Daily Archives: October 26, 2021

Liberty Leading the People, Eugene Delacroix

Freedom is a key concept in philosophy. It is defined, negatively, as the absence of constraint; positively like the state of the one who does what he wants.

Freedom is surprisingly a fairly modern concept, since the Greeks spoke little of it, considering that man should rather reflect the cosmos rather than obey his own aspirations. The Moderns, from Kierkegaard, then Heidegger and Sartre, who have made freedom a key piece of metaphysics, as evidenced by the famous quotes on freedom.

The main question is: what is exactly the freedom and to prove if we are or not, trying to justify the strong and internal feeling (Descartes) that we have of being free and which is found in every man.

To define freedom, it is sufficient to give an adequate description:

In the fullest sense, freedom is a voluntary realization, justified by the greatest number of motives. Because our action is then not only the expression of a personal choice, but of a choice capable of justifying itself rationally in the eyes of all. After Plato and Spinoza, Kant has given full scope to the rationalism of freedom: action is free when consciousness is determined against sensible desires, according to a rational principle.

Freedom is not really what we do, but how we do it. Freedom is an attitude, that of the man who recognizes himself in his life, who approves the history of the world and events. This is why freedom often consists in changing ones desires rather than the order of the world (Descartes). It is to such a conception (that of the Stoics) that the moderns (Sartre, Kierkegaard) have returned; man becomes free when he substitutes an active attitude for a situation undergone, when he takes sides with the events of his time: in short, freedom is proved by realizing oneself, when man realizes his destiny by working instead of suffering it.

When we are self-sufficient, we come to possess the inestimable good of freedom (Epicurus)

Faced with freedom, the idea of destiny, of determinism, of fatality (fatum) is opposed as synonymous with an inexorable sequence of causes and effects that can not be extracted. The illustration of this fatum: Oedipus who does not escape the oracle of Delphi: he actually killed his father and married his mother.

Originally abandoned by its biological parents to remove the ominous omen, Oedipus is raised by adoptive parents. Adult, he leaves, quarrels with a man and kills him (he does not know that he has just killed his biological father). Then Oedipus will give the right answer to the sphinx, will be received triumphantly in the city he has just liberated from the domination of the sphinx: he then becomes king by marrying the queen (unaware that the queen is his biological mother): from their union will be born Antigone Once he learns the truth, he blows his eyes and wanders begging.

Freedom: a wrenching away from fatality, a tearing away from the law of nature, a tearing away from determinism

Epictetus: You are master of my carcass; take it, you have no power over me

Descartes: The freedom of our will knows itself without proof, by the only experience we have

Paul Valry: Freedom is one of those hateful words that are worth more than meaning

Rousseau: Freedom is less about doing ones will than about being subjected to that of others; it still consists in not submitting the will of others to ours .

The notion of freedom can be understood as synonymous with a total absence of constraints, obstacles to the desires of each and their realization. Freedom would then be synonymous with license. Now, to say yes to all that one may desire also the manifestation of a lack of freedom, of alienation, to be a slave of ones passions.

Freedom presupposes constraints, limits, prohibitions because freedom is also that of others. But freedom presupposes limits, what are they?

It involves a difficult game between the singular and the individual. Does not freedom for all presuppose a limit for everyones freedom?

Is freedom an illusion?

The free will is only an illusion.Text of Spinoza, P.401: ethics

Appetites: tension towards something. Men think themselves free because they do not know the causes that determine them. They think they are free when their inclination for something remains slight. This lightness suggests that we can choose freely to follow or not to follow our impulses by counteracting them, if necessary, by another impulse. However, to observe our choices, it is clear that we sometimes do the test of remorse, regret We understand then that sometimes, knowing the best, we make the choice of the worst. So, freedom is an illusion because if the subject is conscious about his actions he remains ignorant as to the reasons that push him to act as well: I know only the effect of the appetite but I do not know the origin of this appetite. These are body affections.

Man possesses self-consciousness: he is conscious of wanting and thinks that he desires freely. He thinks that the will is free and has power over the body. But this belief is a mistake.

At Spinoza, freedom does not go without saying, it is not impossible to acquire. To access freedom, man must determine himself to act and think. To do this, he must apply to his reason, decide what is good and useful. When his reason determines his action, then submission to the passions is reduced, diminished.

If freedom is not self-evident, the fact remains that determinism is not a biological fatality from which we can not escape. If it is not original, it is that freedom is something to acquire, a state to be realized.

Kant: the critique of pure reason (full summary)

All that is produced in the world has two origins

Nature as originFreedom as originNature: the laws of nature: determinism: the causal relation: relation of cause and effect: the same causes produce the same effects. The animal is determined by its nature, it can not act otherwise than as its nature requires it.Freedom: to create something by oneself and for oneself: to be at the origin and the consequence of what is produced: therefore not to be subjected to anything but oneself.In the eighteenth century, atheism appears and develops, but if the idea of a creator God disappears, the man remains read from a concept (as can be the paper cutter). It is defined by its essence.Freedom: an idea produced by reason but to which no object exists in the experience. Freedom: it is practical, it is an action in the world. It can not be proved, it can only be proved. It implies the notions of moral responsibility, of ethics so that life in community is possible.With Sartres thought and existentialism, we remove the idea of God and that of the concept to define man. Therefore, there is 1) existence, 2) essence: man is not originally determined, there is no inevitability. He exists and exists means that he is the creator of his existence: man is and becomes what he does with him, that is to say, he becomes the acts he performs and that he he has chosen freely since he is not determined by any kind. He is absolutely free. But this freedom implies the following phenomenon: since he is free, his choices are too, so he is responsible for what he is facing himself and facing others.

Existentialism means that man is the creator of his own existence. But this freedom has a price: the responsibility: if the man is free, he is responsible for his actions, his choices. This therefore imposes the question of ethics, of duty, of the limit not to be crossed. So freedom and ethics go together: to be free is to be absolutely responsible for what we are from what we do.

Text of Kant P.405: the critique of the practical reason (summary)

Autonomy: that which depends only on oneself, by oneself. Which is subject to nothing but himself. The opposite of autonomy: heteronomy. Pure Reason, the will that determines the moral law is certainly a maxim that imposes itself on the subject but transcends the simple individuality of the self because valid for all subjects (so the law is universal).Heteronomy: that which is imposed by an external will, an external constraint. The desire is changeable, it belongs to the contingent, it is of the order of volition and not of the will. The free will: the one by which reason determines itself. And the reason is the intellectual faculty which produces the categorical imperative which itself leads to duty and morality. To be free is to act in relation to a law which one has given oneself from the use of reason, imperatively and not according to the laws of nature and its small sensibility. Freedom: the autonomy of the will and this is the moral law.If this definition of freedom as something to be conquered proceeds from an ability to be determined by the moral law, this freedom implies ethical and legal limits. Is not freedom political, civil? Civil liberty implies the loss of natural liberty by the introduction of laws, prohibitions that limit the expression of selfish, egotistical individuality in favour of a collective, civil freedom.

Political freedom: it implies the notion of laws, duty, constraints for everyone so that everyone can live with everyone.Before being a metaphysical question, freedom is above all a political question: before being individual, freedom is collective. How can we be free together?

Rousseaus text: P.408: From the social contract

Freedom consists not so much in doing ones will as in not being subjected to that of others; it still consists in not submitting the will of others to ours .

Rousseau explains the transition from natural freedom to civil liberty.

Natural freedom: that which consists in doing all that one desires (without laws, without constraints ) it is without limit: the man answers only to his instincts. We then speak of a state of nature. The state of nature is a working hypothesis for thinking man below and prior to all life in society. In this state of nature, only force is the limit, only power is authoritative. Desire, instinct, appetites guide and push man to act according to his instinct. Men are by nature slaves of their passions. Special interests make them in an incessant struggle. The only law that reigns: the law of the strongest. All is violence and chaos.Civil liberty: an ordered freedom, legislated by laws that make natural freedom that is only violence replaced by a freedom in which peace is possible between all because limited by laws. It is justice, law, and legality that define what can be done and prohibited in civil society. Man is no longer in instinct but in reason: the general interest outweighs the particular interest.The passage from 1) to 2): a loss because men can not do all they want but also a gain because they developed their intellectual faculties and mainly the reason and the law on the moral plane and on the legal plan. This passage between natural and civil liberty is done by a contract, that is to say the acceptance by all men to get rid of their unlimited and violent natural freedom for the benefit of limited civil liberty. but pacified.Only citizenship is not self-evident. In ancient Greece, women, non-Greeks, children and slaves were excluded from citizenship. By definition, the slave is one who is at the service of a master. His freedom is denied, he is only an instrument. One can therefore wonder if, in spite of everything, the fact of not being able to enjoy the civil liberty deprives of any form of freedom. Is there not a metaphysical freedom, an intellectual freedom that would allow the subject to be beyond irons, beyond the physical chaining, thus a freedom that would proceed from thought.

The slave: the slave himself is a kind of animated property and any man in the service of others is therefore an instrument that acts as an instrument.

By definition, the slave is one whose will is alienated at the will of another. Its one thing, its not considered a subject, like one capable of self-determination. It is only an instrument whose will does not have to manifest itself.

However, Aristotle also affirms the following: If nature has produced slaves because their cops are robust, it has produced men who are physically weaker but intellectually capable of realizing their spirit as free men. that: Yet the opposite frequently happens too; slaves have bodies of free men, and men free from the souls of slaves .

Could not freedom be metaphysical?To answer this, it is enough to think of Epictetus: former slave manhandled by his master. According to Epictetus, freedom is that of thought. And in front of her the tyrant is without power. But can metaphysical freedom do without expression, or atrophy if it can not be said? Can a freedom persist if it remains in silence?

Arendt explains that metaphysical freedom is not first but second. Above all, freedom is political, as in ancient Greece, freedom was political, it was defined by citizenship. Without political freedom, no freedom can be manifested, it can not be worldly, that is to say, to assert oneself in the world, to become objective, to become objectified.The objectification of freedom therefore appears necessary because what is a freedom that has no place to tell itself, no place to be realized? Does not the freedom to develop have to confront others? In contact with others, ideas clash, develop

A freedom forced to remain silent, a freedom that can not act does it end up dying? Freedom in acting effectively implies the very meaning of freedom: the responsibility of e that one faces the freedom of others, the freedom that is the other.

Whether freedom is physical or metaphysical, it appears to be more of the ideal than of the definite idea. It remains an indeterminate concept but it is necessary to presuppose to maintain the idea of responsibility. Without the concept of freedom: more to answer for oneself and determinism and fate can become excuses for what one is Rolland:

Fatality is the excuse of souls without will.

Strange thing that freedom as if its indeterminacy even made it the precious character, more than a word, freedom has become a value in itself: Paul Valry: freedom, it is one of those hateful words that have more value only meaning.

We are doomed to be free

Freedom is not a choice, it is a state of fact, a necessity: we can not not be free if any idea of responsibility disappears

I told you that the freedom of man consists in his power to act, not in the chimerical power of wanting to want (Voltaire)

Freedom consists in determining oneself (Leibniz)

Only the rational being, considered as such, is absolutely autonomous, the absolute foundation of oneself (Fichte)

Men are mistaken in their belief that they believe themselves free, and this opinion consists solely in their being conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined; what constitutes their idea of freedom is that they know no cause of their actions (Spinoza)

Freedom coincides with the nothingness that is in the heart of man (Sartre in Being and Nothingness)

Continued here:

Freedom in Philosophy: Quotes, Concepts, Authors ...

I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life. Murray Rothbard

The terms "freedom" and "liberty" have become clichs in modern political parlance. Because these words are invoked so much by politicians and their ilk, their meanings are almost synonymous and used interchangeably. That's confusing and can be dangerous because their definitions are actually quite different.

"Freedom" is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl, the legendary Holocaust survivor who wrote Man's Search For Meaning, said it well: Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms to choose ones attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose ones own way (in how he approaches his circumstances).

In other words, to be free is to take ownership of what goes on between your ears, to be autonomous in thoughts first and actions second. Your freedom to act a certain way can be taken away from you but your attitude about your circumstances cannot making one's freedom predominantly an internal construct.

Or listen on your favorite app:

On the other hand, "liberty" is predominantly an external construct. It's the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The ancient Stoics knew this (more on that in a minute). So did the Founding Fathers, who wisely noted the distinction between negative and positive liberties, and codified that difference in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The distinction between negative and positive liberties is particularly important, because an understanding of each helps us understand these seminal American documents (plus it explains why so many other countries have copied them). The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties it says what the state cannot do to you. However, it does not say what the state must do on your behalf. This would be a positive liberty, an obligation imposed upon you by the state.

Thus in keeping with what the late Murray Rothbard said above, the liberty of the individual is the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other "goods" that mankind cherishes. Living in liberty allows each of us to fully enjoy our freedoms. And how these two terms developed and complement one another is important for anyone desiring to better understand what it means to be truly free.

To better understand what freedom and liberty mean, it's helpful to look at the respective etymologies of these words, digging into their histories and how they developed.

Freedom comes from Old English, meaning power of self-determination, state of free will; emancipation from slavery, deliverance. There were similar variants in Old Frisian such as fridom, the Dutch vrijdom, and Middle Low German vridom.

Liberty comes from the Latin libertatem (nominative libertas), which means civil or political freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint, permission. Its important to note that the Old French variant liberte, "free will," has also shaped liberty's meaning. In fact, William R. Gregs essay France in January 1852 notes that the French notion of liberty is political equality, whereas the English notion is rooted in personal independence.

In an interview with Lew Rockwell, Professor Butler Shaffer makes some interesting distinctions between freedom and liberty. Shaffer argues that freedom is the condition that exists within your mind, within my mind. Its that inner sense of integrity. Its an inner sense of living without conflict, without contradiction, without various divisions and so forth.

This point of view is in line with the philosophy of the Stoics. They believed that a persons body can be physically imprisoned, but not his mind (much like Viktor Frankl famously said in his Man's Search for Meaning). Shaffer adds to the distinction:

Liberty is a condition that arises from free people living together in society. Liberty is a social condition. Freedom is the inner philosophical and psychological condition.

In short, freedom is inherent to humans. It exists within them by virtue of their humanity. Liberty is a political construct that allows people to enjoy freedoms such as property rights, free speech, freedom of association, etc.

Sadly, liberty has not been the natural state of mankind. History has shown that liberty particularly of the individual has been a distinguishing feature of Western societies, especially in the early years of the United States.

One of the structural problems with American politics since the advent of the Progressive Era in the early 20th century has been the emphasis on positive rights (aka "positive liberties," a misnomer at an individual level if there ever was one) at the expense of negative ones. What are the differences between negative and positive rights?

Philosophy professor Aeon Skoble provides a good summary:

Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.

For example, private property, free speech, and freedom of association are negative rights. In other words, these are rights that prevent others above all, the state from transgressing on you personally or on your property.

Along with these rights come responsiblities. In other words, you must bear the consequences of your actions as you exercise them. This is why you can't "falsely shout fire in a theatre and cause a panic" without bearing the consequences of the panic you caused, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted in Schenk v. United States in 1919.

Like all negative rights, free speech comes with responsibility; if you use that speech to spread information which is false and causes harm, then you're not protected carte blanche. Others can petition the court for the panic you've caused as a result of your exercise of free speech.

On the other hand, positive rights are granted by the government and involve the trampling of an individual or another class of individuals rights. These kinds of rights like state-funded healthcare or public education are justified on abstract grounds, such as the public good or the general will. By their very nature, they require the state to take from one group in order to give to another, usually in the form of taxes.

Appeals to the general will originate from the famous 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who emphasized that a strong government makes individuals free and that individuals submit to the state for the sake of the greater good. If that sounds backwards to you, you're not alone.

Author James Bovard highlights some of the follies behind Rousseaus thinking:

Rousseau's concept of the general will led him to a concept of freedom that was a parody of the beliefs accepted by British and American thinkers of his era. Rousseau wrote that the social contract required that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free.

In other words, if you don't want to go along with the "will of the people" (or as Rousseau defined it, "the general will"), then the state can compell you to do so even if that means trampling your individual rights and responsibilities.

Bovard also noted how Rousseaus concept of freedom had nothing to do with the independence of the individual:

C. E. Vaughan, in a 1915 study of Rousseau's work, correctly observed that, for Rousseau, freedom is no longer conceived as the independence of the individual. It is rather to be sought in his total surrender to the service of the State. "

Rousseau (1712-78) was the first of the modern intellectuals, and one of the most influential Englightenment thinkers. He died a decade before the French Revolution of 1789, but many contemporaries held him responsible for it, and so for the demolition of the Ancien Regime in Europe.

One can see how Rousseau's ideas translated into actions when comparing the French Revolution to the American one. After all, ideas matter especially in revolutionary politics.

The French and American Revolutions happened within a dozen years of one another, yet they centered around two very different concepts of individual liberty. For the French, the goal was to ensure political equality. For the Americans, it was personal independence. This distinction helps shed light on what made the outcomes of the two Revolutions so different.

The French Revolution devolved into chaos when revolutionary zealots like Maximilien Robespierre became the de facto head of the Committee of Public Safety. Under the Committees direction, Robespierre conducted the infamous Reign of Terror against all opponents of the French Revolution. Robespierre was inspired in part by Rousseau, stating: "Rousseau is the one man who, through the loftiness of his soul and the grandeur of his character, showed himself worthy of the role of teacher of mankind."

If Thomas Jefferson was to Rousseau the facilitator of their respective Revolutions, then Robespierre was to General Washington the implementor.

During his despotic period of leadership, Robespierre went as far as to create a Cult of the Supreme Being, a state religion based on secularism. This was part of Robespierres revolutionary program to completely destroy Frances Roman Catholic tradition in pursuit of an ambiguous "political equality" amongst the masses. Instead of trying to fight for freedom-based principles like the Founding Fathers did, Robespierre was more concerned with destroying all features of French civic society in the name of progress.

In a cruel twist of irony, Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety behaved more like the previous French monarchy once they seized control. For that reason, the French Revolution turned into a chaotic murder spree that saw tens of thousands of people executed at the guillotine for simply opposing Robespierres vision. In the end, Robespierre got a taste of his own medicine, when the French National Convention arrested him and put him to death on July 28, 1794.

It took a young upstart general in Napoleon Bonaparte to put an end to the 15-year chaos of the French Revolution. France reverted back to monarchical rule when Napoleon became emperor in 1804, which restored some semblance of political stability to the crisis-beleaguered nation.

France reached great heights under Napoleons rule, in which the country dominated a substantial portion of Europe. However, Napoleon would be defeated and forced into exile in 1815. France went back to its monarchical system, albeit with certain republican features, when Louis XVIII assumed the throne from 1815 to 1824. France did not morph into a genuine republic until 1848, when the Second Republic was established. However, France swung from imperial to republican governments until 1871, when the Third Republic of France came into power.

The road to political stability in France was rather rocky, and was a demonstration that flawed ideas about the tenuous relationship of the state's role in an individual's life can be deadly. Unfortunately, most countries across the globe have taken after Frances example of governance as opposed to the American model.

Latin America is arguably the best example of this.

Etched above the entrace to the Colombian Palace of Justice is a quote by General Francisco de Paula Santander:

"Colombianos las armas os han dado la independencia, las leyes os darn la libertad" (Colombians arms have given us independence, laws will give us liberty)

Santanders quote was indicative of the stark difference in political philosophies of the Latin American Wars of Independence from Spain and the American War of Independence from Great Britain. He and his counterpart, Simn Bolvar, were not inspired by classically liberal ideas of an individual's inalienable rights hence Santanders belief that liberty comes from the state, not from natural law as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the American Declaration of Independence:

Jefferson's philosophy held that an individual's unalienable rights are notgivento one in a document, but by their Creator (and subsequently codified in the Bill of Rights "in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its powers" as it states in the preamble.) In other words, an unalienable right is God-given. It isnt granted by a president, a king, or any government otherwise it can be taken away.

Santander and his counterpart Bolivar didn't share Jefferson's view. Juan Baustista Alberdi, one of Latin Americas premier classical liberal thinkers in the 19th century, understood the major distinctions behind the Latin American and American Wars of Independence in his essay Omnipotence of the State:

Washington and his contemporaries were more interested in fighting for individual rights and liberties than just fighting for independence of their country. Once they attained the former, they were able to achieve the latter, as opposed to South American countries, who won their political independence but did not obtain individual freedoms.

The Founding Fathers fought, above all, for the restoration of the liberties they enjoyed as Englishmen, which were usurped by the tyranical King George III. On the other hand, Latin American leaders were fighting for independence from Spain and not much else. There wasn't an underlying belief in an individual's unalienable rights. Instead, in their view, these rights were granted by the state and their laws, and consequently could also be taken away.

Bolivar in particular feared introducing too much liberty to the uneducated masses once Spainish rule ended. He foresaw anarchy, and thus believed in the necessity of a strong central authority once Gran Colombia gained independence. (Gran Colombia was made up of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela.) These were the views of a man raised in the Caracas elite.

Bolivar (1783-1830) was born into aristocracy in Caracas. He was a product of the Enlightenment, and was strongly influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Just like Robespierre in France, Boliver was entranced by Rousseau's ideas. In particular he subscribed to Rousseaus general will concept, which called on the intellectual and educated elite to identify what's in the best interest of the people.Picture the state serving as a "benevolent guiding hand" if you will; except that it won't be benevolent if you don't go along with where that hand is guiding you.

Bolvar believed that past subjugation under Spanish colonial rule left many of the Gran Colombia people ignorant and unable to acquire knowledge, power or civic virtue. Therefore, supposedly in the name of the "greater good,"Bolvarbelieved that these people should be freed but not given too much individual liberty. He says as much in his famous Cartagena Manifesto, where it's clear he was not a fan of federalism:

But what most weakened the government of Venezuela was the federalist structure it adopted, embodying the exaggerated notion of the rights of man. By stipulating that each man should rule himself, this idea undermines social pacts and constitutes nations in a state of anarchy. Such was the true state of the confederation. Each province governed itself independently, and following this example, each city claimed equal privilege, citing the practice of the provinces and the theory that all men and all peoples have the right to institute whatever form of government they choose. The federal system, although it is the most perfect and the most suitable for guaranteeing human happiness in society, is, notwithstanding, the form most inimical to the interests of our emerging states.

In Bolvars view, the 1812 collapse of the First Republic of Venezuela was due to its decentralized federal system, which demonstrated that the First Republic in fact needed to have stronger state control. After independence was achieved throughout most of Latin America in 1821, Bolvar established Gran Colombia an even larger territory with stronger centralized power.

Bolvar had lofty aspirations for Gran Colombia. He saw it as a potential powerhouse that would rival the U.S. and European powers by implementing Rousseua's "general will" concept. However, Bolivars dreams did not go as planned. By 1828, Gran Colombia was on the ropes due to internal turmoil and political infighting.

There is a parallel here with the U.S. Articles of Confederation. It lasted eight years before the Continental Congress in Philadelphia replaced it with the U.S. Constituion, primarily because the federal government was too weak to pay their Revolutionary War debts. Gran Colombia lasted seven years before it began to implode. However, unlike the Continental Congress, which convened to replace the U.S. Articles whilst still protecting an individual's inalienable rights, Bolivar dissolved the Constitutional Convention of Ocaa because he was unable to reform the Constitution of Gran Colombia. He then did what all good dictators do he declared himself in charge of the Republic of Colombia, making it abundantly clear that Colombia was in fact no longer a republic.

The Gran Colombia experiment would come to a grinding halt in 1830, when Ecuador, New Granada (present-day Colombia), and Venezuela decided to break away and carve out their own national paths.

Gran Colombias dissolution made Bolvar pause and reflect. At the end of his life, he'd been driven out of politics, into exile, and knew he would die soon. In his letter to General Juan Jos Flores, Ploughing the Sea, Bolvar was blunt about his concerns for Latin Americas future:

You know that I have ruled for twenty years, and I have derived from these only a few sure conclusions: (1) (Latin) America is ungovernable, for us; (2) Those who serve revolution plough the sea; (3) The only thing one can do in (Latin) America is emigrate; (4) This country will fall inevitably into the hands of the unrestrained multitudes and then into the hands of tyrants so insignificant they will be almost imperceptible, of all colors and races; (5) Once weve been eaten alive by every crime and extinguished by ferocity, the Europeans wont even bother to conquer us; (6) If it were possible for any part of the world to revert to primitive chaos, it would be (Latin) America in her last hour.

Since then, Latin America would experience decades of political and economic instability. Despotism, the non-existence of the rule of law, and economic interventionism have been hallmarks of Latin American politics for the past century and a half. One could argue this is due to the fact that there is no philosophical basis in an individual's unalienable right. It is only a matter of power.

One neednt look further than present-day Venezuela to see what happens when collectivism becomes part and parcel of the political culture. Ideas like individual liberty and personal responsiblity form the philosophical bedrock of a functioning republic. Their adoption can be the difference between generational poverty or prosperity for nations.

The manipulation of what liberty and an individual's rights and responsibilities constitute has already made its way to the U.S., where the lack of understanding of what liberty truly means has been apparent since the advent of the Progressive Era.

During this period, political pundits and economic theorists became obsessed with scientism, which is the over-reliance on or over-application of the scientific method as a means of trying to move society forward towards an ambiguous utopia. Instead of focusing on the defense of foundational principles like liberty and the rights and responsibilities of the individual, 20th-century intellectuals focused more on scientific ways to plan society from the top down. The state would obviously be the main driver, and its central planning would make people free."

However, such a view encountered pushback during the 20th century. Economist Ludwig von Mises courageously stood up to this top-down vision and exposed the limits of science in his work Planned Chaos:

Science is competent to establish what is. It can never dictate what ought to be.

Mises warning unfortunately fell on deaf ears. Progressivisms apex came about during the administration of Woodrow Wilson.

In that period, the income tax and the Federal Reserve were established, while the U.S. embarked on its most expansive foreign adventure to date when the Wilson Administation (supported by powerful bankers like J.P. Morgan) led America into World War I under false pretenses, lying about the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania by German submarines. This war would pave the way for increasing levels of government intervention, as witnessed during the New Deal and Great Society Eras where the warfare/welfare state became even more consolidated. To this day, Washington's power in the lives of private citizens continues to grow without much pushback.

Discussions about freedom and liberty as well as the important distinction between negative and positive liberties, which form the bedrock of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights have become quite quaint, as people use these words in Orwellian fashion to justify a litany of government intrusions in our lives. When we let their meanings become obscurred, we cede to those whose underlying goal is more state power the ability to manipulate the public for their own tyrannical ends. We not only need to comprehend the differences between freedom and liberty, but also recover their original meaning so that there is foundational clarity in political discussions.

Original post:

Freedom vs. Liberty: Understanding the Difference & What ...

Somehow, someone made the decision to let Joe Biden out and to go to a CNN town hall.

Im not sure who thought this was a good idea. But even within the friendly confines of CNN, it was a complete train wreck even by Biden standards.

Naturally, most of the questions from folks in the audience were Democrats or softball questions. But there were some highlights and it was disastrous.

Lets start with the creepiness and the incoherence.

Heres Joe Biden claiming that top corporations dont pay a cent in taxes with that creepy stage whisper voice.

Does anyone want to tell him hes also doing that sign that the left has deemed a white power sign? It isnt, but theyre always freaking out about it and claiming it is. So are they going to call out Biden now?

Here he was talking aboutthe supply chain problem because of disruptions at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. Except he couldnt remember Long Beach.

How much is he working to solve this problem if he cant even identify the name of the port? And how much of a problem is it when his brain just goes out on him like this? What am I doing here? he says. Yikes. Doesnt he know?

Then theres this really weird moment. What the heck is going on here with his hands? He looks like hes about to have a fit and stops halfway.

More complete confusion he misidentifies Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD).

When you start to get into the meat of his answers (such as they were), Biden revealed he had no answers and/or just doesnt tell the truth.

When asked about the rising gas prices he says he doesnt have a near term answer and its going to be hard.

Great, the guy who promised he has an answer to everything not only has no answers, he makes problems worse with the things he does do. How about not attacking the energy industry, cutting off sources of oil that we had like the Keystone XL pipeline and today, not defending the Willow Project in Alaska that would provide us with both oil and thousands of jobs? How about not working against our energy independence or helping the Russians complete their pipelines like Nord Stream 2?

Biden claimed that wages are up but in fact, because of rising prices, the purchasing power hasnt gotten better.

Biden also said he agrees with terminating police officers and other first responders if they didnt comply with vaccine mandates. Welcome to chaos and anarchy and a complete disregard for the value that all these people represent to our society. Bidens America.

In terms of dealing with the border? Hey, he just hasnt had the time. Theres no evidence so far that hes ever been there. But Jill has, so that should be enough, right?

However, Biden has had time to go spend most weekends since he took office in either one of his Delaware homes, including time to bask on the beach. Priorities.

When asked about the removal of a statue of Thomas Jefferson, while he stated a basic truth that its up to the locality to determine what to do about such statues he, Biden, couldnt be bothered to say anything on behalf of one of our Founding Fathers. Its cool with him if they pull a Stalin and just do away with history. Thats a troubling thought.

While in such a train wreck of a town hall, its hard to pick a worst moment, definitely one of the worst looks was when Biden actually mocked freedom. Come on, man, its the United States, dont you know we dont go for mocking freedom?

The two things that concern me, Biden said One, are those who just try to make this a political issue Freedom, I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. No, I mean come on, Freedom?

Just shut up and comply with Big Brother, you peasants, how dare you think you are free from having the government mandate injections into your body! Stop with that freedom stuff! The vaccine doesnt prevent the transmission and vaccinated can spread it as well. Unvaccinated doesnt necessarily mean infected. So his demonizing is once again just nonsense. Anyone who talks this way about freedom doesnt understand the first thing about this country and should never be in this office.

Read the original post:

Biden Mocks Freedom in Twisted Train Wreck of a Town Hall ...

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said Friday that Taiwan is the "frontline of tyranny versus freedom," and called President Biden's actions, regarding his proposed military defense budget, "weak."

BIDEN PLEDGES TO DEFEND TAIWAN IF CHINA ATTACKS

DAN SULLIVAN: Taiwan is not some peripheral sideshow in great power competition. To me, it is the frontline of tyranny versus freedom. And it's in some ways similar to like West Berlin during the height of the Cold War against the Soviet Union in the last century. So what we have in our country is a history of commitment and resolve with regard to Taiwan

But what the president, he's saying things that are important. But what he's doing in terms of actions is actually weak. Right now, the president is submitting a defense budget that would cut defense, that would shrink the US Navy. And to me, the actions of what we're doing in terms of keeping a strong military are much more important than the words. That's what the Chinese Communist Party look for, strength.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW

See the rest here:

Sen. Dan Sullivan says Taiwan is 'frontline of tyranny vs ...

(RNS) In this hyperpartisan era of American politics, international religious freedom has consistently been one aspect of American public policy that still enjoys strong bipartisan support and cooperation.

Indeed, the two of us, from widely differing political perspectives, stand united on two issues: the foundational principle of religious freedom as vital to Americas strategic interests and the need for the Senate to prioritize crucial diplomatic posts and expeditiously move to confirmation.

These two issues are important to bear in mind as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds its hearing Wednesday (Oct. 27) on the nomination of Rashad Hussain to be the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken have promised that religious freedom will remain a foreign policy priority for this administration as it has been for Republican and Democratic administrations since the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998.

RELATED: White House announces new religious affairs leaders, first Muslim religious freedom ambassador

But to realize that commitment effectively, strong leadership is required. Having worked with Hussain, an experienced diplomat who has long fought for religious freedom, we are confident that he will provide exactly that strong leadership.

In the history of this position, no ambassador has brought the breadth of policy knowledge that Hussain brings. His work at the White House, at the National Security Council, as a national security prosecutor at the Justice Department and in varying capacities in the State Department, including special envoy to the 57-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, brings vast experience and knowledge to this vital role.

He has used that knowledge to help other policymakers see the integral relation of religious freedom to their work on human rights, the rule of law, national security, democracy building and conflict resolution.

Hussain has enormous credibility across a broad range of faith groups, built on years of leadership in efforts for religious freedom. His nomination has brought enthusiastic praise from groups ranging from the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and the Baptist World Alliance to the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Union for Reform Judaism, as well as widespread commendations from the Muslim community.

RELATED: Why the Senate must fast-track Bidens nominee on religious freedom

The appointment of a such an experienced and respected Muslim diplomat would send a powerful message of Americas pluralism. With the Uyghur, Rohingya and Indian Muslim communities in crisis, a skilled diplomat with deep respect in the Muslim community is an enormous advantage.

Meanwhile, Hussains long record of commitment to protecting Christian rights (which often face particular challenges in Muslim countries) and his record on speaking up for Jewish rights in the face of instances of antisemitism, whether it emanates from secular or religious sources, or from the right or left wing, is exemplary.

Among the religious leaders and governmental officials with whom we have dealt across the globe in our academic and advocacy work, so many know Hussain and respect him. The Senate should confirm Hussain as swiftly as possible. So much needs to be done and we rely on the Senate to perform its vital role in making that happen.

(Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and InstitutionsatPrinceton University.David Saperstein is a rabbi, attorney and former U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

See more here:

Confirming Rashad Hussain would show that religious freedom is a cause that unites us - Religion News Service

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Although no one in America is forced to go to church, we have had more churchgoers in our history than any nation in the world. Religious liberty meaning we can chose any faith or none was a wild concept when the Founders decided to try it 250 years ago. But it has made America one of the most religious countries on the planet.

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited in1826 he was astonished to see freedom and faith working together. In his own France and in most of Europe the opposite was the case. Each nations established church was allied to the powerful state. Consequently faith was not free, which sent so many from that continent to America, seeking freedom of worship.

The American Revolution enabled us to create a nation that enshrined religious liberty in its laws. But the French Revolution did the opposite. The Jacobins saw the monarchy and the church as two parts of the same oppressive system. As they shouted their slogan of liberte, egalite, fraternite, they butchered priests, monks and nuns alongside monarchists and aristocrats.

REV. ROBERT SIRICO: POPE FRANCIS MAKES AN ENEMY OF THE POOR'S BEST FRIEND THE FREE MARKET

So it was Americas founders who uniquely understood that religious liberty was the key to all other liberties. Liberty or self-government required a virtuous people, which was usually the result of freely held faith. Those who answered to a "higher power" didnt need government to coerce them into doing the right thing. They did it on their own.

It was a tremendous historical gamble. But we can see nearly 250 years later that it worked, making America the wealthiest and freest nation that ever existed.

In recent years, however, America has lurched toward secularism. The idea of a "separation between church and state" was meant by the Founders to keep the state out of the business of the church, but it has been dramatically recast as a way of keep the state and culture virtually free of all religious influence.

Consequently we rarely celebrate the ideas that flow from faith as we once did. Virtue and honor and duty are no longer advocated in our public schools, and in most universities and in popular culture they are often mocked, along with religion itself.

But this retreat from faith has inevitably made us less free.

When we become less active in governing ourselves we look to the government for solutions. Government thereby grows and our abilities to govern ourselves quickly atrophy.

The Democrats in 2012 even chose to remove mention of God from their political platform, and their decades-long advocacy for big government has since grown into an embrace of socialist and culturally Marxist ideas, such as critical race theory.

If the people in a free nation abandon faith and virtuous behavior or even let it erode away slowly, the government will inevitably step into that vacuum.

For examples of where this trend eventually goes, we observe that governments where the state has overwhelming control over its citizenry do not merely lean away from God but become officially atheistic. The former Soviet Union and today China and North Korea are two chilling examples. In such countries those who believe in God become a direct threat to the governments power.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Christians and Jews were especially brutally persecuted in the former Soviet Union. If your atheist worldview holds that these human beings are not sacred and created in Gods image, whats to stop you for torturing and murdering them for the "greater good" of the state? Uyghur Muslims in todays China are enslaved and often murdered for their organs, which fetch a very high price on the international market.

When Hitler and the Nazis forced their socialist atheist views on Germans,the Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer knew that the church alone had the cultural and moral power to stand against it; but because his pleas to speak out and fight were largely met with indifference by a complacent church, 12 million human beings were murdered in death camps. Will the American church follow the German church and Germany in this, or will we learn from Bonhoeffers story?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

This, of course, is the great paradox of freedom. A free nation cannot force anyone to believe, or to be virtuous and self-governing. But if the people in a free nation abandon faith and virtuous behavior or even let it erode away slowly, the government will inevitably step into that vacuum and will grow to enforce its views with increasing brutality.

And while a free nation cannot and should not try to coerce atheists toward belief, people of faith, while we still have a voice, have an urgent duty to alert our fellow citizens that, although religious freedom protects atheists, atheism itself nonetheless has an inherent and alas well-established tendency to work not only against religious freedom, but against all freedoms. Let the reader understand.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ERIC METAXAS

See the rest here:

Eric Metaxas: Is atheism the enemy of freedom? Here's how retreating from faith makes US less free - Fox News