Posted by wgreen on 06/03/09 10:52 AM [Newer: Are Americans free to make a living?] [Older: The threshold for noncooperation?]

What is more important, freedom, or food?  Is "live free or die" a reasonable attitude?   If given the choice between death and slavery, which would be the most reasonable?

Such questions can be used to justify acquiescence to tyranny.   Tyrants always make such offers, implicitly or explicitly.   They can also be used to justify socialism, if it is imagined that socialism can lead to greater physical well being for the greatest number, ending starvation, etc.  It can be argued that it is right for some freedom to be sacrificed in order to ensure survival or even a minimum level of comfort and security. 

So what is the reasonable response to these questions?  Let's begin at the beginning. The only reasonable motivation for doing anything is to increase one's own sense of fulfillment.  Such fulfillment comes notonly (or even primarily) through physical pleasure (the highest levels of fulfillment are found in virtue).  The question then becomes, which would bring more fulfillment, death with freedom, or food with slavery?  Maybe it depends on the individual, but I think we can analyze this a bit from an "objective" standpoint. 

It is clear that food and life are not always more valuable than the alternative.  For example, if you had to choose between starvation and murder, you should most certainly choose starvation, since life as a murderer must be worse than death with honor.  In fact, we can probably say that our physical lives have no value to us in and of themselves.  Rather, fulfillment gives value to life.

So the question is whether one can find sufficient fulfillment as  a slave to make life worth living.  The answer would seem to be yes.  Even in the concentration camp, some found meaning and fulfillment (Corrie Ten Boom, Victor Frankl).  Therefore, one might choose slavery over death. 

It may seem that this means we should never choose freedom over life, since there may always be the possibility of fulfillment in life.  But I do not think this is the case.  It comes down to a comparison.  As Hazlitt says, we should seek to exchange a less satisfactory state of affairs for a more satisfactory state of affairs.  If there is a good chance of successfully resisting enslavement, and if the slavery is particularly severe, then I may decide that the disparity in potential fulfillment is worth the risk.  On the other hand, if the slavery is mild, and there is little chance of escape, I may decide to acquiesce.   In addition, I may consider the effect of the effect of my actions upon others and the fulfillment or loss thereof that action or inaction may cause.  If I could save others from slavery, then this may produce greater fulfillment and shift the equation in favor of resistance.

Some may say that acceptance of any degree of slavery is not acceptable, and that freedom must be pursued absolutely.  But I don't think this is reasonable.  Freedom is only of value inasmuch as it enhances fulfillment.

Therefore, freedom should only be sacrificed when and if it becomes evident that there is a greater chance for greater fulfillment through acquiescence. 

Does this mean that socialism is desirable because it sacrifices freedom for physical comfort and security?  No, even if socialism did produce greater comfort and security than freedom.   Even if socialism would end starvation (which it would not), it is not reasonable to infringe on the liberty of some in order to provide food (or some minimum level of comfort) for others.  While I, as an individual, may elect slavery over starvation, that does not mean that I have a right to enslave another in order to secure my own or another's food.  Just as I should not, if I wish to lead a full life, murder another to feed myself, so I should not enslave another to feed myself (or them).  Thus, though freedom may not be the highest value, it does not follow that it can be sacrificed by a third party.  Even if it were clear that freedom should be less highly valued than some minimum level of comfort, it would not be clear that I would find greater fulfillment in making that choice for another.  In other words, even if I truly know what is best for the person, it is not clear that I would find fulfillment in overriding that person's will in order to force it upon them.

And in fact, I may not know what is best for them.

And in fact, socialism is not what is best for them, since it is free markets, not socialism, that enhances general well being.  Socialism leads to degradation, as has been replicated in history.

Posted 06/03/09 5:02 PM JohnOTD Memphis, TN

Well, what civil disobedience do you propose?

Posted 06/04/09 05:54 AM wgreen Brooklyn, CT

I guess I'm not entirely sure we're ready. I think it would only work if it were large and organized.

Posted 06/04/09 7:51 PM Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

We could start by not getting permits to have "permission" to protest...

Posted 06/20/09 8:38 PM JohnOTD Memphis, TN

Well put Andrew! Here's what I propose. Stickering. Sounds lame, right? I knew some people in New Orleans who got shut down for tagging (graffiti) so they started stickering the city with catchy stickers and a link to a website calling for support for local taggers, galleries to display their work and graffiti walls. Don't know if they got any of that, but it sounded like a great idea. Let's make a few designs; think eye-catching, abrasive, to the point. Put a link to C4L or to a site detailing all the greivances we have with the federal government (stick to facts, not opinions. People are smart enough to form their own if given the info, and if they're not, we don't need em). I think this is better than pamphlets because they can't just get tossed and the authorities can't laugh them off, they have to clean 'em up. But hey, we're cleaning up their mess, and paybacks a b...well, you get where I'm going.