Liberty on the Fringes of Jane’s Books

Oscar writes:

Freedom – more correctly, liberty – is not the ability to do whatever one wants, which is what most people today think it is.

The ability to do whatever one wants is not liberty, it’s hedonism. Hedonism is what “liberals” want. They don’t actually want liberty.

Liberty is the ability to govern oneself. The implication being that one who does not govern himself must be governed by others.

To paraphrase Federalist 55, when men possess insufficient virtue to govern themselves, nothing short of the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Questions:

  1. Who decides what is virtue? Who really decides–leaving some alone but punishing others–whether or not a man governs himself? Whoever that person is, he is the authority under which the others live. Christians should not believe that the answer is only “God”. Our scriptures tell us that we are to obey not only God, but several authorities who He has given the mission to rule.
  2. What does the author of Federalist 55 mean by govern except to be under control; under authority? Does he think destroyers and devourers are not making their own choices?

What Oscar calls Liberty just is Authority; the permission to act within certain boundaries of responsibility. Liberty is the bit within the boundaries. Most of the world is outside those boundaries.

We can test this. Pick up one copy of each of the 77 Jane’s Information Group books. (Here is a list.) Separate them into two piles: one pile with the things an adult American citizen with no criminal history but without special licenses is allowed to own and use. Put the rest in another pile of the those which are forbidden him without special license. Those piles will contain 0 books, and 77 books, respectively.

Ok, now take those books, and tear out the pages. (This will take some time. There will be a lot of them.) Separate those pages into piles according to the same criteria. This will now put some pages in the Allowed pile, but the vast majority will be in the Forbidden pile.

Those piles constitute what is meant by: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

When I point out that what we want is Authoritarianism, there’s no reason for clear observers and thinkers to be scared. It’s what we have right now. We lie about it because we have been taught by Liberals to be afraid of it. But lying is utterly corrosive, and not at all manly or godly.

It gets even better: Liberals are afraid of it! Things that Liberals are afraid of should be go-to weapons.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Liberty on the Fringes of Jane’s Books

  1. The word authoritarian does not fit with what we need.
    It’s meaning is too wide. I won’t repeat myself.
    How on earth did you conclude there was any fear in my comment?
    Blog writers seem to dislike any criticism it seems. Are you scared of being wrong?

  2. The #metoo movement shows they want female-controlled hedonism, with the ability to retroactively change what they see as acceptable.

    They seek to destroy, not to enable, even in the hedonism area.

  3. @glosoli

    The meaning is not too wide. Of course authoritarianism can be practiced in perhaps infinite ways. That wouldn’t make it something besides authoritarian.

  4. “All authority is given to me in Heaven and on Earth” I believe that is an authoritative and authoritarian statement. What we need to do is distinguish authoritarianism from tyranny. Our modern republic is already under a tyrannical judicial authoritarianism. We need an authoritative counterweight to throw off the tyranny of the judiciary under which our true freedoms are stripped and replaced by false freedoms of libertines.

  5. Slightly Off-topic: Gentlemen. New argument from cucked pastors: Matthew 1:19 describes Joseph as a good man for divorcing Mary QUIETLY. Therefore it’s wrong to slut shame!

    Would like to know what you guys have to say to this,

  6. ‘What we need to do is distinguish authoritarianism from tyranny.’

    So Zippy and Cane aim to do that by calling it authoritarianism, which most everyone will relate to China et al.

    Don’t be afraid to allude to Jehovah in your definitions. Unless you’re a Catholic, why wouldn’t you?

    Jehovan Theonomy. Jehovan Rule. Jehovan Authority.

    It’s time to get in their faces, scare them. Also time to stop being silly and autistic.

  7. Cane,

    I probably didn’t explain this very well earlier, but I agree with you. I just don’t want to surrender words like “liberty” and “freedom” to the hedonists who’ve hijacked them. After all, “it is for freedom that Christ has set us free” (Gal 5:1), and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor 3:17).

    If we don’t teach people the actual meaning of the words “freedom” and “liberty”, they’ll think that the Apostle Paul meant “hedonism”, when what he actually meant was “you have a new master now (Christ, as opposed to sin)”.

    We’ve probably all seen the negative consequences of Christians misinterpreting “freedom” and “liberty” as hedonism in their heads.

  8. @glosoli

    First: please pick a consistent email address for your name. Because you keep changing it I have to go get your comments from moderation. You don’t have to use a real email address; just settle on one so that your comments are approved. No commenters can see your address.

    So Zippy and Cane aim to do that by calling it authoritarianism, which most everyone will relate to China et al.

    1. I don’t speak for Zippy. I’m just grateful to him.
    2. “It” just IS authoritarianism. My feelings about what to call it are beside the point.
    3. No one else can control what another person relates (i.e., thinks). I could try. I can manipulate. I can game. I can influence. In this case, I’ve chosen to go for the novel idea of telling the plain truth.
    4. I’m not starting the Authoritarian Party. I’m not advocating that we form an Authoritarian Movement. All I’m saying is that when, for example, someone asks me if I’m conservative (more often accuses me of being conservative) I should say something like, “It’s worse than you know: I’m authoritarian.”

    I’ve been to mainland China. Personally, I wouldn’t want to live there, but the people seem to like it. The Chinese are big on China. Meanwhile, Americans are deeply unhappy with their country and their leaders.

    Don’t be afraid to allude to Jehovah in your definitions. Unless you’re a Catholic, why wouldn’t you?

    Voddie Baucham makes a similar case as you (though he says Yahweh). I’m inclined to agree.

    It’s time to get in their faces, scare them. Also time to stop being silly and autistic.

    Agreed. One way to stop being silly is to stop worrying that the truth puts off people. In this particular case: I’m not even sure that it does. It’s conservatives (right-edge liberals) who bang on about freedom and liberty. Slate, The New Republic, and so-forth don’t bother with that. They’ve moved on to declaring what they believe is right. They’re wrong, but they are not hampered by trying to conserving the now old context of liberty from England and King George III. Conservatives are still reacting towards a war that was ended more than 200 years ago, a style of government that no longer exists there, and a country who has played second fiddle to us since WWII.

  9. @Oscar

    I just don’t want to surrender words like “liberty” and “freedom” to the hedonists who’ve hijacked them.

    Understood, but the definition you gave for liberty was actually the definition of authority. I have a sentimental attachment to liberty. I closed my post by calling myself “cupcake” to demonstrate that. That’s how I chastise myself.

    Secondly: We already have surrendered it. It is used badly (though not always incorrectly, if that makes sense) all the time! My post was one declaration towards taking it back; for myself if no one else.

    I could be wrong, but I detected a similar sentiment in you, Ryder, and Glosoli. If I am wrong, then nevermind and I beg your pardon. But if I’m right…

  10. @ Cane

    “Understood, but the definition you gave for liberty was actually the definition of authority.”

    It’s a subset of authority. Another subset of authority is tyranny. Tyranny is when the person in authority abuses his/her authority.

    You’re absolutely right, I am sentimental towards liberty, and fearful of tyranny. I’m the dude who escaped Communism, remember? So, yeah, I acknowledge my biases, but as usual, I’m open to persuasion from those I respect.

    “Secondly: We already have surrendered it.”

    Again, agreed. Something that’s been taken can be taken back.

  11. Our elites suck. To believe that giving them more power will make them better is the triumph of hope over experience. It will just make them worse.

  12. @John

    Welcome.

    1. Yes, our elites suck.

    2. Who said anything about giving elites more power?

    3. What power do you have that you could give to the elites, which they do not currently have, or which they could not take from you if they so desired?

    4. If we had awesome elites, and you had some power that they did not have, are there any conditions under which you would give that power to them?

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.