"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Fisher, the Digest junkie, is already politically active and is also worried about the future for his country. The April 1945 edition lands on his desk as he is moving to London and, after reading the cover story, he notes on the front that the author is at the University of London. A phone call establishes that the LSE is back in place and, one lunchtime or late one afternoon, Fisher makes the short walk from his office to the LSE and knocks on Hayek’s door. Fisher also recalled the physical setting of Hayek’s office in minute and accurate detail including its proximity to that of the dreaded Harold Laski. Fisher claimed that after small talk (which neither excelled at) the conversation went like this:
Fisher - I share all your worries and concerns as expressed in The Road to Serfdom and I’m going to go into politics and put it all right.
Hayek - No you’re not! Society’s course will be changed only by a change in ideas. First you must reach the intellectuals, the teachers and writers, with reasoned argument. It will be their influence on society which will prevail, and the politicians will follow.
I have this quote framed above my desk alongside Keynes’s famous line: ‘The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.’
ah the famous words of Franklin, never questioned never erred.
ReplyDeletePerhaps those that accept without reason fail to see the contradiction they dwell in.
Why does Franklin say that what were his conditions? What was considered liberty and what safety?
IS there true freedom?
Please enlighten us , oh fountain of truth and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteLike all of these rather, contested concepts, like democracy, freedom, I am sure they are not hard and fast but altering and evolving according to some 'cultural differences, specific to Singapore' as opposed to 'ideal types' or heaven forbid 'universals'.
But you know that already don't you oh great fountain of all that is knowable. ;)
oh i like the name "fountain of truth and knowledge"
ReplyDeleteI also can't detect sarcasm over the net so I am thicker than adamantine.
Anyway, my argument is there is no society that functions with true liberty. All societies have a set of safeguard that protect the weaker from the more powerful, or in some cases the more powerful from themselves.
Thus logically, if we follow Franklin's axiom, no one has the privilege of getting both.
No one, no society, is perfect. Doesn't mean we should stop striving towards those ideals. That's what make us human, or at least most of us. Err... okay half of us... Hmm... maybe not on this island... heh.
ReplyDelete"fountain of truth and knowledge" was not meant to be sarcastic. Merely trying to counter the usual, 'to and fro, of yeah our government does this, but your government is doing that' argument.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge, truth and all those other big concepts are unattainable maybe contradictory or illogical, but that should not stop us from striving towards them. It is the search for knowledge and freedom, the search.
Oh you must have got me wrong here, when I questioned what is true liberty, true safety and true freedom.
ReplyDeleteI actually meant it quite literally. No one questions what is liberty and freedom. Some take the adage that my freedom in waving my hand lies from my should to the tip of your nose.
That of course is a simplistic approach, also no one, not me if anyone, believes that a dystopian view of the world e.g. Brave New World or even 1984, is good for anybody save a body of people far beyond reproach.
But what are the goals that you seek to reach? What if they differ from another e.g. A fundamentalist who believes true liberty lies in creating a pan-fundamental state? Who do you seek to address?
We of course believe in democracy ("The tyranny of the majority"). And me too. But then again, we assume that people think in black and white.
We might strive to Eudaimonia, but no one can say everyone's eudaimonia is the same and we will clash.
Are safeguards needed to protect members of our society from the designs of a tyranny? I think we do. Hence I am not a full on-on supporter of Singapore Policies. Do i believe that democracy as the so-called "liberal" society is the key. Not totally, as we have seen dictators rise from such "majority rule". This is a failure within a democratic system. The idealization of humanity. Maybe one day we will be mature enough to swallow the pill of un-ego. Maybe not.
I know you may have a separate and distinct world-view than me. The glorious thing about being human is the ability to empathise without a fundamental change within our psyche.
I have for awhile been interested in the possibilty of creating an open space for free discussion.
ReplyDeleteI don't think humanity can get anywhere unless there are many voices, opinions and world views involved in the process. Possibly engaged in speech that adheres to certain key principles such as those outlined by David Held. Respect, Equality, Autonomy, Communication, free from violence.
of what is this open space you speak?
ReplyDeleteof who is this david held you speak?
Is there a proper forum, instead of some random innane posting on a blog I stumbled while doing a research on Singapore and Corporal Punishment?