|
Author
|
Topic: liberté, égalité, fraternité
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 18 December 2004 06:35 PM
Allons enfants!  (And if one of the mods of this forum could stick in the accents on the subject line, I'd be most grateful. That would be four accents aigues. Ta very much.) Liberty, equality, and ... gosh, how do we put it now? When you look at those three different levels of commitment, deep human commitment to three different kinds of deep human ideals -- your own freedom, your equality with others, any others, and your genuine connection with others -- do you see three different levels of commitment? Do you value one above the others? Do you think that any one of them is a more basic animal urge than the others? I start off by answering yes to at least that last question. I do believe that the animal desire for liberty, which we have tamed and idealized into a match for the other two great social ideals, runs deeper in most of us. In order, I think that a belief in equality is harder than a love of liberty; and a desire for "fraternite" is even harder still. [ 18 December 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Borst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 731
|
posted 19 December 2004 02:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Liberty, equality, and ... gosh, how do we put it now? When you look at those three different levels of commitment, deep human commitment to three different kinds of deep human ideals ... do you see three different levels of commitment? Do you value one above the others? Do you think that any one of them is a more basic animal urge than the others?
1. Solidarity. Or, if you prefer, So-So-So-Solidarité!  2. & 3. No. These three together have a name: Democracy. Think of their opposites: Authority, Hierarchy, Alienation. Without all three, there is no democracy - whatever airs a government and its propagandists may give itself. 4. No. I would be very careful to distinguish a desire for liberty from a desire for authority, for all that these are easily and commonly confused. We certainly have "basic urges" of both a democratic and oligarchic character, but neither is "more basic". On that point, I would also say that that's why "securité" isn't part of that list. Security is an oligarchic desire, not a democratic one.
From: Taken off to the Great White North | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 19 December 2004 06:09 PM
I don't think they meant that slogan (and it is a slogan, not a political practice) to apply to the whole world. It applies only to one's own nation or tribe - "us" - and leaves a whole world of "them" eligible for conquest, exploitation and abuse.If i'm right, fraternity is the most important. Given loyalty to, and regard for, all of one's compatriots, we would not wish to enslave or exploit them.
Personal liberty is a fairly new-fangled idea - not widely exercised, even where available. Dogs and humans quite happily trade it for regular meals, guaranteed sex, SUV's and acceptance by a peer-group. Robins and tigers, not so much.
Equality just plain doesn't exist. Equity, we can manage, with great effort and a high level of good will, for short periods. Other species don't even try. If i'm wrong in my initial assessment: if people really want to make all three states a reality for everyone in the world, we still have to begin with fraternity. Without that, we can't even start discussing universally acceptable definitions for liberty and equality.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 21 December 2004 10:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
"He who would sacrifice his liberty to gain for himself security, shall soon find himself with neither."— Benjamin Franklin
Yep yep yep. Families cannot even get along and be supportive, no wonder it is hard for fraternité to exist in the broader sense.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 29 December 2004 07:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:
I wish somebody would take me to task, or at least contradict Dr. Conway!
This was such a promising topic!
Well, we usually disagree (civilly too, did I ever thank you for that? If not I am now. Thanks) but not this time. Perhaps we might disagree in approach? I'm not sure we'll ever come up with a universally acceptable deffinition for any of those terms. If I can take a lesson from one of the giants of the Enlightenment, the aformentioned Benny Franklin, perhaps we can seek to define these terms by eliminating what we know are contrary to them? Sure, that's "blundering through" and not perfect progress, but it is progress. Maybe liberty, brotherhood and equality are like the speed of light. We can approach them but never attain them. Maybe the point is in the striving. Each generation will define them for themselves. Maybe what we need to concentrate on-- like Franklin did-- was on the contrivance of the mechanisms we will use to define them.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 30 December 2004 04:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Maybe liberty, brotherhood and equality are like the speed of light. We can approach them but never attain them. Maybe the point is in the striving.
As an example, I think that Euro-socialist nations have achieved a higher degree of economic equality with respect to wages and income distribution. According to an April issue of The Economist magazine, the Euro's actually tax capital income at lower rates than more conservative western nations do. And yet wages are higher on average and so are income supplements for the poor and unemployed than here. The conservative view has always been that a high degree of inequality in the economy is necessary in keeping with free market fundamentalism, specifically in staving off runaway inflation when more of us have money to be reckless with. However, according to former World Banker, Joseph Stiglitz, the relatively recent period of the roaring 1990's demonstrated that while a substantial number of somewhat high paying jobs were added to North American economies, runaway inflation just didn't happen as predicted by conservative economists.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 31 December 2004 09:32 AM
It's funny how we aquaint money with liberty. I'm not sure the founding fathers of the American revolution, or of the French revolution would see it that way. I think, at least in the American case, economic freedom centered on erasing impediments to making money, where we seem to be more concerned with keeping our money.I guess when we use money to express our choices in life, it gets equated with liberty. I know working people like me sure surrenderd a lot of liberty for the sake of a little convenience when we started getting paid by cheque instead of cash. We're sitting ducks for government and creditors, and it's not surprising that we get fleeced. Every friday, I'm the last in line to get the money I worked for. But should we be so concerned with money details? Maybe the details follow the larger issues. I think that's what guys like Franklin were thinking. [ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 31 December 2004 06:35 PM
quote:
It's funny how we aquaint money with liberty. I'm not sure the founding fathers of the American revolution, or of the French revolution would see it that way.
I have to agree again.
This was a philosophical question, not an economic one.
The liberty they were talking about was not freedom to make money or collect money, or anything to do with money, but rather the freedom to move where you want, do the work you choose, associate with whom you feel comfortable, speak your mind, go to whatever church you like - or none; to defend yourself against accusations in a fair and open court; to participate and be represented in governance.
All the tax questions come out of that last point. None of the others have been mentioned. quote:
I think, at least in the American case, economic freedom centered on erasing impediments to making money, where we seem to be more concerned with keeping our money.
We should also be concerned with how the money is made. This question segues into equality. Removing obstacles (such as slavery, indentured servitude and serfdom) may begin with the question of liberty, but quickly segues into equality. It's not about taxation, but of hiring practices and access to education (opportunity to improve your economic status) and equality under the law (this is the bit where nobody has the arbitrary power to take your money).
All these things are functions of a how a society is structured. If liberty, equality and fraternity are the guide-posts of a society, all the subsequent details will be arranged according to an agreed standard of fairness to all its members.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 31 December 2004 07:08 PM
The Ben Franklin view was that money was a means and not an ends. All those aphorisms (early to bed early to rise, penny saved, etc) that garnered such disdain from the romantics was a misinterpretation. Franklin believed that all that industry and hard work was done so one could one day finance a library, or a hospital, or free education for the poor. (Franklin's will detailed a trust fund set up for these purposes for both the cities of Boston and Philadelphia-- and both funds were still operating into the 1990's) But Franklin was suspicious of welfare programs, thinking they would encourage laziness. It all sounds very familiar, doesn't it? Franklin was all for community groups getting together for a charitable, or civic improvement cause, but remained sceptical of a wider, government administered social system. In some ways I agree. I think Franklin's distrust of a government administrated system comes as a result of watching the venal British Colonial system at work. Myself, I share his distrust from watching the Canadian, Family Compact venal system at work. But practicaly, while some communities could rely upon shop keeps for their social system, clearly this system would break down, and we need to put aside some individual liberty in order that all (equality again) can enjoy a base level of that commodity. Where are we at today with the importance of how that money is made? Well, a few weeks ago we were treated with the spectre of Jessica Simpson's father commenting on how wonderfull a business asset his daughter's breasts were. We've got a lot of work to do, clearly.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
