Global Intifada

At times, walking down a path that no one else has treaded upon is exhilirating, but sometimes its downright lonely.

Anyhow, I feel like I’ve finally come up with a rational and pragmatic critique of the legality of the Constitution/Constitutionalism. Now, I’ve progressed to the next step, which is to critique the ideas embodied in these documents themselves.

I might reach my intellectual peak within the next two years.

I still haven’t worked out a very cogent critique of freedom itself. But I’m getting there.

Here’s what I got thus far:

—————————

We start with a simple query:

Is freedom an intrinsic or instrumental good?

An instrumental good is a good that attains some value through its use for a higher purpose. An intrinsic good is that which is good in and of itself.

Why do we have freedom? Freedom is an intangible concept. I cannot use freedom to purchase food to feed my starving children; I cannot use freedom to fend off an aggressor; I cannot use freedom to protect myself from harsh climate. Freedom is not useful in some circumstances, it is useful in others. Freedom allows to me trade with another member of society; allowing me to obtain goods that I might not ordinarily be able to produce on my own. A court may protect my freedom to engage in a particular religious belief or ritual, assemble a group for a protest, or speak to denounce a government foreign or domestic policy.

From this analysis, it would seem that the use of freedom is ultimately an instrumental good.

Freedom seems to enable men, as rational agents, carry out their volition. It is to be free from coercive forces, whether those coercive forces are the state, a fellow citizen or the majority of one’s fellow citizens.

However, freedom can be attained from two methods: through a government or without a government in a state of nature.

In the state of nature, man is absolutely free. He can do as he wills. However, other men can do as they will. As such, in the state of nature, coercion and infringement upon the dignity of rational agents may be occur.

In order to maximize one’s freedom, it is necessary to create a government.

Hence, in order to truly be free, we must form political systems that maximize the pleasure of the greatest amount of people and minimizes their pain. However, this may result in majoritarian tyranny, hence, it is necessary to establish certain, inalienable fundamental liberties that cannot be infringed upon.

The problem arises when we attempt to define these fundamental liberties. Who should define them? The majority? A minority? Any minority?

Share This