Modern Political Freedom

Political Liberty in the Pre-Modern Era

By John Taylor; 2009 Aug 24, Asma 05, 166 BE

The English Revolution, with its struggle between religious fanatics and political tyrannies to dominate the hearts and minds of men, caused great revulsion against absolute, unfettered power. In order to defend freedom of conscience, the new American democracy set strict constitutional limits on political power. As we have seen, the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man set clear bounds on the ability of government to dictate what citizens can think and do.

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." (Declaration of the Rights of Man, Article #4)

In both ancient and pre-modern times, moderation, as opposed to zealotry and extremism, was recognized as the golden path to political success. We must set bounds on everything, even freedom, if our enthusiasms are to benefit the common good. Montesquieu, in his seminal Spirit of the Laws, wrote that,

"... extreme political liberty ought to give uneasiness to those who have only a moderate share of it. ... even the excess of reason is not always desirable, and ... mankind generally find their account better in mediums than in extremes." (Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, vol. 1, trans. Thomas Nugent, London: J. Nourse, 1777), pp. 221-237)

John Amos Comenius argued further that there is no way to find a common middle path without sacrifice. We need to go beyond mere compromise and see accommodation of all sides as a sacred gift. He cites a Carthaginian proverb cited by St. Augustine: `If you wish to enjoy a period of peace, you must sacrifice something.' Having consecrated one's position by giving up, one is ready for the peace that results.

"Therefore let us not insist on our full rights in our dealings with one another. Peace is hardly ever achieved without both sides foregoing their rights to some extent. And why not? It pays to accept a slight loss in order to save the whole from jeopardy. A discreet merchant encountering a storm certainly prefers to lose part of his cargo and reclaim his deposit, rather than to risk losing everything, even his life. In this way profit sometimes involves an element of sacrifice. ... especially if there is hope that men need not take wrongs any more, when a wise settlement is made to cover both the past and the future." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 8, para 7, p. 111)

Notwithstanding this truth, the new American democracy embraced its partisans in hopes that their opposing extremes would somehow cancel themselves out. Thomas Jefferson declared that, "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." (First inaugural address, 4 March 1801) Its legal system set competition and advocacy next to its heart, assuming that after the smoke of battle had cleared, right and the common good would step forward unblemished and that the people and their leaders would have common cause. "It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people." (James Madison, Federalist Papers, LXIII, 1788) However, there was recognition among many liberal thinkers that as long as many nations existed, rivalry among them would be inevitable. While beneficial to a moderate degree, competition drives a wedge between sovereign nations and their people. Immanuel Kant wrote,

"At present, states are in such an artificial relation to each other that none of them can neglect its internal cultural development without losing power and influence among the others. Therefore the preservation of this natural end [culture], if not progress in it, is fairly well assured by the ambitions of states.

Furthermore, civic freedom can hardly be infringed without the evil consequences being felt in all walks of life, especially in commerce, where the effect is loss of power of the state in its foreign relations. But this freedom spreads by degrees. When the citizen is hindered in seeking his own welfare in his own way, so long as it is consistent with the freedom of others, the vitality of the entire enterprise is sapped, and therewith the powers of the whole are diminished. (Kant, Cosmopolitan History, Eighth Thesis, p. 259)

War is the ultimate extreme where the interests of nation and people diverge. In war the very lives of the people are sacrificed En Masse for a supposed national interest, and citizens trained as soldiers gain experience in destroying an entire government. Therefore, Kant deduced, sovereign nations will one day have to submit their freedom to a higher authority, for the same reasons that individuals gain freedom from conflict when they submit their liberty to government in the first place.

"However fantastical this idea (a league of nations) may seem -- and it was laughed at as fantastical by the Abbi de St. Pierre and by Rousseau, perhaps because they believed it was too near to realization -- the necessary outcome of the destitution to which each man is brought by his fellows is to force the states to the same decision (hard though it be for them) that savage man also was reluctantly forced to take, namely, to give up their brutish freedom and to seek quiet and security under a lawful constitution." (Kant, Cosmopolitan History, Seventh Thesis, p. 256)

At the end of his life, Kant drew up a sketch or draft of this "lawful constitution" that banished one of the worst features of modern political freedom among nations: the exploitation by the strong of weak governments and regions. He does this by stipulating that, "The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality." (Third definitive article, Sketch for a Permanent Peace) By choosing the virtue of hospitality, Kant recognized the political value of the religious (particularly Islamic) teaching that to love and serve a guest is next to godliness. Under these conditions, the voluntary sacrifice of one's personal rights is natural and freely given, and this leads to peace, security and prosperity. As long as a people voluntarily invites a foreign entity to come in, for example to mine their mineral resources, the relationship is free and consensual. Otherwise, it is illegal, a violation of the charter and an affront to peace and world citizenship.

John Taylor


email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/

::