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.
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.