Principles of Liberty

NOTE TO SELF: I feel like this post isn't well written. It needs more maturing and development.

So what are the principles of liberty?

The context of the word liberty can be vast, and while some of the principles I'll discuss here hold true to the vast sense, some are more specific to my intended topic of the moment: political liberty.

Please note that no principle is axiomatic, i.e. self-evident or unquestionable, but rather each is worthy of deep consideration and discussion. What I propose here as principles, I believe truly so to be. I might be wrong. Wresting with such matters, however, is not what this post is about. What this post is about is putting multiple principles together and considering the implications that result.

The first principle of political liberty to consider is this: government is force. Government is incapable of taking any action except through coercion.

Next is this: government consists of human actors. Government doesn't do anything--it is people who are the actors.

So to be more precise with a previous comment, government representatives, i.e. human actors i.e. people, can not act on behalf of that government without it being backed by either the threat of or actual coercion.

In our consideration then of government action, it is prudent to consider principles of human nature such as this one: "as soon as [a human] get[s] a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (D&C 121:39)

Now, much could be made of the words unrighteous dominion, and I do not doubt that various insights could ensue from so doing. However, for the object of simplicity here, I will simply sum it up with the idea that said authority is used in ways that perpetrate against others.

Much can be expounded upon with just these three principles, but I don't want to dive in just yet. Let's consider just a few more principles of liberty.

By definition, a free society is one in which the individual liberties of all people in said society are protected and maintained. So how are individual liberties maintained? An individual's liberties can only be maintained as individual responsibility is also maintained. When one person wrongs another, intentionally or accidentally, they can choose or not to try to see things through and make it right, inasmuch as is possible. When a person is unable or unwilling to act thus responsibly, they have unavoidably infringed on the liberties of another.

Of note: this statement does not imply its converse. If my liberties are restricted, directly or indirectly, by another's actions, it does not necessarily mean that that person has wronged me.

How does justice interact with liberty? Justice is the consequence of responsibility. Responsibility is the boundary by which liberty is protected and maintained. Without responsibility, there is no justice. The enforcement of justice, then, is no more nor less than the enforcement of responsibility. Devalue or dismiss justice and you gut responsibility of its meaning, with liberty lost as a price paid. 

Does this mean rigid, cold, heartless justice should master our hearts and our politics? No. Justice can be satiated with, but not robbed by, mercy. For this to avail, mercy must be given freely, either by a third party who freely makes reparations on behalf of the debtor (debtor to justice), or by the creditor of justice directly. Mercy can only be given freely, or it is not mercy at all. It is common to see favoritism promoted under mercy's guise, which ironically is a robbery of justice.

Aside: In her book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand unsuccessfully attempted to spurn mercy. She only succeeded in spurning its counterfeits, and, pun intended, justly so.

Lastly, the purpose of government is to provide liberty by upholding justice. Frederic Bastiat said it this way: "the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop [the] fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work."

Now, before we come to the point of all this, here again are the aforementioned principles listed out for reference.

• Government is force.
• Government consists of human actors.
• As soon as [a human] get[s] a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
• A free society is one in which the individual liberties of all people in said society are protected and maintained.
• An individual's liberties can only be maintained as individual responsibility is also maintained.
• Justice is the consequence of responsibility.
• Mercy can only be given freely.
• The purpose of government is to provide liberty by upholding justice.

So now, with these principles together, let us consider what the best approach toward government might be.

Consider the scenario. An unavoidably human actor, who will be inclined to exercise unrighteous dominion, is given or takes the ability to use force over others. How likely is it that justice will be upheld and liberty maintained? How likely is government to become the very perpetrator against the justice and liberty its whole purpose is to uphold and provide? Do not the annals of history abound with example after example after tyrannous example of this?

I am unaware of any type of organization, instrument, or idea that has had a more eviscerating effect on the liberty of the human race than governments.

So what are we to do? How are we to approach government, if given the chance?

I believe Thomas Jefferson understood well what to do. "In questions of power then," he said, "let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."

Thus the intent of the constitution of our country: to hold back man's natural inclination for unrighteous dominion so that government can fulfill its true purpose, that of providing liberty by upholding justice.

As long as man is fallen, anything more or less than this is folly.

Principles and Positions in Current Politics

I'm currently reading "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. If any book describes how the common German became engaged with the Nazi party, this is it. In many aspects, it's startlingly... normal.

At this moment, we're in the heart of the Corona Virus/COVID-19 pandemic. Pretty much everywhere has a mask mandate in place.

Some, myself included, are concerned about this intrusion into our liberties. Most of society, however, is quick to judge and call anyone who doesn't wear a mask "selfish," that wearing a mask is compassionate, and if you don't wear one, then you're obviously not.

There are many principles being breached here including an unwillingness to seek understanding, haste in judgment, victimhood, inappropriate assignment of responsibility, inconsistency in risk assessment, and more.

However, what I wish to focus on at the moment is the need for principles to be our guide rather than opinions or emotions.

Many individuals concerned about liberty are using a "slippery-slope" type argument. e.g. "today it's mandated masks, tomorrow it's mandated vaccines." Logically, this argument on its own is a logical fallacy.

Quoting from Your Logical Fallacy Is .com:

"You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."

By using this argument/fallacy, we're allowing the discussion to be based on "where's the appropriate line?" In other words, we're focused on the position, not the principle.

From a principled perspective--principles of liberty, that is--mask mandates are a breach of appropriate government powers. Mandated vaccines would be as well. And while one may seem more sever than another in consequence and extent, from the perspective of principles, they are no different. If you don't believe one shouldn't be mandated because freedom, then you will be in a logically self-contradicting state to also believe that the other should be mandated because safety. You may not realize it, and you may rationalize it, but when you look at and understand the principles, it becomes clear.

Circling back, the experiences in Nazi Germany were certainly a slippery slope. Each little item was justified because "it wasn't so bad," even if the person wasn't totally comfortable with it, until it got to the point that there was nothing they could do about it. If they had stood on principle from the beginning, there would never have approached the slope. Easy to say in hindsight, harder to say when we're in the middle of living it.

Am I saying that mask mandates are the path to becoming like the Nazi party? No, certainly not. I am saying that they go against principle, and the more that happens, the more our liberty is compromised.

When arguments are discussed, the strongest presentations will be built on principles, not positions.