1 thought on “The tyranny of misunderstood freedom”
Freedom to starve? “That point is recognized to some extent with regard to economic matters. What sense, many people have asked, does economic freedom make if it’s freedom to starve? ”
The freedom to starve is long gone in the West – everyone is shielded from the consequences of their actions to this extent – that whatever people do, they will be kept alive.
Every resident, baby born, every migrant or traveller who sets foot in a country like the UK instantly becomes the responsibility of that community, both they and their descendants – whether the community like it or not and with no numerical or temporal limit.
Nobody can be ejected from the UK if there is any possibility that harm may come to them elsewhere – therefore nobody can be ejected.
Since we regard ourselves as humane people (especially when extracting and distributing other peoples’ resources) the new arrivals must be fed and sheltered and provided with a ‘decent’ standard of living and lifestyle; since we are Leftists this must be to an equal standard with those already resident; indeed, since we are politically correct it must be to a *higher* standard than those already resident, since the new arrivals are more deserving
– and this is a precise description of the current situation in the UK to the tune of hundreds of thousands of instances per year.
In a sense, all of this flows from the humane impulse that nobody should be free to starve – because nobody free to starve means everybody who is alive is kept alive.
This is an extraordinarly radical departure from what I understand was the original human condition in tribal societies: in some – such as the Ache of South America – when a mother died, her dependent chidlren were killed (unless some person was prepared to take them over, which didn’t usually happen). Something similar seems to have happened among the Australian Aborigines
Whether the tribal humans or modern humans are right, or more right, from a moral perspective is one point; but it should be acknowledged that the present situation is very cleary unsustainable in worldly terms (even if, for the sake of argument, it is morally necessary).
On the other hand, the world is not meant to last forever. It could be argued that if a policy is morally correct and leads to the destrcution of society, then we should do it anyway; because other things are more important than modern society.
What is not permissable is to pursue socially suicidal policies and at the same time deny their predictable effects – in other words what we currently have is immoral because dishonest.
Freedom to starve?
“That point is recognized to some extent with regard to economic matters. What sense, many people have asked, does economic freedom make if it’s freedom to starve? ”
The freedom to starve is long gone in the West – everyone is shielded from the consequences of their actions to this extent – that whatever people do, they will be kept alive.
Every resident, baby born, every migrant or traveller who sets foot in a country like the UK instantly becomes the responsibility of that community, both they and their descendants – whether the community like it or not and with no numerical or temporal limit.
Nobody can be ejected from the UK if there is any possibility that harm may come to them elsewhere – therefore nobody can be ejected.
Since we regard ourselves as humane people (especially when extracting and distributing other peoples’ resources) the new arrivals must be fed and sheltered and provided with a ‘decent’ standard of living and lifestyle; since we are Leftists this must be to an equal standard with those already resident; indeed, since we are politically correct it must be to a *higher* standard than those already resident, since the new arrivals are more deserving
– and this is a precise description of the current situation in the UK to the tune of hundreds of thousands of instances per year.
In a sense, all of this flows from the humane impulse that nobody should be free to starve – because nobody free to starve means everybody who is alive is kept alive.
This is an extraordinarly radical departure from what I understand was the original human condition in tribal societies: in some – such as the Ache of South America – when a mother died, her dependent chidlren were killed (unless some person was prepared to take them over, which didn’t usually happen). Something similar seems to have happened among the Australian Aborigines
– http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/purposive-killing-infanticide-and.html
Whether the tribal humans or modern humans are right, or more right, from a moral perspective is one point; but it should be acknowledged that the present situation is very cleary unsustainable in worldly terms (even if, for the sake of argument, it is morally necessary).
On the other hand, the world is not meant to last forever. It could be argued that if a policy is morally correct and leads to the destrcution of society, then we should do it anyway; because other things are more important than modern society.
What is not permissable is to pursue socially suicidal policies and at the same time deny their predictable effects – in other words what we currently have is immoral because dishonest.