Feedback Logo  
 
Absolute rights, not absolute freedom

Being a political orphan in search of a party, I attended FP's annual dinner on June 3, 1989. With one major exception, I found that we agree on all the salient issues --- philosophical and political. Perhaps I have found a home in FP. If the point of our disagreement were not an overriding one, my commitment to FP would, at this point, be without qualification, because I agree with you also that to reject affiliation with a group over minor and debatable single issues is frivolous.

So long as we hold Freedom to be paramount, we can disagree (and always will in light of that very Freedom we cherish!) on moral issues like abortion, on religious issues like Sunday shopping, and a host of lesser ones like metric measure, speed limits, seat belts, anti-smoking bylaws, etc. Regulations enacted in public crusades "for the good of society" are mere irritants to some individuals' freedom of choice; as long as the foundation of Freedom is in place and the citizenry resolute in its action, they can be easily rescinded through the political process. Prohibition of the sale of alcohol is a good example.

But (we) have a disagreement on a profound question of Freedom itself and the attendant responsibilities it demands from the individual.

To get to the crux of it: Foremost to any philosophical formulation, natural law grants to the individual and a society the absolute right of self- protection from external as well as internal threat. We cherish Freedom as our most valuable possession and have the right and obligation to protect it. Not to exercise that right and fulfill that obligation flies in the face of natural law. And natural law is the most unforgiving of all --- disrespect for it leads to the destruction of the offender.

This too is as old as the ages, said by many men many times: Maintaining freedom requires eternal vigilance. Although individual freedom of choice occupies the core of our belief, it can prevail only within the larger sphere of like freedom to others.

Freedom is simultaneously an individual and a societal attribute. It follows that irresponsible individual choice, one that endangers the freedom of the collective whole, can not be allowed.

It is precisely on this point that the Libertarian credo derails itself; I hope that Freedom Party can do better.

The libertarian is obsessed with a mythical government ogre devouring individual freedoms and completely ignores the dangers to those same freedoms from actions of other individuals. But what is governance, after all, if not the exercising of choice by an individual (if a king, or autocrat), or by a group of individuals (elected or appointed). Therefore, we must have a government so constituted that eternal vigilance is brought to the protection of freedom by abuses by either an individual, a group, or the government itself.

The constitution of the United States is recognized as one of the more successful documents for self- governance by free men. It is so because the drafters of that constitution started with the historically proved proposition that all men are intrinsically selfish, venal and power-hungry. To put it crudely, which the drafters were not loath to do in their deliberations, their challenge was to devise a system of self-government by a bunch of rascals, such that each would have the maximum leeway for pursuing his at times nefarious ends, and yet ensure a measure of fairness to the rules of the game and protection of the lot from external predators.

The external predator of the day is the USSR. Certain sanctions on the export of high-tech to the USSR from NATO countries have been in force for many years. Granted, this has impeded the free choice in the disposal of property by greedy men who have no principles, save the mighty buck. There has been much loud squabbling and moaning by businessmen here and in Europe about the the enormity of restrictions on free trade, but no thought about the fact that this trade aids the colossal warmaking potential and power stance of the USSR, making the world less free and skyrocketing defence expenditures in the West. To me this is a clear case where the demand for unrestricted free choice by some endangers the freedom of all and therefore must be banned. To think otherwise is senseless and suicidal. I would prefer a complete ban on export of technology and capital to the USSR in any form. We are not dealing here with a tin-pot dictatorship, but with a power that, given the opportunity, would in their own words bury us.

- June,1989, George lrbe, RICHMOND HILL, Ont.

EDITOR: Fundamentally, it does not appear that we have any disagreement on the "profound question" of freedom and its inherent responsibilities. We quite agree with your general comments and observations. It should be made clear that Freedom Party supports absolute rights, not absolute freedom; in fact, individual rights are the way that a free society limits the freedom of individuals so as not to interfere with the similar rights of others.

It seems, rather, that if there is any disagreement in question, it is on the issue of free trade, specifically, trade with the USSR, a nation which you have certainly identified in the proper moral light. However, as the saying goes, "when goods don't cross borders, armies will." Military secrets aside (which may or may not involve high-tech, and which is entirely a separate issue from free trade), trade restrictions offer no defensive value to a nation whatsoever. Your preference towards "a complete ban on export of technology and capital to the USSR in any form," is a frightening prospect. Much of our food is the result of advanced technology, while much of any nation's capital consists of ideas and expertise; in the case of the USSR, the "brain drain" flows east to west. Totalitarian and authoritarian nations have always ultimately depended upon trade with free nations for their survival; for that very reason, it is seldom in their own interest to militarily destroy the productivity on which they depend; when that trade is cut off, we invite the very danger we fear. Restricting trade is in itself a totalitarian action; for that reason, we simply can't support it.

Originally published: Freedom Flyer 15



Contact FP
Freedom Flyer Newsletter

e-mail

Page last updated on May 1, 2002

FP logo (small)