Slavery is easy. Freedom takes hard work
As we near the end of this most unusual year and prepare to enter the third decade of the 21st century, a little reflection, methinks, is in order.
In a very brief conversation I had the other day with a Macedonian friend, he mentioned that all states eventually drift toward authoritarianism, totalitarianism, socialism, or various forms of those strains of an anti-freedom philosophy. And I think he is correct.
In my years on this planet I have been given many gifts. One of those is time: time to think, time to reflect, time to read, time to write. Another is a deep and abiding interest in such things as history, geography, conservative thought and philosophy, governance, government, politics, culture, and much more, and how all of these things fit together, giving that first one mentioned — history — pride of place.
Historians, to varying degrees, trace the emergence of modern-day nation-states to after the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. Without getting too deep into the proverbial weeds on that grand and generally accepted assumption, and using it as a starting point, the idea of our system of nation-states being in existence for only about 370 years should be somewhat humbling. If you take the idea of the rise of human societies to be about, oh, say, 10,000 years, then 370 out of 10,000 is not too much to cheer about — if you think that modern-day nation-states are the right way to conduct human affairs as a polity then the fact that the idea only came up 370 years ago should not give you reason to celebrate — why didn’t we think of it earlier?
American author Jonah Goldberg (if you have been reading me for a while you may be familiar with him) posits in his wonderful book “Suicide of the West” that “the West” as we know it — let us call it our modern concept of “democracy” and “capitalism” and all that it has produced both good and bad, though, in my opinion, mostly good — our concept of “the West” is a “miracle” which is the word he uses throughout the book. It is, in his telling, an aberration. It — all of this — should not be. As a species — tribal humans that we are — the idea of a nation-state operating on a governing system that is a combination of the consent of the governed, limited government, various freedoms (speech, religion, assembly, etc.), rule of law, plus capitalism is, to put it again in his terms, a “miracle.” Empires, kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and other ways of governing a people have been the preferred way (and the only way) for most of our existence.
His further point is this: what do we need to do to protect this “miracle?” Now, if you believe that “the West” is utterly sinful, incorrigible, unsalvageable, capable of no good thing, then please stop reading. In fact, if you believe that, I don’t know why you read me in the first place.
Now, this is all a long introduction to my main point and the title: I think that we, “the West,” are coming to a point where the populations of the countries of the West might possibly prefer slavery, or bondage if you like, to freedom, because freedom takes really hard work. And human nature, left to its own devices, can be lazy (please note: I said “can be” not “is.”).
What do I mean by this? I mean that as I view the West, I see populations and the citizens of various countries telling their elected officials (through their voting habits) and telling their ruling elites (the media, the academic institutions, the big businesses, the cultural institutions, and of course, the unelected bureaucrats), that they really do prefer slavery (or again, bondage, if you like). The populace says, in various ways and in various words, “We don’t like being offended by things we don’t like to hear.” “We want everyone to be winners.” “We want you, the elites, to do something about our problems.” “We want everyone to be equal.” “We don’t want our feelings hurt, and if they are, you must do something about them.” And the list goes on.
And those saying these things want those ruling classes and elites to create safe spaces where no one is offended, everyone is equal and a winner, where no one has their feelings hurt, where the ruling classes and elites “do something,” where….well, you get the point. Of course when you ask the ruling classes and elites to cocoon you and take care of you and make all the hurt and problems go away then it should be obvious — you want a paternalistic society where you are ruled by others, in other words, you want bondage, slavery. It is easy when someone “takes care of you,” even if “taking care of you” involves dictating your every move.
On the other hand, if you want freedom (properly understood — which is another column), well, then, that takes hard work, really hard work. The consent of the governed, limited government, various freedoms (speech, religion, assembly, etc.), the rule of law, and more, plus capitalism, all take a lot of heavy lifting and hard work to achieve. But together, they achieve “the miracle,” warts and all, which, at least in my opinion, is better than the alternative of slavery.
To maintain freedom it is necessary to put forward principled arguments and persuade your fellow citizens, or even your political opponents, that these things are right and good. To maintain freedom it is necessary to push back on those who would usurp those freedoms. To maintain freedom, it is necessary to accept the fact that some people will be “offended” and their feelings hurt. To maintain freedom it takes an understanding that we cannot all be made equal and that to make everyone equal requires force and coercion — which can only be accomplished through a totalitarian state.
Slavery is easy — just abdicate your duties and responsibilities and give control of your life to the ruling classes and elites or, frankly, anyone you want to rule over you. But to maintain freedom, ah, that is an entirely different thing and it takes a great deal of hard work.
Which do you choose?
