It's well known that Ben Franklin was not the straightest moral shooter among the Founding Fathers, but there's a sort of cult of personality around some of the others who are respected not just for the founding philosophies and love of freedom, but also for virtue. So a cockamamie history professor, named Thaddeus Russell, gets almost 10 minutes of prime John Stossel show coverage on Fox this week, talking about his new book a Renegade’s History of the United States. His basic idea is to go through the facts and show examples of debauchery, even among the Founders who most put on a morality pedestal. While I don’t dispute many of his facts, his interpretations are almost all undergirded by the fallacious logic that the existence of immorality among influential people proves that immorality causes liberty. The following is my comments debate with a number of passionate believers in freedom over responsibility.
Me: Talk about a professor who knows how to double-down on his fallacious logic when challenged. The Founders were making history, and making liberty possible. The “renegades” were either along for the ride, or abusing what liberties they had. Huge difference. The Constitution can‘t work if the people aren’t moral enough to uphold it by obeying just laws. Abuses do and have always existed, but they work against the founding principles, not in advancement of them.
Thoughtful opponent: When you have a group of guys get together and pen writings about Live and Let Live, you have to kind of assume that they’re the type who, gosh, Live and Let Live. As if, follow me here, they were all normal, happy human beings who enjoyed life and didn’t want some nagging nobbob dictating to them how to live. If they were a bunch of moral Puritans I would have been shocked if they’d had been able to write a single line in the Declaration of Independence. Puritans don’t like freedom, they like conformity and rules and a strict moral code throughout society. Fun loving types are the opposite of moral Puritans. I for one would celebrate a cadre of fun loving men who enjoyed their booze, whores and who were not married to their work 24/7. Much better company than a bunch of church ladies if you ask me. :)
Me: You’ve written many respectable things on this forum, friend, but it appears here that you can’t distinguish between Libertarian and Libertine. You’ve been duped. You trade fun for joy, and completely miss the point of liberty and the principles undergirding it if you believe the notion that obedience to moral laws invariably makes Jack a dull boy. The most fun-loving people I know are ones who never touch alcohol, who love their wives and kids, and who release their energy in socially and morally responsible ways, rather than in pure rebellion against the very “rules” that allow us all the freedom we enjoy. I’m not defending prudish puritanism, but you appear to be defending wantonness. It can’t lead to happiness, I’m sad to have to tell you. Don’t you know the stop sign on the road keeps you free from accidents with cross traffic?
Thoughtful opponent: “You’ve written many respectable things on this forum, Ghost, but it appears here that you can’t
distinguish between Libertarian and Libertine.”
distinguish between Libertarian and Libertine.”
Given my posts here to date, do you really think that I don’t know the differences between libertine and libertarian? That I haven’t read the Marquis de Sade in some depth, that I’m not familiar with the Aesthetic movement of the late 19th century?
“You’ve been duped. You trade fun for joy, and completely miss the point of liberty and the principles undergirding it if you believe the notion that obedience to moral laws invariably makes Jack a dull boy.”
There’s no problem with following moral laws. There is a problem with embracing moral Puritanism. There’s a difference. You should do what’s right, you should be a good person, but that doesn’t mean that you should abstain from all fun in life. You can drink and flirt with women and get this, you can still be a decent moral guy. There is a false dichotomy that‘s developed since the Victorian era that says you’re either some chaste moral Puritan, or you’re for no-rules hedonism.
“The most fun-loving people I know are ones who never touch alcohol, who love their wives and kids, and who release their energy in socially and morally responsible ways, rather than in pure rebellion against the very “rules” that allow us all the freedom we enjoy.”
The most fun loving people are ones that sometimes touch alcohol, or do not, who love their wives, or who are not married, and who release their energy as they see fit as long as they do not harm others. The “rules” that allow us all the “freedom we enjoy” are few, and have to do with living your life as you see fit, assuming you harm no others. You cannot stumble around drunk in the middle of a highway and screech that it’s your right, that’s a given, but you don’t have to be a pristine Puritan either. The rules, again, are few in a truly free society, and yes, adherence to those rules is required by all. What that has to do with having a drink, liking women and not being a 24/7 workaholic, I honestly don’t know.
“I’m not defending prudish puritanism, but you appear to be defending wantonness. It can’t lead to happiness, I’m sad to have to tell you. Don’t you know the stop sign on the road keeps you free from accidents with cross traffic?”
But that stop sign has nothing to do with what kind of music I choose to play on the car radio. And that’s what *I’m* saying. Lots of folks run under the mistaken notion that the Founders were these morally pure chaste types who ran around with Bibles in their hands and would only engage in nearly Holy activities. And my original post is, well, that kind of person would not even conceive of wanting to establish a nation of liberty where each man is free to do as he wills as long as he harms no other. Those in fact are the opposite types of people.
Me: I hear you, friend, and am glad I was able to draw you out a little more. You bring back a little balance and realism to discussions of the Founders which, you’re right, can tend to put them on a falsely puritanical pedestal.
I still wonder if you aren’t swinging the pendulum of balance on this discussion a little too far in your desire for a proper correction.
The Founders had to pioneer a political system in which tyranny was to be held in check by a government by the people, of the people and for the people (I know that’s Lincoln, but he was summarizing the Founder’s essential difference from the political models of the day), which could best be guaranteed, in their view, by freedoms held together, or rather kept in order, by “very few rules” as you put it. But if (I said IF) you believe that because they rejected political tyranny by advocating for personal freedom they somehow also rejected moral purity as an ideal for them to pursue personally, you also are guilty of twisting history to suit your own lifestyle choices. Yeah, Franklin was a skirt-chaser. And yes the other Founders would defend his right to behave according to his own moral compass. But that doesn’t mean they threw all caution to the wind at every chance they could, that they were drunks and disorderly, living only for the weekend, and that they didn’t condemn Franklin personally for his immorality. You see, there’s a principle of responsibility paired with freedom. The Founders understood this. But left it mostly to God (except for those “few rules” in which society needed to get involved to prevent damage to others) to take care of the consequences for people’s poor choices. They believed that hard work gave the consequence of success. They believed, for the most part, that staying chaste gave the consequence of lasting joy. They believed that alcoholic loss of control was not in keeping with the kinds of measured decisions, of responsible actions, that tended to increase freedom. They gave freedom to Libertines and Puritans alike. But they based their civil code more along the lines of the Puritans than the Libertines, because increased responsibility increases liberty, inevitably, and decreased responsibility decreases liberty, inevitably. It’s a natural law. The Founders placed SO MUCH confidence in this natural law that even though they WERE mostly the kind that “engaged in nearly Holy activities”, they STILL very much conceived of “establishing a nation of liberty where each man is free to do as he wills as long as he harms no other”. It’s a false notion that it takes a man who has engaged in sinful activity (however “sin” is defined, but let’s take the most extremely puritanical perspective just for argument) to understand how much “fun” sin can be, or that only the experienced can really “know” what it’s like. I, for one, would rather trust a man who has resisted most effectively to be my leader. (You are free to choose based on whatever other criteria you establish, although I encourage you to seek for leaders with moral integrity).
I still wonder if you aren’t swinging the pendulum of balance on this discussion a little too far in your desire for a proper correction.
The Founders had to pioneer a political system in which tyranny was to be held in check by a government by the people, of the people and for the people (I know that’s Lincoln, but he was summarizing the Founder’s essential difference from the political models of the day), which could best be guaranteed, in their view, by freedoms held together, or rather kept in order, by “very few rules” as you put it. But if (I said IF) you believe that because they rejected political tyranny by advocating for personal freedom they somehow also rejected moral purity as an ideal for them to pursue personally, you also are guilty of twisting history to suit your own lifestyle choices. Yeah, Franklin was a skirt-chaser. And yes the other Founders would defend his right to behave according to his own moral compass. But that doesn’t mean they threw all caution to the wind at every chance they could, that they were drunks and disorderly, living only for the weekend, and that they didn’t condemn Franklin personally for his immorality. You see, there’s a principle of responsibility paired with freedom. The Founders understood this. But left it mostly to God (except for those “few rules” in which society needed to get involved to prevent damage to others) to take care of the consequences for people’s poor choices. They believed that hard work gave the consequence of success. They believed, for the most part, that staying chaste gave the consequence of lasting joy. They believed that alcoholic loss of control was not in keeping with the kinds of measured decisions, of responsible actions, that tended to increase freedom. They gave freedom to Libertines and Puritans alike. But they based their civil code more along the lines of the Puritans than the Libertines, because increased responsibility increases liberty, inevitably, and decreased responsibility decreases liberty, inevitably. It’s a natural law. The Founders placed SO MUCH confidence in this natural law that even though they WERE mostly the kind that “engaged in nearly Holy activities”, they STILL very much conceived of “establishing a nation of liberty where each man is free to do as he wills as long as he harms no other”. It’s a false notion that it takes a man who has engaged in sinful activity (however “sin” is defined, but let’s take the most extremely puritanical perspective just for argument) to understand how much “fun” sin can be, or that only the experienced can really “know” what it’s like. I, for one, would rather trust a man who has resisted most effectively to be my leader. (You are free to choose based on whatever other criteria you establish, although I encourage you to seek for leaders with moral integrity).
“There is a false dichotomy that‘s developed since the Victorian era that says you’re either some chaste moral Puritan, or you’re for no-rules hedonism.”
When you claimed that “Fun loving types are the opposite of moral Puritans” it was YOU who set up the dichotomy. You were right the second time that it’s a false one. Your language betrays your assumption that this dichotomy exists and operates in the real world. In the very same paragraph you denounce the dichotomy, you assert: “You should do what’s right, you should be a good person, but that doesn’t mean that you should abstain from all fun in life.“ And by opposing the very concept of ”fun in life“ with ”good person“ and doing ”what’s right”, you reveal your belief that it’s disobedience to moral rules that provides the “fun in life”; that it’s somehow the opposite of fun to stay on the straight and narrow. What *I’m* saying is that although we all fall short, those of us who can choose to stay as close to the straight and narrow as we can, aren’t missing ANYTHING valuable, and, if you would really get to know a few of us, are REALLY where the lasting “fun” is at anyway.
Unreflecting opponent: “Thoughtful Opponent” has shown himself to be a true freedom loving American, and not just in his statement in this thread. He hit that proverbial nail directly on the head.
To address your statement – Exactly who’s morals are you refering to???? Yours ??? Someone elses ??? Who has either the right or the ability to decide what morals are right or wrong for another human being ???
The irrefutable fact is NOBODY on this rock(Earth) has either the RIGHT nor ABILITY to determine what another human being’s moral compass should be. P.E.R.I.O.D. Any attempt to do so is an act of subjugation… Subjugatin IS aggression… Think Slavery…. Think again before you think yours or another human beings morlas take precedence over someone elses. That train of thought can/will cost a life very quickly…
And to your stop sign statement….. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!! Tell me you really don’t think that red and white painted piece of metal next to the road actually prevents accidents ?¿! What? you can’t think for yourself? You need a sign to tell you that your comin up on an intercestion and there could be other cars there ???? Oh, wait, umm, wouldn’t that be common sense ?? Ever notice what happens at a major intersection that has a stop light, when the power is out ??? Gee, people seem to be able to figure out on their own, how to address the situation without some sign post, person, entity, government, or outside influence or control….. Human nature seems to have a good grasp on it, and I will bet ya 100 GaZillion pounds of gold that each of those people have their very own personal set of morals…….. DOH
Thanx, and have a nice day.
Me: I greatly respect “Thoughtful Opponent”, and have agreed, sometimes publicly, with his statements on a wide variety of issues. He’s an astute thinker and likes to deal in well-established facts when he opines. I’m pretty sure even now, he appreciates a challenge to his way of thinking, and I hope he realizes there’s no personal malice in it on my end whatsoever.
And now I will also point out YOUR fallacies.
I said NOTHING about WHO is to decide the morality of anyone. Even the Founders who agreed that only a moral and religious people could work as a society under the kind of political system the Constitution set up agreed that the freedom of our nation depended on freedom of conscience. There needs to be a bare minimum of laws to protect people from their government, and from other evildoers, but aside from the basic Judeo-Christian base philosophy behind those bare-bones laws, neither the Bible nor the Qur’ an, nor any other group’s holy writ should form the basis for NATIONAL laws (the principle being to allow individuals, and groups of individuals, and groups of groups as large as an entire state the maximum freedom to determine for themselves what brand of morality to subscribe to). Please don’t twist my argument or that of the Founders. We don’t want to impose morality, BUT we WILL encourage you to note that there are consequences to thoughts, attitudes, words, and behaviors, and we WILL attempt to convince you that our version of morality, when adhered to, provides you the best natural consequences, and that all others tend to restrict the freedoms you hold so dear. If you want to remain free, you have to USE your freedom to choose the right.
As to the stop sign METAPHOR, the danger with all metaphors is that people can take them farther than their lesson is obviously intended to take people, and then interpolate that they don’t say what they obviously meant to say. Even when you do this, the contradictions within your philosophy become apparent. You claim that without stop signs, people share enough morality (even if it is only a reflex of self-preservation) for order to be established without any legal intervention or authority. Then a few posts later you claim that the success of society does NOT require a sharing of fundamental views on morality. Life should is valuable and should be preserved. That’s a moral value.
The stop sign example demonstrates a simple principle: when people organize to determine rules, even arbitrary ones, the existence of the rule removes confusion and creates order, thereby allowing people to be free from potentially life-threatening accidents, which is a huge freedom, in exchange for giving up a little speed. You counter that common sense can be trusted for people to establish that same kind of order in the absence of codified rules of the road. Fine. But even then, if a SINGLE selfish individual decided it was NOT his own morality to take turns fairly with others, many others would stop relinquishing their own advantages of position, size of vehicle, etc. and soon, at a busy intersection, only one direction of traffic would prevail. Do you understand WHY they even INVENTED such a thing as a street light? Don’t you think this kind of behavior was COMMON in major cities? I think YOU’RE the one that needs to re-think whether your attitude really reflects common sense.
Be free to choose your own moral compass. No one should impose it on you. But if you insist on anarchy as a viable model for society, you better hope you’re the biggest, strongest, smartest, and best armed, or you’ll be quickly stripped of everything you own within such a system. We DO share a common morality, and that’s what keeps us civil.
And now I will also point out YOUR fallacies.
I said NOTHING about WHO is to decide the morality of anyone. Even the Founders who agreed that only a moral and religious people could work as a society under the kind of political system the Constitution set up agreed that the freedom of our nation depended on freedom of conscience. There needs to be a bare minimum of laws to protect people from their government, and from other evildoers, but aside from the basic Judeo-Christian base philosophy behind those bare-bones laws, neither the Bible nor the Qur’ an, nor any other group’s holy writ should form the basis for NATIONAL laws (the principle being to allow individuals, and groups of individuals, and groups of groups as large as an entire state the maximum freedom to determine for themselves what brand of morality to subscribe to). Please don’t twist my argument or that of the Founders. We don’t want to impose morality, BUT we WILL encourage you to note that there are consequences to thoughts, attitudes, words, and behaviors, and we WILL attempt to convince you that our version of morality, when adhered to, provides you the best natural consequences, and that all others tend to restrict the freedoms you hold so dear. If you want to remain free, you have to USE your freedom to choose the right.
As to the stop sign METAPHOR, the danger with all metaphors is that people can take them farther than their lesson is obviously intended to take people, and then interpolate that they don’t say what they obviously meant to say. Even when you do this, the contradictions within your philosophy become apparent. You claim that without stop signs, people share enough morality (even if it is only a reflex of self-preservation) for order to be established without any legal intervention or authority. Then a few posts later you claim that the success of society does NOT require a sharing of fundamental views on morality. Life should is valuable and should be preserved. That’s a moral value.
The stop sign example demonstrates a simple principle: when people organize to determine rules, even arbitrary ones, the existence of the rule removes confusion and creates order, thereby allowing people to be free from potentially life-threatening accidents, which is a huge freedom, in exchange for giving up a little speed. You counter that common sense can be trusted for people to establish that same kind of order in the absence of codified rules of the road. Fine. But even then, if a SINGLE selfish individual decided it was NOT his own morality to take turns fairly with others, many others would stop relinquishing their own advantages of position, size of vehicle, etc. and soon, at a busy intersection, only one direction of traffic would prevail. Do you understand WHY they even INVENTED such a thing as a street light? Don’t you think this kind of behavior was COMMON in major cities? I think YOU’RE the one that needs to re-think whether your attitude really reflects common sense.
Be free to choose your own moral compass. No one should impose it on you. But if you insist on anarchy as a viable model for society, you better hope you’re the biggest, strongest, smartest, and best armed, or you’ll be quickly stripped of everything you own within such a system. We DO share a common morality, and that’s what keeps us civil.
Comments