A more persuasive argument for liberty

Typically, the apologists of liberty and capitalism will point to man’s natural right to freedom, or to the happiness he will obtain by satisfying his natural desire for agency, or to the utility of free markets for maximizing material wealth and leisure.

The first is easiest to cast aside by exiting the libertarian’s frame, and holding the rights of the collective above the rights of the few. We have seen the redundancy and efficiency with which totalitarians have used this argument to persuade fools to sell out their fellows.

Alternatively, a rationalist in the classical tradition can merely deny the existence of rights and point out that “rights” are indistinguishable from value judgments, albeit superlative ones. It is therefore impossible to assert the existence of rights to explain phenomena accounted by these value judgments. I find this second argument indefatigable.

The second, more utilitarian argument may be simply ignored as factually incorrect. We can see in our everyday lives that the majority of men do not desire liberty. They desire power over other men, or to install a tyrant who favors them and their interests. They desire the moral high ground, the better from which to attack their enemies, and the proof of their superiority provided by their God-given victories.

This argument is doubly true for the physically weaker sex, who will not be persuaded to relinquish the tyranny of the majority. A woman’s physical safety depends upon the collective in a way that men cannot understand. Therefore, she will seek harmony within her group and favor preemptive attacks on weaker groups who threaten to become stronger.

The third argument seems as if it should be persuasive, even in my cynical perception. But it is a mistake to pretend that modern men seek objective material prosperity. Wealth is sought less often for material comfort than is as a relative measure of status. In this way, the bankruptcy of a neighbor or a business competitor is almost as thrilling as success. In his preconscious mind, a man will receive a dose of chemical rewards, but in his conscious mind he will think “I finally appreciate what I have,” or “How lucky and skilled I must be if I’m surviving in such a harsh economy.”

However, a wise person who understands man’s animal nature can redirect his wicked desires. He can craft arguments that the zeitgeist will devour greedily, yet will serve their intended purpose long after they have been digested (like medicine with sugar coating).

(On that note, kudos to Vox Day for making such an argument. Hopefully we’re free of that silly idea that religion causes wars for at least a generation.)

To that end, I propose an argument of the following form:

  1. Liberty and capitalism create wealth.
  2. Wealth means strength.
  3. Strength will allow you to enjoy
    • your material prosperity,
    • the tributes of the weak,
    • security at home, glory abroad,
    • your liberty itself (that is, the moral high ground).

You may recognize this as the re-creation of the idea that built societies as we know them. It is the basis of every globalist plan to achieve one-world government, peace, and prosperity by introducing a common enemy that must be conquered. It is immaterial whether that is a fake alien invasion, global warming, or the threat of bioterrorism (I’m truly surprised we haven’t heard that one yet).

It is natural to primitive man that the strong will prey upon the weak. No child needs this explained to them. Instead, a child needs to be instructed that a stronger person (a parent) is willing to hurt him in order to enforce the parent’s arcane purposes (raising a functional, moral adult who is submissive to the rules of civil society).

This instinct is common to all men, and cannot be eliminated. It can only be suppressed to better purposes. Any argument that appeals to all men must appeal to desires they all share, such as the domination of weaker groups and the reduction of group deviancy.

But the argument above is crude and must be made more palatable. Here’s a potential replacement that will be very persuasive to Americans:

  1. Liberty and capitalism create wealth.
  2. Wealth means strength.
  3. The Chinese have increased their liberty and become strong.
  4. Americans have given up their liberties and become weak.
  5. Would the world be better off if it were forced to conform to American culture or Chinese culture.

Or maybe it’s better to leave that last question implied.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A more persuasive argument for liberty

  1. heaviside says:

    But the people who run the West don’t want to be strong. If they did, they’d be fascists.

  2. Obadiah says:

    The Chinese have increased their liberty and become strong.

    They’re so liberated I hear that sometimes they’re allowed to have two children instead of one!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s