Dean's World

Monday Assertion

Dave Price

When forced to choose, freedom is almost always preferable to peace.

Posted by Dave Price | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks

Ronald Coleman (mail) (www):

Peace is the absence, not of war, but of violence. Tyranny (i.e., the opposite of freedom) is the state of pervasive violent coercion. So the posited assertion, I think, is inherently flawed (like human nature!). You cannot have freedom without peace, or peace without freedom, as I believe they are properly defined.

7.5.2007 10:43am

(link)

TallDave (mail) (www):

Freedom from violence is one kind of freedom, but there are many others.

7.5.2007 11:00am

(link)

TallDave (mail) (www):

And, I should add, there is often a choice between giving up those other freedoms or having freedom from violence (peace).

7.5.2007 11:03am

(link)

Ronald Coleman (mail) (www):

I don't believe any of the freedoms you refer to, Dave, has any meaning -- in other words, is indeed freedom -- without freedom from violent coercion. This is what we call ordered liberty, after all.

7.5.2007 12:35pm

(link)

Jack G (mail) (www):

The liberty to be eternally at peace no matter the circumstances is not so much a freedom as a voluntary concession we make to avoid the risk of acknowledging the fact that in this world a man cannot be both simultaneously free in all things and also consigned and resigned to all things.

To be truly free a man must be free to be both for some things, and against other things.

And if a man is against nothing, or for nothing, if there is nothing he would war either for, or against, then he is not so much at peace, as he is slave to the fact that he will accept anything except the responsibility of changing those things that should not be, and would not be, if he had but the courage to act.

7.5.2007 1:08pm

(link)

TallDave (mail) (www):

Ron,

Well, we're not totally free from violent coercion even here in present-day America. We are violently coerced to pay taxes, obey speed limits, etc.

It's always a matter of degree. Would you trade democracy, free speech, or a free press for peace? That's the question we are often confronted with.

7.5.2007 1:26pm

(link)

jody (mail) (www):

Or for more precision, which would you choose?

Somalia versus China?
Somalia vs Singapore?
Somalia vs Hong Kong?
Somalia vs Ukraine?
Mississipi vs Moldova?

7.5.2007 1:55pm

(link)

LaurenQuipp (mail):

What about the freedom to harm people? Would that encourage nihilism(which I despise)? Nihilism = chaos?

7.5.2007 3:58pm

(link)

Ronald Coleman (mail) (www):

You're right, we also live under a very attenuated threat of violence. So I say get that down to the bare minimum. Then talk about the "freedoms" you want to build on top of that. They are, relatively speaking, luxuries -- no matter how inalienable we consider them.

7.5.2007 5:59pm

(link)

BK (mail):

Gov't is violent coersion. In the best of worlds it is the violent coersion of those who would purposely harm others (e.g. Police violently coercing murderers).

The complete absense of gov't is anarchy. Anarchy, ineveitably, is the rule of the strong and the brutal over the weak and is thus also violently coersive (that is if you are one of the weak).

Thus we will never be completely free from violent coersion of some form. The question is how best to restrain it to the most proper expressions.

I think it appropriate this question is asked so close to the 4th of July

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So far, liberal democracy has shown itself to be the most effective manner for ensuring that the violent coersion of the state is used to protect it's people rather than prey on them.

7.5.2007 6:10pm

(link)

Jack G (mail) (www):

So far, liberal democracy has shown itself to be the most effective manner for ensuring that the violent coersion of the state is used to protect it's people rather than prey on them.

Well spoken.

7.5.2007 6:52pm

(link)

Arnold Harris (mail):

Right on.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

7.5.2007 7:54pm

(link)

daniel (www):

Somebody thinks that they're coming off a weekend. The perils of a midweek holiday, I guess.

7.6.2007 6:58am

(link)

daniel (www):

I should add (non-snarkily) that there are basically two types of freedom: positive and negative. The difference being "freedom of" versus "freedom from."

7.6.2007 7:37am

Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.

Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.

Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.