Well put, ParaTed2k. 'Freedom' is a noble aim, but what exactly is ABSOLUTE freedom? Here are some possible examples:
1) The freedom of [insert name of multinational sports shoe manufacturer here] to pay peanuts to third world workers.
2) The freedom of Australia to incarcerate asylum seekers for years with neither charge nor trial.
3) The freedom of Nazi Germany to invade Poland.
Of course, the issue is that freedom for one very easily involves the restriction of freedom for another. In such cases, whose 'absolute freedom' should take precedence, and why?
On another current blog (‘Wanted: rational left-winger article writers’ by Draginol), Jamie Burnside makes the following point:
‘Left-leaning thought (in my opinion) acknowledges that things are usually more complicated than they appear. Because of this, it is more difficult to articulate an effective argument in support of what would be considered a "liberal opinion." Conservative ideology can oftentimes be seen as simplistic, therefore appealing to people's gut-level reactions. It is a lot more entertaining to present the right's view on radio and on television.’
Leaving the tired old left-right thing to one side, I still think there is a lot here that is pertinent to this issue. The concept of ‘absolute freedom’ sounds like a righteous and irrefutable ideal, but this is exactly where the problem lies. Like other such concepts from all colours in the political spectrum – from ‘the market must be allowed to find its own level’ through to ‘give peace a chance’ – such positions are generally platitudinous and closed to further scrutiny. The world is, as Jamie Burnside implies, a very much more complex organism that this.
ParaTed2k suggests that this will be so ‘Until we reach a point where respect is valued and we don't turn to the government to protect us from each other.’ But when will this be? When there is no longer a need for a defence force, the police, or any other administrative agency, and we can all co-exist in domestic and international harmony. Such a state of mutually secure anarchy is once again a lovely ideal, but let’s be honest - it’s not going to happen any time soon.
Now, to return to John Galt’s original thread for a moment:
‘If Peace Be Your Purpose then the inevitable outcome is death. If freedom, absolute, non-contradictory freedom, be your purpose the inevitable outcome is peace.’
I have a couple of questions:
1) ‘Death’. Death of whom? When and why? As opposed to what? Death comes to all of us anyway, regardless of both purpose and circumstances, so what does this actually MEAN?
2) Why should one purpose ‘inevitably’ lead to a different outcome? Is this true ONLY of peace and freedom, and if so, why just these two? Or does it apply to all other ideals too – ideals such as morality, security and optimism? If the latter, what should my purpose be if I actually want to achieve, say, happiness? (I’m not trying to be clever here – I notice that you have categorised this thread under ‘Philosophy’, and this is a fair philosophical question.)
