Appendix for 'The Freedom Scale'
Pre-read notes
0.1
It is important to reinforce the point I made about partisanship in the preface. Throughout this work, I speak interchangeably about ideologies and the people who adhere to and further the aims of those ideologies. This is a natural consequence of two facts:
It is extremely cumbersome to construct every reference to a political movement using the phrase “the ideology of.”
Ideologies exist because of the people who create them, adhere to them, and further their aims. Therefore, it is legitimate to speak of ideologies by speaking in terms of people.
Nonetheless, I recognize that people are not synonymous with their ideologies. I strenuously decry bad ideologies throughout this work, but I do not wish to give the impression that I permanently condemn every adherent to those ideologies. We must all take responsibility for the ideas we espouse, but it is also true that all of us change ideologically over time, for better or worse, and that any of us can change dramatically at any time. Goodness knows I have. If you are on the left, this work will sound personal at times, but it is not meant that way.
0.2
I have noticed a tendency among some intellectuals to picks sides: Team Enlightenment (rationality, science, principles derived from logic) or Team Counter-Enlightenment (emotion, faith, and the ineffable qualities of life). I refer to the Enlightenment over 60 times in this book and, based on discussions during the years I was writing, I realize that that may be off-putting to some, as if I am discounting the importance of those aspects of the human experience that transcend the purely rational. I am not. Yes, reason and logical argument are essential to our purpose here, as you will see. But we will also talk about emotions and the infinite mystery of the human person. We will commend the role of religion, and we will explore the deep interconnectedness of the universe around us. The Enlightenment constitutes a watershed period in the development of classical liberal ideas, making it an important focus. But it is by no means the only focus.
0.3
I have also become aware that some have a visceral reaction to what they see as "oversimplification"—that by charting concepts and boiling complex ideas down to their essence, as I do in this work, we risk missing all the nuances associated with human politics. For the purposes of this book, that concern is unwarranted. Pattern recognition and categorization are essential to human understanding of the world, and ultimately to basic survival. (In order better to understand the animal kingdom, we use a taxonomic classification system—but just because all domestic cats are felis catus in this system does not mean that biologists are claiming that all house cats are alike.) Using induction, deduction, and introspection to derive general principles is just as necessary for the purposes of this book as it is for human life. Doing so does not ignore the nuances; it simply establishes a baseline framework to help us understand what the heck is going on, with politics and the world in general. If we reject the possibility that such a framework is possible, then all we are left with are subjective interpretations and emotions. The framework is not the end, but it must be our starting point.
0.4
The philosophy described and advocated in this book rejects racism, coercive violence, and legal inequality in all forms. In today’s toxic environment, however, the left calumniates anyone who dares to disagree with leftist dogma or objectives, including with accusations of supporting precisely the sort of repellent ideas that I clearly oppose in this book. Such defamatory statements are intended to silence and harm (financially, reputationally, and sometimes physically) those at whom they are directed. Note that I take an extremely dim view of libel, slander, and quotes taken out of context with the intent to defame, and may act accordingly.
Along these lines—note that citation of a particular individual in this work does not constitute an endorsement of every aspect of that person’s being or opinions. (Richard Wagner, for example, was an anti-Semite, but his compositions are among the most evocative pieces of music ever penned by man. Appreciation of the Overture to Parsifal is not an endorsement of anti-Semitism.)
0.5
Somewhere in this rather extensive work, I may express an idea with which you disagree. Try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Murray Rothbard was far more erudite and accomplished than I will ever be, and he still goes off the rails in “The Ethics of Liberty” when he concludes that parents have a right to allow their children to starve to death—a contention I briefly take on in Chapter 14. That does not invalidate everything else that the brilliant Rothbard said.)
Similarly, if I err in some way (a typo, perhaps, or an incomplete reading of an historical event), I will endeavor a correction in subsequent editions. The focus of this book, in its ultimate essence, is individual human rights. I hope we can work together to further the protection and proper understanding of those rights.
Chapter 1
1.1
I owe my deepened appreciation of common law—that simple yet powerful inheritance from our British origins—to Daniel Hannan and his book Inventing Liberty. Through jury trials and judicial precedents, common law slowly builds over time. Customs, common sense, and the accumulated wisdom of centuries combine to create a law that bubbles up from the people, rather than one that is handed down by the state.
Formulating a fixed principle to govern every conflict is challenging, and predicting every possible conflict ahead of time is impossible. Common law unites us with our ancestors by asking “How have humans solved this in the past” and then building on that as best we can.
The problem with common law is found in the same thing that makes it so strong: its flexible and organic nature can also cause it to stray from first principles. When guided and constrained by non-negotiable core principles, a common law system will be even more helpful in our effort to discover fair solutions. We will touch on this later, though deeper discussion will have to wait for future works.
Whether the Anglophone way of doing it is ideal or not, the basic concept remains sound: bottom-up is better than top-down.