comes much closer to a moral justification of egoism in always referencing man's nature and never falling back upon God's will as the justification for his political principles.
Wow. I love this article. A very deep exploration, and very clear.
I agree with Rand's reasons for political freedom (the needs of man's survival, which ultimately relies on our uncoerced judgment of reality).
I do sometimes play with my own thought experiment: What if man's survival relied on following orders? Or if man produced more when there was a mix of freedom with an FDR-style safety net? (I don't believe this.)
Even in this alternate reality, I would prefer liberty. Even if tyranny provided more food and shelter and pragmatic means of "survival," I would still be for political freedom. I would still work to undermine the tyranny.
Why do I think that, I ask myself. I think it's because I value the dignity of the individual human spirit. The dignity of the individual human life--their one chance to live and breathe and experience their own story in their own way. I value my own dignity, and the dignity of others because of my empathy for them. I want to see justice for them. I want to see their dignity respected (not coerced by others or by the government).
Even if a brilliant tyrant offered more "survival" potential, I simply do not wish any human being to have to kneel before anyone else, no matter their wealth, celebrity or title. It is a disgraceful submission of the human spirit.
Honestly, I think, my primary reason for supporting political freedom has to do with the dignity of man--including the dignity to choose one's own path and to own the fruit of one's own chosen efforts.
If I'm honest, I feel like the pragmatic benefits of freedom (abundance) are icing on the cake, but that the cake itself has to do with our own pride and self-esteem. For me, I think freedom has more to do with how I view myself in the world, and whether that is reflected in the principles of the government I live under.
On one issue, however, I would acknowledge Hobbes's contract theory as a precursor to Ayn Rand's theory of government. His commonwealth was premised on an individual's selfishness which, he averred, is not sinful: "The Desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no Sin." (Chapter XIII of Leviathan). Furthermore, Hobbes speaks of an individual as having a "right to all things" which must be mutually circumscribed with other citizens in order to attain the peace necessary to pursue his own ends (Chapter XIV). Locke says the same thing, but his ultimate justification for selfishness is God's plan for humanity. Hobbes comes much closer to a moral justification of egoism in always referencing man's nature and never falling back upon God's will as the justification for his political principles.
Wow. I love this article. A very deep exploration, and very clear.
I agree with Rand's reasons for political freedom (the needs of man's survival, which ultimately relies on our uncoerced judgment of reality).
I do sometimes play with my own thought experiment: What if man's survival relied on following orders? Or if man produced more when there was a mix of freedom with an FDR-style safety net? (I don't believe this.)
Even in this alternate reality, I would prefer liberty. Even if tyranny provided more food and shelter and pragmatic means of "survival," I would still be for political freedom. I would still work to undermine the tyranny.
Why do I think that, I ask myself. I think it's because I value the dignity of the individual human spirit. The dignity of the individual human life--their one chance to live and breathe and experience their own story in their own way. I value my own dignity, and the dignity of others because of my empathy for them. I want to see justice for them. I want to see their dignity respected (not coerced by others or by the government).
Even if a brilliant tyrant offered more "survival" potential, I simply do not wish any human being to have to kneel before anyone else, no matter their wealth, celebrity or title. It is a disgraceful submission of the human spirit.
Honestly, I think, my primary reason for supporting political freedom has to do with the dignity of man--including the dignity to choose one's own path and to own the fruit of one's own chosen efforts.
If I'm honest, I feel like the pragmatic benefits of freedom (abundance) are icing on the cake, but that the cake itself has to do with our own pride and self-esteem. For me, I think freedom has more to do with how I view myself in the world, and whether that is reflected in the principles of the government I live under.