By Paul L. Poirot
[The Freeman, vol. 10 (1963), pp. 404–405]
When men claim independence, ‘a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes….’
So said certain Americans of 1776, reflecting such high regard for the dignity of individuals as to believe them both worthy and capable of freedom.
Contrast that appraisal of man as a self-respecting and responsible being with the very dim view taken by modern ‘liberals’ who demand government aid and control in nearly every aspect of our daily lives.
If it’s true that millions of adult American citizens are incapable of caring for and supporting and educating their own children, incapable of providing their own housing and their own medical care, incapable of paying the full costs of their bus and train and plane fares or the costs of highways and parking spaces for their own cars, incapable of meeting the expenses for light and heat and water and recreational facilities, incapable of operating their own farms or businesses without price support or tariff protection or ‘urban renewal’ or other subsidy, incapable of looking after their own interests in job negotiations without a special grant of monopoly power from government, incapable of providing for themselves in periods of temporary unemployment or in their years of retirement — if it is true that so many American citizens are improvident and irresponsible, incapable of earning their own living and unable to survive except as wards of society — is there any reason why they should be permitted a vote or have any part whatsoever in governing society?
Isn’t that the logical next step in the regression from citizenship to serfdom? Or, as one of the ‘liberal’ professors has revealed, ‘Ours is not a government by the people, but government by government.’
So, there are two views of man, and each of us must choose which kind he’ll be:
-
Man, as responsible and worthy of freedom, or
-
Man, the weakling, whose life depends on the state’s permission or sufferance.
{ 16 comments }
It’s true. Socialists see everyone but college professors and politicians as complete idiots who don’t have enough sense to poor water out of a boot before putting it on. Somehow, these elite escaped the plague of utter and irredeemable stupidity that afflicts the rest of us. All we can do is gratefully submit to whatever the supermen demand.
3. Man, the weakling, must submit himself to the free market division of labor in order to mitigate his weakness and exploit his strengths.
This post reminds me of what Rothbard said about three possibilities of ownership: everyone owns everyone, an oligarchy governs the many, or everyone one owns himself. 1 is so inefficient that it devolves to 2, and 2 assumes the “liberal” position highlighted in the post which mean the ruling class must be smarter or better than the governed class therefore making the oligarchy “more human” and the governed “less human”. Yet the contradiction is that the governed-less-human choose the more-human as if they were able to do that under the presupposed conclusion that they can’t make choices for themselves.
Fallon,
It is impossible to submit to freedom.
Men voluntarily enter into the free market division of labor because it is in their best interest to do so. No one is forced.
There is a definite distinction between these two visions, or versions, of human nature, and I certainly believe the first of them to be true. Yet if humans are inept weaklings, then this still supports the capitalist system. Under statism, after all, one small group of necessarily corrupt and base individuals wields the total power of arbitrary violence and law against others. Capitalism, by contrast, decentralizes.
What is missing, then, is the real-but-unspoken third option, the true grounding of the statists’ premises:
3. The vast majority of humans are weaklings, but there exists a small cadre of elites who, by virtue of their Harvard law degrees and “enlightened,” “progressive” views, can transcend human weakness and become fit to rule the herd.
I really see the wisdom that the founders had when they put the very strict requirements on voting rights. We would be wise to return to that standard!!!
Nate, Right! How about:
3. Man, the weakling, joins the free market division of labor in self-interest; in reciprocation, this order mitigates his weakness and exploits his strengths.
Actually, millions of Americans are incapable with the government attacking their liberties all the time.
A bit rhetorically reductive, but I agree in principle with the main point. A far deeper discussion into this quite broad subject is “A Conflict of Visions” – Dr. Thomas Sowell, where he compares and contrasts the constrained and unconstrained vision of society.
Leanne,
How about instead of reverting back in time to fix government, which is both impossible and completely helpless I might add, we take the necessary steps to rid ourselves of the coercive monopoly, which itself is the tool used by those who agree with #2; “Man, the weakling, whose life depends on the state’s permission or sufferance,” to legitimize their rule over others.
As Lysander Spooner once said, “A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” So, let’s forget about voting requirements and other slavespeak and instead focus on educating others on freedom and work to end the system that sees all men as slaves.
The Power Of Liberty In A Contractual Society.
I choose “Man, as responsible and worthy of freedom.” It is the eventual outcome of our transformation from the immature stage to the mature stage.
The immature stage is easily understood as a state of latency. Just like the catepillar or the acorn the potential is there but until the time arrives the old environment is dominant. Once the time arrives the environment is either changed by the emergence or it is left behind.
When the time arrives – when a critical mass is educated and/or receptive to the power of liberty in a contractual society – “Man” will be responsible and worthy of freedom.
I sense a loaded (or question-begging) question.
It’s clear that individuals lie on a spectrum of capability. What seems to be understated in the phrasing of the question is that the weak-man idea is most certainly not aimed at all people, but toward people at the low end of the spectrum (i.e. some people’s capabilities are too few to provide an income capable of sustaining their needs in the free market). The question as originally stated portrays the weak-man hypothesis as being universal (in order to weaken it artificially, I assume).
In contrast, the strong-man idea is aimed at all people, regardless of capability. That conjecture must be that no matter what your capabilities are, the market will provide an income (either through charity or employment) that will meet your basic needs.
At the same time, the weak-man and strong-man choices are pointlessly tied to whether mankind deserves freedom, with “man is undeserving” tied predictably to the weak-man idea (to weaken it artificially, I assume).
Take a look at the choices presented:
a) You believe that mankind deserves freedom and that all people can sustain themselves or be sustained in the exercise of a freely-operating market.
b) You believe that mankind doesn’t deserve freedom and that no one (or many but not all) can survive without government action on their behalf.
Question-begging and false dichotomies make great rhetorical hammers, but they ultimately undermine the position they’re employed to defend because they violate the trust necessary to build credibility.
http://www.popehat.com/2009/05/28/when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-a-grownup/
Or: 3. Most people are incapable of Libertarian freedom because the Iron Law of Oligarchy has never been refuted by any evidence.
Ribald,
For the weak, they can join communes and find strength in numbers. If they are like children then they will remain children in the libertarian sense of the word (Walter Block summarizes this in the last chapter of Of Defending the Undefendable). Or they can voluntarily enter into servitude. Even those that are not considered responsible and worthy of freedom still must chose to relinquish their freedom in order to be sustained or perish – or remain a child under the care of their parent (the one who homesteads the right of “parent”). The obvious thing that cannot happen is to say that the few that are irresponsible provide the proof that everyone must be herded like cattle by the Oligarchy.
Why can’t the government give both? – freedom and less meddling with people who need it as well as less freedom and “more meddling” with people who can’t support themselves at least till they can support themselves and find freedom.
Comments on this entry are closed.