If Peace Be Your Purpose...

Published on March 26, 2005 By John Galt In Philosophy

If Peace Be Your Purpose then the inevitable outcome is death.

If freedom, absolute, non-contradictory freedom, be your purpose the inevitable outcome is peace.

If you care, think on these statements and tell me why they are right.

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Mar 26, 2005

Nice thoughts!

Unfortunately for too many, absolute freedom means an encrouchment into other's freedom, which destroys peace.

Peace can only exist if everyone agrees to respect each other's freedom. Freedom only exists as long as everyone is willing to stand on their own. Until we reach a point where respect is valued and we don't turn to the government to protect us from each other, there will be no peace and freedom will be threatened.

Furry Canary

on Mar 27, 2005

Well put, ParaTed2k. 'Freedom' is a noble aim, but what exactly is ABSOLUTE freedom? Here are some possible examples:
1) The freedom of [insert name of multinational sports shoe manufacturer here] to pay peanuts to third world workers.
2) The freedom of Australia to incarcerate asylum seekers for years with neither charge nor trial.
3) The freedom of Nazi Germany to invade Poland.

Of course, the issue is that freedom for one very easily involves the restriction of freedom for another. In such cases, whose 'absolute freedom' should take precedence, and why?

On another current blog (‘Wanted: rational left-winger article writers’ by Draginol), Jamie Burnside makes the following point:
‘Left-leaning thought (in my opinion) acknowledges that things are usually more complicated than they appear. Because of this, it is more difficult to articulate an effective argument in support of what would be considered a "liberal opinion." Conservative ideology can oftentimes be seen as simplistic, therefore appealing to people's gut-level reactions. It is a lot more entertaining to present the right's view on radio and on television.’

Leaving the tired old left-right thing to one side, I still think there is a lot here that is pertinent to this issue. The concept of ‘absolute freedom’ sounds like a righteous and irrefutable ideal, but this is exactly where the problem lies. Like other such concepts from all colours in the political spectrum – from ‘the market must be allowed to find its own level’ through to ‘give peace a chance’ – such positions are generally platitudinous and closed to further scrutiny. The world is, as Jamie Burnside implies, a very much more complex organism that this.

ParaTed2k suggests that this will be so ‘Until we reach a point where respect is valued and we don't turn to the government to protect us from each other.’ But when will this be? When there is no longer a need for a defence force, the police, or any other administrative agency, and we can all co-exist in domestic and international harmony. Such a state of mutually secure anarchy is once again a lovely ideal, but let’s be honest - it’s not going to happen any time soon.

Now, to return to John Galt’s original thread for a moment:
‘If Peace Be Your Purpose then the inevitable outcome is death. If freedom, absolute, non-contradictory freedom, be your purpose the inevitable outcome is peace.’

I have a couple of questions:
1) ‘Death’. Death of whom? When and why? As opposed to what? Death comes to all of us anyway, regardless of both purpose and circumstances, so what does this actually MEAN?
2) Why should one purpose ‘inevitably’ lead to a different outcome? Is this true ONLY of peace and freedom, and if so, why just these two? Or does it apply to all other ideals too – ideals such as morality, security and optimism? If the latter, what should my purpose be if I actually want to achieve, say, happiness? (I’m not trying to be clever here – I notice that you have categorised this thread under ‘Philosophy’, and this is a fair philosophical question.)

Furry Canary

on Mar 28, 2005

PS. Unless of course, Mr. Galt, you actually meant what I took to be a typo in your title ...
If PEASE be your purpose, then you can eat the pudding hot, cold, or in the pot - nine days old!

RRH

on Mar 29, 2005

Absolute freedom is freedom from attachment to illusion. Right Knowledge, Right Understanding and Right Action are a great starting point.

Furry Canary

on Mar 30, 2005

But are YOU going to tell US why you think these declarations are justified? Come on, Mr. Galt - don't keep us all on tenterhooks! I, for one, am all ears ...

John Galt

on Mar 31, 2005

1) The freedom of [insert name of multinational sports shoe manufacturer here] to pay peanuts to third world workers.

That is their right. It's also the right of those 3rd world workers to not work for that company. But before you go and judge the shoe company, make sure you realize that if those 3rd world workers didn't have a job there their lives would be even worse off. This is the key to freedom. I can offer to pay you 5 cents a day. That is my option. You have the right to refuse and work somewhere else. What you don't have the right to do is get a government to use force of arms to force me to pay you more than I'm willing to pay you.

2) The freedom of Australia to incarcerate asylum seekers for years with neither charge nor trial.

Yes, that's the right of Australia. It's also the right of asylum seekers to go somewhere else. See above. If you want something, you have to agree to the terms. If you don't like my terms, you can go elsewhere. If you don't like the alternatives, then oh well.

3) The freedom of Nazi Germany to invade Poland.

Different story all together. That's called physical harm. People being killed by Nazis. You have no right to physically harm another unless they (meaning each and every individual) give you permission. Anything else is a contradiction. For instance, I have the right to run a bar that has smoking. The reason why I have such a right in a just society is because you can choose not to come into my bar and thus avoid the second hand smoke. Or you can choose to take the good with the bad because you deem that what I have to offer in my bar is worth more than the possible health risks. I don't have the right to smoke in a house with a child under the age of 18, because that child doesn't have the choice to live anywhere else. Germany didn't have the right to invade Poland because Poland had no where to go and people were being physically harmed.

Peace can only exist if everyone agrees to respect each other's freedom.

You're assuming a passivist role. Peace doesn't mean no violence. It means that each and every person is free from the fear of violence. Overwhelming physical force against anyone that infringes on another's freedom is the only way to ensure freedom. At to be clear, that means every time, whether it be a mugger on the street, or Tianimene Square (man I can't spell). Only when those that don't value freedom realize that to infring upon it means death or encarceration EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. WITHOUT. FAIL. will they stop daring to try.

Death = Death of the person seeking peace by the hand of those that do not. Passifists almost always get killed by someone that isn't a passifist. That is unless they have other people to do their dirty work and keep them alive. (Mother Terressa)

#2: We're talking about prime positions that all morality, and your view of life is based on. Religion is based on your view of freedom. If you believe that we're not capable of freedom, then you will believe in religion. Specifically, if you don't believe in the ability of man to not only be not bad, but good, then you will believe in Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. etc. They all start from a position of imposing slavery of various types (from not eating pork to hail marries when a "sin" has occurred) to ensure that human beings be "less bad". All of which comes from freedom or lack there of.

Peace as a primary view of life is based on a false ideal, that conflict is bad. Conflict is how the universe runs. It is how we improve ourselves, it is how we strive for better things. It is what makes us great. In fact it is what keeps us alive. Because without conflict we don't eat (You're killing plants or animals or both to eat...) Peace among men will never be accomplished by seeking peace. It will only be accomplished by man understanding that the only way that an individual can lead their own lives is to be truly and absolutely free. Free to choose to live or die. Free to choose how to spend that which they produce (money or otherwise). Only at that moment, when the "collective" is forgotten in any form, and socialism is finally destroyed and the individual is fully recognized will peace be possible, if we fight for it. Why is the collective bad? because you must harm the collective to help the collective. You must harm one or more of the members of the collective to serve it. End result? Death of both the individuals harmed and the collective because the collective also relies on the production of the individuals in the collective. If they know that they will be harmed if they are better than anyone else, they will cease to strive to be better and will fade away, resulting in a weaker collective because a: The production will go down to avoid being harmed. B: There will be no one to harm to help the collective because everyone will be equally as pathetic (Extreme Makeover Home Edition anyone?)

It is only when man understands that man can be not only not bad, but good. When man can be more than a zero a nothing a nobody and can be good, and positive and heroic and act on a non-contradictory set of values, the primacy of which is freedom that man will finally find peace.

It is no coincidence that (I'm going to say almost, but it's really EVERY) war that has ever been fought has it's roots in religion. The reason is that the fundamental position of all religion (I've read the majors, and even Buddhism supports this) is that man is evil. That man can be no more than not bad at the best. This fundamental view results in a contradictory primary position that states that if man is evil, that evil nature must be controlled or man can never survive and interact with each other. If you believe that man must be controlled to succeed or even to not fail, then you throw out freedom. When you throw out freedom, you end in oppression and the inevitable outcome is war.

Think about the Terry S. case. You have all of these religious zealots running around calling it murder. (to be clear, the husband is the legal guardian and thus has the right to make decisions for Terry the same way that Terry would. That means that just like Terry could choose to kill herself, he has the right to do so too. She gave him that right the day that she married him and didn't write a living will to superseded that power. If you don't like that, or think that he's not worthy, she did. Get over it. They're even wiling to get violent to make sure that a body with about 2% of her brain functioning can live. They're willing to exert their views on others. To FORCE THEM with physical violence to do what they think is morally right. They believe that suicide is evil. They believe that no one has the right to decide, even for a vegetable, that it's time to die. Thus they believe that they have to right to exert that value on everyone else. They are willing to subjugate others for the sake of their flawed value system. That's call slavery. There may be no hard labour involved, but it's enslavement non-the-less. And eventually it will be a Muslim extremist that hates Christians at the door, and he'll feel just as justified in forcing his way of life on you, as you do now. And you know what? Sooner or later he will have the force of arms to do so.

It is this very fact that terrifies me. I live in what I thought was the most free part of the world. I thought I was free from having others interfere with my life simply because they don't hold the same values. And to be clear, I never expected to be free from their judgement. Only free from being forced to act the way that they believe is right. Unfortunately as a response the subjectivism, religion is making a come back in North America. And it's the type of religion that the civilized world hasn't seen since the dark ages. It's the type that kills thought, that forces values on others, that makes you go to church every Sunday or be branded a witch or a heretic and ultimately be burned at the stake.

We live in a society that no longer understands freedom. It started after WWI with the "never again". It was this one phrase that justified the sacrificing of freedom. It was this one phrase that caused WWII and it was that war that made it even worse because we feared to judge anyone or any ideal for fear of creating another Hitler. From that came socialism in North America. It wasn't the influence of Russia, it was our own fear of fighting a war. Of men and women dying for freedom. We've become so afraid to fight and die for what made us great, that we were willing to sacrifice it in trade for not having to fight for it.

And now the inevitable result: A younger generation that believes that freedom means nothing. It's an indirect ideal that doesn't affect them. They've never had to fight for it, and they've been taught that freedom can be sacrificed for the greater good and that war is evil and fighting for freedom is something that you don't want to do.

Freedom cannot be sacrificed, not even a little. It is the prime position. The foundation for all morality. If you believe in freedom then you believe in the inate ability of man to make choices that will make that man good. Not only not evil, or less evil if you believe in original sin, but good. Heroic even if they so choose. If you do not, then you believe in man as an evil creature that must be controlled for it's own good. I am a good man. I did not inherit original sin or even the sin of my father. I am me. I am not my father, the choice of my father are not mine and thus I am not responsible for them. I am responsible for my decisions and only my decisions. Thus I started out a zero in life, and through my choices I have bettered myself, I have indirectly helped others by helping myself by employing others and paying them well for the work that they do to produce. That makes me good. And when the time comes I will fight for freedom. I will die for it. And that, well that would make me a hero.

What I'm talking about here is the exact reason why so many people around the world hate Americans. They hate them because they fight for "freedom" and then subjugate their own people over and over again to Christian values. If you're going to fight a war for freedom, you have to have your own house in order first, otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

The unfortunate part is that I got what I expected in response. I got the usual critisim for my spelling. I got the person saying that it's a nice ideal but not realistic. I got the person that uses what I said to spin it into subjectivist crap. I didn't get the religious nut or the Greenpeace freak that I expected, but that may just be that there weren't any around.

What I was seeking was someone that would dare to take it and run with it. Someone that would run the phrases and not only realize the truth of it, but maybe even create a framework for freedom, explain the non-contradiction, and how it can be achieved by man on this earth. (and if it happened to be a she that did so and she was single and in her twenties, so much the better

) The search continues....

Absolute freedom is not a contradiction. It relies on only one principle: Enlightened Selfishness. For me to be free I have to allow everyone else to be free too. Otherwise I will never be free to life my life, my way. Once you realize that one simple thing, the path to absolute, noncontradictory freedom becomes obvious.

Furry Canary

on Mar 31, 2005

To address your specific responses to my comments first, Mr. Galt:

1. 'But before you go and judge the shoe company, make sure you realize that if those 3rd world workers didn't have a job there their lives would be even worse off.'
Are we discussing 'absolute freedom' or 'the lesser of two evils'?

2. 'It's also the right of asylum seekers to go somewhere else.'
No it isn't. They're locked up. Der.

3. 'Different story all together. That's called physical harm. People being killed by Nazis.'
Oh, so there ARE exceptions to 'absolute freedom'? Well I never.

Q1. 'Death = Death of the person seeking peace by the hand of those that do not. Passifists almost always get killed by someone that isn't a passifist. That is unless they have other people to do their dirty work and keep them alive. (Mother Terressa)'
Well that's THAT cleared up then!

Classic 2nd line, worth repeating: 'Passifists almost always get killed by someone that isn't a passifist.' But where to start? Do pacifists never die of natural causes? If someone kills ANYBODY, aren't they - by definition - NOT a pacifist? Lots of heat but precious little light here, Mr. Galt.

Q2. Very, very, very, VERY long answer. Unfortunately doesn't even start to address the question. I did like this line though:
'Peace doesn't mean no violence. It means that each and every person is free from the fear of violence.'
Great. We can be violent, as long as we are all free of the fear of violence. All that remains is to work out just who we can be violent TO?

As for the rest of it, I find it hardly worth bothering with to be honest. Out comes the small print, quantity at the expense of meaning ... It's the same old John Galt story really - political dogma disguised as 'rational thought'.

Finally, the 'tell':
'Once you realize that one simple thing, the path to absolute, noncontradictory freedom becomes obvious.'
ie. Just like all the other evangelists - religious, political (all persuasions), you name it - John Galt is not interested in a debate. He just doesn't understand why we don't see 'the light'. And that makes him as irrational - and as potentially dangerous - as any of them.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!