John Stewart Mills

[Fezzikthedoor]

Sometimes I go back to the true classics and am simply blown away at how great literature and political thought never gets old and is often prophetic. I challenge you to read this passage from "On Liberty" aloud and not get chills down your spine from both its vision of the future and just the amazing manner in which the point is presented. Man. Just great.

John Stewart Mills from "On Liberty", 1869

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

[Aldin]

It's a great quote, Fezzik. Kinda begs the question as to what the basis is for individualism and individual rights though, doesn't it? If individuals are only granted their rights at the agreement of the social collective then to the extent that the individual violates the norms of that collective they can and should be reproved. If, however, the individual has rights outside those granted by the collective then from where do they arise? I imagine Mills would claim that the rights and privledges of being an individual are granted by God who has the authority to grant those rights on the basis of His creation of mankind. The currently prevailing mode of thought which has evolution ascendant downplays God's involvement and casts doubt on individualism because it demands that it develop at some point in the process from some sort of environmental factor that is not consent of the collective.

Thanks for the intriguing thought

~Aldin, ponderingly

[Dennys]

“Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called ‘natural human rights’ that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

“The third ‘right’? — the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives — but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.”

--R.A.H.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Originally Posted by Aldin

It's a great quote, Fezzik. Kinda begs the question as to what the basis is for individualism and individual rights though, doesn't it? If individuals are only granted their rights at the agreement of the social collective then to the extent that the individual violates the norms of that collective they can and should be reproved. If, however, the individual has rights outside those granted by the collective then from where do they arise? I imagine Mills would claim that the rights and privledges of being an individual are granted by God who has the authority to grant those rights on the basis of His creation of mankind. The currently prevailing mode of thought which has evolution ascendant downplays God's involvement and casts doubt on individualism because it demands that it develop at some point in the process from some sort of environmental factor that is not consent of the collective.

Thanks for the intriguing thought

~Aldin, ponderingly

Hmmm...I think Mills point in "On Liberty" is that the right of the individual to dissent, both from the ruling institution and the prevailent social norm, is paramount to the existence of a free society. Now, as to where those rights arise from, I would agree that Mills, a Diest, if I'm not mistaken, would probably cite a Creator as being the ultimate authority, but, to be fair, Diests were pretty much the Athiests of their time.

It is just speculation, but I think that Mills, if presented with the theory of Evolution, might well see the march towards the ideas of individual liberty as a sort of social evolution, since he discusses the way in which the ideas of liberty had changed over time. Of course, there is no way to know.

In any case, I certainly see your point of view. What struck me when reading this passage is our willingness to pass legislation in America that attributes motives to crimes that we cannot ever prove, since we don't know what goes on in the mind of another, which is to say hate crimes.

This in turn led me to think about the way in which "inappropriate" speech is often condemned in our country not by the government--which most of us would object to--but rather by social and economic factors. When a no-talent radio host is finally noticed for his racial slurs, for example, it is the threat of loss of buisness for his employer that ends his career. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Mills, I think, would say yes, but we're definatly conditioned to not think so since such ideas (masqurading as 'shock jock comedy') fall into a social taboo.

Just makes you think, is all.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Originally Posted by Dennys

“Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called ‘natural human rights’ that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

“The third ‘right’? — the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives — but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.”

--R.A.H.

Well, I wasn't talking Jefferson, but since you brought it up, I rather think you missed the whole point of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (formerly 'property').

First, you need to quote it correctly. The word is INALIENABLE, which is important, especially within the context of the time period. Inalienable simply refers to something which is not transferable to another individual. In other words, you alone are responsible for your life, your liberty, and your happiness. You cannot give these away with any real success, for the final burden is upon you; nor can these be taken from you by another individual in any just way outside of a social contract which is necessary for an ordered society to function.

The Pacific Ocean is not part of any social contract. It does not recognize a right to life, since it is an 'it'. The right to life simply means that no human institution has the right to arbitrarily rob you of your life; or, if it claims that right, it is, in fact, illigitimate. This also applies to your other two examples. None of those situations remove the right of the individual to make his choice; not a one releaves him of the responsibility of his actions, either in reaching that place nor in dealing with the consequences of his subsequent choice.

Where does Jefferson say that Liberty comes cheaply? He only says that it cannot be given away--it is inalienable. It may be taken, or surrendered, but it is still an immutable part of the human condition.

Finally, pursuit of happiness is a catch-all. You are correct, of course, to say that it is more a part of the human condition than a philosophical "right", but Jefferson's point is that the yearning for life and liberty are also a part of the human condition. While he might have felt that to be self-evident (and what a magnificent point of view that such an idea was, he thought, not even debatable and there for any to see!) we can certainly disagree over it. Most of the world, in fact, might disagree with us, but that worries me not one bit.

In the end, I don't understand the bleak outlook of your post. You take one of the most inspiring affermations of individual value and do your best to tear it down. I have to ask, to what purpose?

EDIT: I just realized that this might not have been your own original idea. My best guess for who it is attributed to is a second-rate sci-fi writer who had too much of a fixation on incest. I'd say the question of what was the point still stands.

[Revdyer]

Originally Posted by Fezzikthedoor

EDIT: I just realized that this might not have been your own original idea. My best guess for who it is attributed to is a second-rate sci-fi writer who had too much of a fixation on incest. I'd say the question of what was the point still stands.

I guess you didn't grok that right away. <grin>

To Heinlein, I much prefer J.S. Mills, tempered by some of Hobbes' Leviathan's starkness, that without some form of government, is, "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Perhaps I simply love the genius of that verbal progression, ending with that curt word "short."

[Fezzikthedoor]

Bellum omnium contra omnes, eh Rev?

I've always found Hobbes' outlook to be a bit too bleak, but I've never been able to argue against it all that well either. I'm afraid that if there's only one can of tuna and I've got the gun, that tuna is gonna be mighty tasty. To me.

And I agree, the (dare I call it) poetry of the phrase is excellent. Something about the hard "t" sound at the end of 'short' to really drive home the point.

I'm curious, though, do you think that's true? Or, more to the point, do you think it is possible to maintain that "state of nature" for anything but the shortest period of time before our own ant-like desire for order and leadership reasserts itself?

[Revdyer]

I fear my Calvinism affirms Hobbes. I know lots and lots of good individuals, but "people" seem to head another direction than goodness; and none of us is completely good or selfless.

I'm not a pessimist nor a cynic about that, though. I'll continue to trust people (and I'll continue to be ripped off by some of them), to like people (and later be disappointed in some of them), and to love people (even though I will fail to do that completely or as I (or they) should). Not naive, I choose to act as if people were good and pure, but I know that sometimes, maybe often, they are not.

I choose to be gentle in a violent world, honest in a dishonest world, caring in an apathetic world, and joyful even in a broken and hurting world. I think the rule of law helps me do that without being completely vulnerable to the wiles of the wicked.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Revdyer

I fear my Calvinism affirms Hobbes.

~Aldin, who just had to

[Revdyer]

It was no accident that Calvin and Hobbes were a somewhat awkward team.

[Dennys]

Rev.. Pessimism is better than optimism. While an optimist may be merely complacent when things go right, he is saddened when things go wrong. A pessimist is prepared when things go wrong, but when things go right, they are overjoyed. (Paraphrased from B. Franklin)

And I don't consider Heinlein to be a second rate sceince fiction writer. And his "fixation" was only in the third series of his books, but .. oh well...

Order and (supposed) reason are the antithisis of Anarchy and irrationality. The fulfillment of individual needs in a greater macrocosm requires the development of a social strucure based on the needs of the whole starting to outweigh the needs of the individual. It is when these competing needs are at odds with one another you will either have aquiescence to the will of the mob, or social disorder. The human fundament has generally been an ordered one, so the mob rules. However recently (say the last 50 years), the needs of the few have begun to become more paramount. The growth of the "Me" generation, combined with the god of greed, has changed what was once a basically orderly society with one obsessed with voicing it's dissent, without presenting a better direction for the mass.

You can only say "This is wrong" so many times without someone starting to ask the question "You have a better Idea?" It's when the dissenters stop and look around, wondering what would be a better idea that they are dismisssed.

Your example of Stern shows the total idiocy of the minority. Curses and slurs are only valid when they have shock value, and are shunned from speech. Once they become commonplace, they lose their power. Look at TV language today compared with 50 years ago. (Look at our political speech......). The only people who are getting any real disservice, are the people raising these words on the holy "You must not say this list". Truly, most people could care less.

Lastly, don't introduce words into the lexicon, if you don't want to hear them...

[Elstree]

"John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away, 'alf a crate of whiskey every day..."

Thanks, Fezzik, just the title of this thread got this song stuck in my head.

It's a dizzying discussion you've got going, fellas!