Ron -- > I'd say you have me. We are bound to value, we are slaves > to choice. Life demands it or moves on without you. > Choosing no choice is a choice. We are only truly free of > value when we pass from this existence (relatively speaking) > this is an assumption of course but a reasonable one at that.
I couldn't let your phrase "we are slaves to choice" pass without comment. Isn't that a curious way to look at Freedom, Ron? I've always thought of freedom as the capacity to choose; yet you see it as slavery! We are all born as creatures of nature, which (from a biological standpoint) means we must struggle to survive. Struggle is a given in this world, for the survival of a species or an individual. No animal has the freedom to sprout wings and escape from the vicissitudes of nature. But do we say that the need for a dog or a crab to struggle impairs its freedom? Or that the need to make choices negates man's freedom? Freedom, like everything else in existence, is relative. We must aim for it, work at it, and exercise it in order to preserve it. Jefferson said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty." In a free society we have the power to choose our means of livelihood, our government representatives, our recreational pursuits, our spouses, our spiritual beliefs. This is not true of Islamic cultures, for example, where the rulers are patriarchal successors, belief and behavior conform to Allah's law, and marriages are arranged. If you've followed recent politics in Russia, you'll note that they still follow the Soviet communist tradition: Premier Putin appoints his successor, and public elections are little more than token endorsements. Dictatorships restrict individual freedom, as do socialist states that tax earnings at 60% or more. Americans are fortunate to live in freedom -- so long as they value it. Sadly, the recent trend to "social equality" has made many forget the individualism and self-reliance on which our freedom is based. Today's liberals are not only willing, but eager, to trade individual freedom for a welfare state that will provide cradle-to-grave care for all. (I sometimes wonder if they've ever read 'Animal Farm', '1984', or 'Atlas Shrugged'.) I'm persuaded that the essence of man is value-sensibility. Since we cannot choose our values if we're not free to do so, living simply to satisfy our hunger or gratify our carnal appetites is a regression to animal behavior. Human beings are uniquely endowed with the capacity to discriminate between values and to act in accordance with their choices. As the "choicemakers of the world" humans are a "more noble creature" worthy of higher aspirations. Therefore, whether it's an "intellectual or social level" principle or not, I agree with David Kelley that "no one can claim a right to make others serve him involuntarily, even if his own life depends on it." Essentially yours, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
