Free Men

Recent months have been hard on a lot of friendships.  The strange events of this political season have left many people with the realization that they do not have as much in common philosophically as they previously thought.  At times this has been startling and many people feel confused and betrayed by those they considered close allies.  It is easy to become dismayed at the political and cultural reality and we must fight against becoming cynical and pessimistic when we observe the apathy and ignorance that is the prevailing norm these days.  

Many of us see a culture that does not respect the values that we hold dear, and find ourselves powerless to change that reality, at least in the short term.  But we need not focus on the short term.  What really matters at this point is educating the next generation and to help them make sense of this otherwise chaotic world we are handing them. 

We have lost a generation of people and we must now focus on raising children who understand the basic principles our society was founded on.  We need to start over, from the beginning, and examine our core beliefs and be honest about those things we disagree on.  We cannot explain it to our children until we understand it ourselves.  I will start by telling you what I believe, but as I do I would ask you to consider what YOU believe and where you may disagree with me.

I believe in that which I see and hear and touch and smell and taste.  I also believe in my ability to use reason.  I believe there is one objective reality and I acknowledge that my ability to perceive and understand it is limited and inherently flawed.  Nevertheless while remaining skeptical I trust my senses and ability to reason and until corrected I trust in the reality that I perceive.

I believe I am a Free Man.  I am a sovereign being.  I own myself, and so do you.  So does everyone.  We are all free, sovereign beings.  I believe we all have free will and can choose what path we follow.

I did not say anything about being powerful.  Being free to do as you please does not give you the power to do as you please.  Freedom does not give one the power to fly or to control the weather.  I did not say that anyone is free from consequences.  You may be free to walk off a cliff and have the power to walk off a cliff but you cannot escape the consequences of doing so.  And I did not say that everything one is free to do is something that a person should do or is wise to do.

I believe that all human interactions should be voluntary, but I recognize the reality that some people will steal or rape or attack others and that people will need to both protect themselves and to seek justice.  It is natural that people would want to come together voluntarily and cooperate for common defense of their life, liberty, and property and to administer justice in an orderly fashion.

These are my assumptions; my starting points.  So far these are not values; this is simply the starting framework.  Some philosophers have rejected the idea that I am a free man with free will, or that there is such a thing as objective reality.  This might be a good time to examine your own beliefs.  Do you trust your senses and your general perception of reality?  Do you trust Reason?  Do you believe in free will?

At this point we should address the question of religion.  Let’s go ahead and ask the big questions:  How did this all begin?  What happens when we die?  Why are we here?  How will this all end?  Is there a God?  Where did God come from?  Are there other universes, other realities? 

Religion is about faith.  The truth is that no mortal man knows the answers to these questions first-hand.  Religion provides some answers, but even our religion falls short in terms of answering every question about, for example, “why are we all here?”  (For those of you with all the answers, feeling smug right now-go find yourself a 7-year old to keep asking you “why?” until you succumb with a hearty “just because”).  I may have missed something growing up in the Methodist church but I am pretty sure we are left with some mysteries, some things that in the end are either unknown or known only to God.

And so I am at peace with the idea that sometimes the answer will be that I DON’T KNOW.  And that is ok, for me.  For some of you it may not be.  This may be a good time to examine whether you are ok with a little uncertainty or whether you need every answer wrapped up in a nice little package.  Like it or not I know that I do not know the answer to every question, and that is ok for me.  I am still seeking the truth but I will not pretend to know things that I do not.

I will divide morality into two parts.  The first part involves the interaction of people in society and the second involves the moral obligations of individuals.

In terms of the interaction of individuals in society I would offer as a premise that nobody has the right to interfere with the life, liberty, or property of another.  This is a simple variation of the non-aggression principle and has been a cornerstone of social morality throughout our history.  Nobody has the right to initiate force against another.

I offer it as a “premise”, rather than suggesting it is some divine law or naturally binding on individuals.  History shows that the rights of individuals have been routinely abused and that there is no natural protection against such abuse.  Nevertheless this is the first pillar of my moral code.  It is also a cornerstone of most religious and philosophical thought.

If everyone is sovereign, and nobody can infringe on the rights of another, then it naturally follows that everyone is equal.  This is the very basis of equality; that each individual is sovereign and entitled to freedom from interference.  The other side of freedom from interference is personal responsibility.  If you are free to choose then you must also accept the consequences of your actions.

When we combine the concept of individual sovereignty with the realization that no man has any right to interfere with the life, liberty, or property of another we have adequately described the basis for all of our rights.  The enumerated rights of freedom of speech and religion and self-defense and peaceful assembly are all inherent in the two principles of sovereignty and non-aggression.

Those of you taking this exercise to heart are wondering about the limits on this philosophy.  Let us now entertain the question about CHILDREN.  If children are sovereign then how can parents tell them what to do?  The reality is that not everyone can care for themselves.  Children are the most obvious example but there are disabled and elderly and others that cannot survive without outside help and who cannot be held responsible for making their own decisions.  How can these people be sovereign and have personal responsibility when they are not capable?

Everyone is helpless as a newborn. But this does not diminish the sovereign nature of the individual. All life is sacred.  Each life matters, and the recognition of the sovereign nature of the individual is the recognition of the dignity of each individual life.  The creation of life is a sacred thing, and those who create life bear an obligation to the life they create.  Parents bear a responsibility to care for their children.  They have the free will to choose to come together and create life, and they also bear the personal responsibility for the life that is the result of their decision.

Not everyone is going to agree with this philosophy.  Some people are going to steal and rape and attack others.  Parents will abandon their children.  When these things occur there is a need for justice.  In order to provide for an orderly and just society where rights are protected people have come together to form governments.  Not everyone sees that as a good thing.

The debate between the need for minimal government and the right to be left alone is a debate that has spanned a number of decades.  I tend to like an explanation offered recently by Austin Petersen, who talks about walking down the street and seeing a couple of parents starving their baby.  The anarchists would offer that interfering to force them to feed the baby would be a violation of the family’s rights and you have no right to interfere.

I am a minarchist because I believe that society has the right to step in and protect the baby from starvation.  I think that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals, including the rights of children to receive basic care from their parents.  Anything beyond the protection of rights and enforcement of contracts would in my view give government power beyond that of the individuals from which it initiates.

Just because we should not use the force of government to do something does not mean, however, that there should not or will not be charity and voluntary cooperation to care for the needs of others.   Free markets and voluntary cooperation will provide goods and services and families and churches and charities will make sure they are available to those most in need.

As free individuals we have choices to make that do not involve government, and the choices we make in our private lives are based on our individual morality. For most of us that means we value things like honesty and integrity and charity and compassion.  Individual morality is greatly influenced by family structure and the family relies on individuals making good moral decisions to remain strong.  The family, in turn, is the building block of our communities and ultimately our society.

You may be wondering why I am taking the time to lay out these building blocks of social philosophy.  Because most people do not understand, much less agree with, the above.  As much as I would like to believe that we are all on the same page, I realize we are not.  Some of you stopped agreeing with me before the end of the first paragraph.

It is ok to disagree.  These are my ideas, not yours.  But I would ask that each of you think about what YOUR philosophy looks like.  How does it differ from mine?  Where did we part ways?  How can you back up your ideas?  Are they consistent?

We are doing a bad job at solving some of the problems in our society and I believe that is partly due to our failure to understand the ways things work.  We clearly do not understand personal responsibility or individual liberty.  Most view government as some sort of monolithic solution to all of our problems through some magic bureaucratic process.  It doesn’t work that way.

We need to go back to square one and start educating the next generation about the ideas of Liberty.  We need to explain to people that they are free sovereign beings.  We also need to explore the basics of personal morality but that will wait for another day.

For now I will merely encourage the reader to take a couple of minutes and think about your own core philosophy.  Are you free?