Individual Liberty and the Old World

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Only part of the article part you get the drift...
Frederick Bastiat or Auguste Comte who'd you support or neither?

June 30, 2007
by Clay Barham

One reason we call America the New World is that it's something new and different when compared to the Old [which was those parts known to Europeans, Asians and Africans before the discovery of America]. The people that landed in New England, almost 400 years ago, set the tone for what America was to become, after their short experiment with theocracy failed. They provided the pioneers who spread out west and south to shape and build their lives in a new way, free of the restrictions imposed by Old World monarchs and clerics.

As they spread out from New England, many Christian circuit and tent revival preachers followed. They reinforced the moral code of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule that defined New England pioneers. A tradition took root, rising from beliefs, habits, customs and ways of doing things handed down from one generation to another. Those traditions resulted in positive behaviors by most everyone in society. Families were the core communities. As family members produced and gained levels of prosperity never realized in the Old World, the communities in which they prospered similarly prospered. They proved prosperity comes only from freedom, not dictatorship. Honor and personal responsibility prevailed.

Those pioneer Americans were free to think out of the bubble and act out of the box. They created what they needed. They traded with their neighbors. They invented, built and developed their lives without intervention by bureaucrats. They made their own laws, law enforcement officers, courts and jails all close to the centers of their communities. They established local home-rule government to prevent injustice. They built schools and insisted all children be educated to their own interests, skills, talents and aspirations. They kept their world close in.

When reading the Declaration of Independence, you can see the expression of a tradition of how society and government is structured. Jefferson and others did not discuss and formulate something people had to accept anew, but reflected established beliefs from the 150 years prior. The philosophers of the Enlightenment had nothing to do with the way Americans lived to that time. Americans created their unique Tradition. They stood on their own feet, supported their own families and their own communities. Those who prospered helped those who did not. They educated all the children. They encouraged creative thinking, invention and entrepreneurial dream chasing. That tradition built the wealthiest, most productive and creative nation in the world, the only one based upon individual liberty and freedom.

In the past 100 years, supporters of the Old World have been trying to alter the American society by altering its founding traditions. They are building new traditions based on individual weakness, fear, anger, envy and greed, to assure them of power for years to come, over a nation, which will result in poverty and misery.

Frederick Bastiat, said, "All men's impulses, when motivated by legitimate self-interest, fall into a harmonious social pattern." This was the nature of the American tradition. America proved free men and women are capable and have no need of dictatorship. Old World advocates disagree, believing men are incapable of living harmoniously without an iron fist guiding them. Auguste Comte, representing Old World thinking, did not believe anyone should pursue his or her own interests... He insisted that, "Community alone is the only reality and individuals simply an abstraction. The individual should not do what he or she wants to do." Comte, like most leaders of the Old World, yesterday and today, see men and women as bees and ants, none of whom could survive doing their own thing.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I am most defiantly not a fan of Clay Barham, there is something about his writings and books that make me wonder why he has taken the revisionist position on a lot of issues. I think it is more common among the ‘Christian’ authors today than it has been in the past.

There is somewhat of a twist of history using New England as the center of American thought and sole. I find in many writings of people like Barham, that there is a purposeful ignoring of the contributions made by the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies (states) because of the twisted ideology of the Christian mindset against slavery at that time which still permeates many people’s minds today – hence a ignorant comment on his website;

“Lacking courage and honor, our politicians demand we stop insulting the world's slave-masters. Would African-Americans still be slaves if Abraham Lincoln lacked the courage to fight slavery? Was the Declaration of Independence only for those in the North? Was it wrong to extend it to those in the South if it meant conflict? Was it worth a civil war to stop it from spreading to the rest of the nation? Then, is it wrong to challenge ruthless dictators so they will not spread their slave systems? Is it wrong to defend America against those who would challenge American freedom? Do those cowardly politicians really want to keep Americans free, or build their own ruthless dictatorships?â€

The civil war, more accurately The War Between the States was not all about slavery, but was about our rights as we should have them today. Slavery at the time was on the decline and the problems caused by the abolitionists who were funded by England and France during that time, gave us limited choices of when or what we could do. The average southern did not want to compete with the slave holder as much as the northern did not want former slaves and “people of color†to compete with them. Many forget that many of the lynching and killings were actually done in the north for a long time and the biggest ‘public disturbance’ happened in NYC during the war which killed more minorities than any other time in our history. The concept floated in the Lincoln administration was in fact to let slavery run it’s course by putting a deadline to end it by the end of the century but things changed dramatically due to the arrogant attitude the north had to the point that the north almost lost the war several times, so Lincoln used the powers as a president of a ‘unified country’ to hurt the south and the impact was not as great as everyone expect. Surprisingly a lot of history ignores the fact that many slaves, former slaves and freemen fought on the side of the south to protect it.

When reading the Declaration of Independence, you can see the expression of a tradition of how society and government is structured. Jefferson and others did not discuss and formulate something people had to accept anew, but reflected established beliefs from the 150 years prior. The philosophers of the Enlightenment had nothing to do with the way Americans lived to that time. Americans created their unique Tradition. They stood on their own feet, supported their own families and their own communities. Those who prospered helped those who did not. They educated all the children. They encouraged creative thinking, invention and entrepreneurial dream chasing. That tradition built the wealthiest, most productive and creative nation in the world, the only one based upon individual liberty and freedom.


Here is another point; he has completely and totally discounted the Europeans and their influence on our culture of that time, which was greater than one would think. The contributions to the concepts of freedom and liberty which was already being practiced, did not come from Puritan thought from the English civil war period or even prior but rather from the other Europeans who emigrated here. The puritans with other religions were escaping taxes first than repression, but the puritan thought did not by any means include the concepts of true freedoms and liberty as discussed by the enlightened philosophers of that time. Instead we see the repression, the limiting of freedoms and segregation of people, like Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, Stephen Bachiller, and others, and the Salem Witch Trials which were only 70 years prior to the start of the revolution.

The philosophers of the enlighten age was included in the actual thoughts of the founding fathers while debating the concepts our country was founded on, read some of their writings. If we remove the actual fact that Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, both Adams and others read, understood and accepted the writings of philosophers like Locke, de Moratín, Montesquieu and even Voltaire, we would have neither the declaration nor the constitution in the form that they are in. If we prescribe to the ideals that Barham has put forth, we would be a totally isolated country prior to and up to when President Jackson was elected which was never the case.

In addition, our success is not because of the isolation he has hinted at, but rather the practicing of true liberty and freedom. The failings of other nations, specifically France who was the nearest to our model of government, is not because of the old world grappling with the problems of new concepts or anything like that but rather because they had instilled in their culture a obedience to a head of a government or something object that govern them. This was seen with the rise of Hitler in the 30’s and the fact that Germany had an oath to the government which was changed after WW1 so the freedom of one’s person was above the country (imposed democracy) and changed by Hitler to the oath and allegiance to him because he understood the need for the German people to align themselves with something to make them feel their worth as a country, patriot and citizen.

As for education, standing on their own two feet and all that, this really was not the case. The freedoms of the industrial age in our country gave way to the liberalism of our culture and we saw these changes take place under a true progressive president, TR.

In the past 100 years, supporters of the Old World have been trying to alter the American society by altering its founding traditions. They are building new traditions based on individual weakness, fear, anger, envy and greed, to assure them of power for years to come, over a nation, which will result in poverty and misery.

This has taken place a lot longer than 100 years, the assault on America started with the ratification of the constitution extended to include the involvement of the English and later the French with the funding abolitionists, fictional slave narratives (not all were fictional but a bunch were) and further extended to include interference in political matters through the latter part of the 19th century. Much of the latter part of the 19th century and the beginnings of the 20th century were times of fear, anger, envy and greed. We seen the robber barons building enormous wealth, we saw social reform; we saw a rape of our states during reconstruction, so this was not all new. We also saw the criticism of our country during that time for our restrictions on immigration, on our educational system and on our form of government. We were not taken seriously by any means and the European powers tried hard to meddle in our country, which was done between the wars they had. Out of most of these events in Europe, The British were the new super power until TR brokered the peace between the Russians and the Japanese is when we were considered a real country by the rest of the world. We have since seen some sort of intervention in our country in many subtle ways with WW2 to the end of Vietnam and today with our supreme court referring to laws of other countries.

I think that a better quote from Frederick Bastiat that applies to today is the following;

* If socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it."—from Journal des Economistes

* "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."—from The Law

The former is what I have said that we need to get a grip on. It is alright to use the government to help people but in reality it is society’s responsibility to do so. The government (as Hillary pointed out recently) is to take from one and give to another. For all intent and purpose the concept is good but the execution is gone bad. I think that we, as a society need to really look at things like Social Security and determine how we could end it in the future. Until then, we will have less of an incentive to actually create wealth and prosperity.

The latter really has to do with our inability as a society to actually move forward, the fear that Barham speaks of is already entrenched through political correctness and we face the exact thing from politicians, like Clinton, Obama and McCain while the same time having to be forced to accept ideals that go against our human nature.
 
Top