Freedom People vs Virtue People ( Repost) Vote at the poll on the sidebar
One More Update on this epic discussion …John Manley ( Blazing Pinecone ) has the final word …in the 42nd Comment
One more time : Join the diiscussion…vote at the sidebar poll..Freedom First or Virtue First. Some very interesting observations
……….
This thought provoking Essay from Brownstone was sent FROM John Manley to his Blazing followers :
WOW….This one is a whopper for making us THINK…sometimes we need to check ourselves.
Thats how we grow. Lets do a poll…read this short Essay slowly and carefully then Vote Vote Vote
………….
Blazing Reader,
Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.
He’s also the author of an article at the Brownstone Institute that I believe is a must-read for everyone in the so-called freedom movement — or, at least, anybody who doesn’t want to see society descend into (as Pardy puts it) “woke, collectivist hell.”
The article is called “Freedom and Virtue: Friends or Enemies?” wherein Pardy points out a major divide between people who oppose tyranny: one group is based on virtue and the other on freedom. He describes them as such:
“Virtue People believe that virtue is the most important thing. Tradition, faith, family, responsibility, dignity, patriotism, community, and spiritual or religious conviction are the pillars upon which the West must be built. Virtue People are often, but not always, people of faith, especially of the Christian variety. Laws, governments, and society, they believe, should promote the True, the Beautiful, and the Good.
“Freedom People don’t share this view. They believe that freedom is the most important thing. Virtues, they believe, are for individuals to work out for themselves. The primary accomplishment of the West, they would say, is individual autonomy. The purpose of government is to secure individual rights to liberty. Freedom means the absence of coercion. You may decide your values, actions, and groups for yourself. Freedom means ‘freedom from.'”
I have a fair bit to say about this article. But before I do, here’s the link so you can go read it yourself:
https://brownstone.org/articles/freedom-and-virtue-friends-or-enemies/
It’s under a thousand words and even includes a 6-minute audio version. After you read (or listen to) it, could you hit reply and let me know whether you consider yourself a Virtue Person or a Freedom Person?
And don’t tell me both. You need to pick one — at least as far as running a state goes.
………………….
snip
There’s an elephant in the room, the speaker declared. He was right. I was at a gathering, as I often am, of people who aspire to rescue their countries from descending into woke, collectivist hell. But the attendees were not of one mind. Instead, there were two kinds of people in attendance. The elephant in the room was the tension between them.
Across the West, Virtue People, and Freedom People have been working together. At conferences, in think tanks, at school boards, on email lists, in living rooms, on X, and sometimes marching in the streets, they coalesce. These two groups constitute the rebel alliance against authoritarian woke globalism. But their political philosophies conflict.
https://brownstone.org/articles/freedom-and-virtue-friends-or-enemies/
No question, I’m a Freedom person. Although I’m well aware that when individualism is taken too far, you wind up with a very splintered rather than a cohesive society. America was VERY COHESIVE in the 1950s. Not after 1965. And not since.
I’m still not sure about the other side of our Rebel Coalition with their Virtue advocacy. In the NC Mtn group, I see that in their strong RFKjr following, as they are mostly disaffected liberals who had enough reasoning ability to distrust the government. I simply don’t get why there are not MORE of them. But I frequently hear from one of the most vocal among them using the words “should”. You should …..
“I think you cannot have a free society without virtue, because you cannot have self-government without virtue. Without self-government there is chaos and anarchy. Without self-government there is chaos and anarchy. And out of chaos comes tyranny.”
As the founding fathers made clear, without a virtuous people you cannot keep a republic. Every other form of government in the history of the world has led to socialism/dictatorship. All laws and governance are based on some belief system driving them into existence. When you remove the virtuous component the result is the inevitable slide into dictatorship/oppression. Which is EXACTLY where we are now. Virtue has been selectively removed from our culture so the base nature of man is running rampant. Witness over 70 million babies aborted and unbounded corruption top to bottom.
Well said!!
So, your poll is indicative of a split in philosophy between those who believe freedom is possible without virtue, and those who know you cannot have freedom without virtue. Guess which side history is on.
Or are we gonna have to repeat this one, too.
Very Poignant observations Boomer. That helps us to understand you position which is Virtue first.
I can’t go there exactly . I see Freedom first …freedom to explore and then decide what is best for YOU
Telling people they shoud be virtuous is almost like telling people to wear a mask
it’s an interesting reflection to reflect on is it not ?
Some people on the Other side ie Covidians and maskaholics feel they are Virtuous…They NEED everyone else to be so too.
Is virtue a settled science or is it in the eye of the beholder
Yikes…now I’m confused
Fully, there should be another option in the poll.
As I am in the both camp.
One foot in freedom and one foot in virtue.
Neither can exist without the other. Like night and day. Yin and Yang.
Precisely, Leo. Fully wrongly put in me in one camp, and then accused me of telling people to be virtuous. I’m not telling anyone to be virtuous – simply pointing out that if you choose to not be virtuous you put freedom on the chopping block. If not immediately, in the near future.
The two are inextricably linked.
“They NEED everyone else to be so too.”
Exactly. … same as my .. “You should”
Its the proselytizing nature of their views re virtue that’s troubling.
Instead, stick to “Don’t harm others” then ALLOW everyone else to choose their own path.
One size does not fit all.
“Don’t harm others” is a virtue – many people don’t care if they harm others.
True, pedro.
Something that bothers me about “Church People” is their sanctimonious, “I am more wholly than thou attitude.”
IMO most church people don’t practice Christianity at all. They practice “Church-ianity.”
I have to go with Boomer on this one. Freedom without virtue will lead to ruin.
Therefore there can be no freedom without virtue.
So, virtue first. Freedom follows.
God wants us all to be free. He has instructed us in the virtues to be followed through the 10 Commandments. God has bestowed on all of us free will, so we each must make our own choices on which path we will follow. Jesus instructed us simply to trust, worship, give thanks and praise to God above all others and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Jesus also told us that we shall know the truth and the truth will set us free.
Despite the fact that there will always be deceivers and immoral idolators among us I will always side with freedom and trust my fellow citizens despite the risks to me personally and our society. Current events (border, farmer protests, exposure of corrupt and evil politicians) demonstrate we can change the world through commitment to freedom and truth. The pendulum continually swings.
FWIW i’m not a follower of any organized religion and now only read the Bible occasionally. I just believe the main lessons which are validated time and again through history.
Excellent contribution Hippie . Thanks
“Virtue People believe in freedom too, especially in this era of illiberal progressivism. But freedom means a different thing to them. Freedom is essential, they would say, but the decline of the West is due to an excessive emphasis on individuality.” << sorry I can't believe that Virtue people are so naive as to believe the state is not a threat to individuality. Going to read the rest of the comments but that divisive premise in the article, I'm not buying.
"Virtue People use laws to achieve their ends, and laws depend on force"
"Virtue People would declare. Excessive individualism causes indulgence, narcissism, and social decay."
Also virtue people that this article is describing that oppose freedom, subscribe to a virtue of their OWN making, not one based on say love of humanity, a higher power or maybe one who subscribes to the sensibilities of the 10 commandments as a basis form of good for society. For decades now the christian sense of 'virtue' concepts such as 'forgiveness' and 'tolerance' has been used as a cudgel to 'guilt' them into accepting un-natural and divisive behaviors.
Sorry, but if I was a marxist (as demonstrated in his interpretation of the evils of capitalism), this is exactly the kind of article I'd write. Not buying it. The seeking of Freedom IS a VIRTUE but I do think true virtue comes from realizing WE are not GOD and we do not wish domination over our fellow man. Virtue and Freedom seekers are NOT in mutually exclusive camps.
Good points YYZ….still thinking about all this
The central question is still Why do YOU reject and resist the Cretinic Agenda of Control and Demonizing Faith family and freedom
Because you Value Freedom above all or because you value Virtue above all
Your last sentence presumes the argument of the author – which I dismiss as machiavellian or what a marxist believes is at the core of human ambition – power through divisiveness/deception (people tend to judge others as themselves). Consider the whispers of discontent in the ears of Venezuelans a few decades ago and to what end – was it necessary, how did it start?
SB said it – it’s where one’s heart is toward their fellow humans – it’s NOT and either/or proposition as the author wants to make it. Anarchy is freedom without virtue. Communism (and many other forms of totalitarianism) is a set of ‘virtues’ without freedom (again I refer to the ‘virtues’ of K Marx, or Lenin/Polpot, Mao, Trudeau, Schwab etc). No human seeking self determination (includes reaping the fruits of their labor and not at the expense of others (again SB’s ‘heart’ commment), wants to live in a society that doesn’t have BOTH and is not rooted in a set of common values that demonstrate (basically) the values of christianity and other religions that support the goal of just ‘getting along’. Civil society doesn’t need to have a religious bond but at least a set of core values that involves respect/dignity/compassion etc. etc.
Well said, YYZ. BTW, the founding fathers, that virtuous bunch, clearly understood that the state is an enemy of freedom but a necessary evil. Like fire…uncontrolled, very dangerous. Tightly controlled, immense benefit.
Freedom (chaos) needs Virtue (Order) and vice versa.
Neither can exist, without the other, like night and day.
Taoism says that Yin and Yang co-exist, and the best place to live is on the line between Yin and Yang.
One foot in chaos (opportunity) and one foot in Order (stability)
While an interesting philosophical discussion, it avoids the main point: life is a heart issue. Where is your heart? Does it wish your fellow man well, is it entirely bent on satisfying your lust for material goods and well-being, are you your own god or is their another physical god you worship, like money, possessions, or perhaps power? People don’t become virtuous because they are told to do so – it is a heart decision. A self-examined life is the only one worth living, and that flows from where your heart lies.
We all have a god in our lives, whether we admit it or not, even if putting ourselves forth as our own god.
More wisdom from the Boomer .
I still like the question…what comes first Virtue or Freedom ?
You CAN have Virtue but NO Freedom ( ie if you are controlled by the Schwabbeans)
You also can have Freedom without Virtue ( Hunter Biden )
So you guys have convinced me that the Kind of Freedom we are advocating for is Freedom WITH Virtue …which does come with an element of “Control” ie self control
>>You can have Virtue but no Freedom<<
I disagree. What the Schwabbians have is not virtue. Those people are immoral. Our government is immoral.
What they exhibit is false. It is a lie. That is not virtue.
The foundation of virtue must be Truth. That is a property of the soul.
Freedom is also a property of the soul. All souls long to be free.
TO ALTHEA, FRTOM PRISON – RICHARD LOVELACE
Stone Walls do not a Prison make,
Nor Iron bars a Cage;
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an Hermitage.
If I have freedom in my Love,
And in my soul am free,
Angels alone that soar above,
Enjoy such Liberty.
This is One of the Best discussions I have seen at the TENT in my almost 4 years here. Unlike some in the past, good respectful back and forth, no name calling, no personal attacks. Well done!
Well, screw you!!! 😉
For my two cents. I don’t believe there is a chicken or egg answer. As some have stated you need both virtue and freedom. The freedom for each to chose for themselves with the majority being virtuous enough to accept others choice. The key is that no one gets to choose what is right for others. Society benefits and prospers when the majority are virtuous, when they are not, it declines.
Another excellent insight CM
Tricky Business.
If Freedom first ….then Virtue can flourish and become dominant OR Virtue becomes rare and we are back to where we are now
If Virtue First….then Freedom may be suppressed by those Claiming “Virtue” like the asshole who claimed their health was threatened because we chose to be vaxx free.
So it looks like The Both together Camp may be the best way to sort this out.
John Manley specifically asked us to chose ONE and not answer Both.
I’ll keep the tent posted as he promisses to get into this in greater detail after his Subscribers email his response
I sent him this thread. It IS impressive 🙂
To whit: The USA and Canada and Australia and New Zealand and and and and…
CM: “The key is that no one gets to choose what is right for others.”
I agree, and that makes Virtue a matter of Relativism, which means Virtue in that sense HAS NO FIXED DEFINITION which means you can claim to be a Virtue person, yet still be in a room of one.
More specifically, what some others think of as being virtuous, I might find to be abhorrent or repugnant.
I don’t believe virtue is something one gets to define for oneself. In FGC’s comment about some AH claiming his or herself “virtuous”, and saying those who didn’t get vaxed threatened the health of others. Even if that were true, getting vaxed to protect the greater good is more about someone fearful of getting sick protecting themself, than about others. Someone who risks their own safety to save or help someone else in a dangerous or threatening situation is an actual example of virtue. I don’t have an all encompassing definition of virtue, but like I believe Potter Stewart was the SC Justice who said he didn’t know the definition of pornography, but knew it when he saw it, is similiar to the definition of virtue.
Pedro – you are correct that virtue has no definition UNLESS (as I am) you are a Christian. Then the Bible is, well, your Bible. Very fixed definition of what is wrong and right. If you don’t believe in that then anything can be wrong or right based on your own personal opinion.
Thanks KenS for that context. I too am a Christian and that was what I meant that one doesn’t get to have their own definition of virtue. Even if one isn’t a Christian, most religions or philosophies have similiar tenets about dealing with and respectig others and life of all creatures.
what do we have if there is only freedom…. with no virtue….
anarchy…
bring it. “difficult times create strong men”
what we have now is faux freedom and those at the top leading us have no virtue.
as for Christians … they have no monopoly on virtue.
My point is there are many VALID definitions. (if do not harm is the limiting criteria)
Enough to pit those from one religion against another, for example.
correct.
Which only lasts until the power of tyranny asserts itself.
Gotta say, I have enjoyed the many comments and exchanges. Lotsa smart people here.
(Except that Chartsmaster guy… 😉 )
I would prefer anarchy over authoritarian every day.
And I was thinking this morning about dedicating a special speculative options trade to Silverboom. Now I will have to sleep on it.
Dont do it if it blows up you wont hear the end of it
🙂
You are one clever guy, Chartsmaster…. You know how much I love option plays…you dog face pony soldier you 🙂
I think the question that was asked and the way he is trying to pin us in (choose one or the other) equates to an unanswerable question – similar to “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” of “If God can do anything, can he create a rock so big he can’t pick it up?”
Here is John Manleys response to his readers
In Bruce Pardy’s short but thought-provoking article “Freedom and Virtue: Friends or Enemies?” he says:
“In the political sphere… Freedom People expect their governments to keep the peace and protect the individual – and otherwise to not interfere. Virtue People expect their governments to promote the Good with laws and policies. Virtue People support laws that prohibit behavior that is, in their view, immoral, damaging to human flourishing, or inconsistent with common good. Assisted suicide, prostitution, divorce, pornography, even heresy, just to start, shall not be permitted.”
Despite the fact I am personally opposed to everything on that anti-virtue list (though, “heresy” is a fuzzy one), I would never want such things restricted by law. Laws are ultimately enforced by violence: do the right thing or we’ll kidnap you and lock you up in a cell. And if you resist or fight back, we’ll shoot you.
Hardly a great way to spread virtue.
Plus, who is to decide what virtue is?
Some would say, God.
Fine. Let’s run with that logic. The Being who created the universe would probably know the best way to live in it.
But how do you know what God advises?
Some (many) would say the Bible — a complex book with some rather deceitful star characters and bizarre stories involving a lot of severed foreskins. I’m not putting it down, just saying, it’s hardly a clearly written, step-by-step guide to a virtuous life. You’re going to end up with many differences in opinion. Just ask a Mormon and a Catholic to discuss the “thou shalt nots” over a cup of coffee and you’ll see what I mean — Mormons believe coffee is a harmful substance that God has decreed should never pass through the bowels of man.
So should we outlaw coffee?
What about cards, alcohol, and dancing? Skirts? Poker?
Bring in the Jews and Muslims and pork and shellfish is also off the table.
Then Hindus will ban meat and eggs.
Then the Christians will retaliate and ban yoga classes.
Where would it end?
Other than dancing, I’ve no interest in any of the items above. But what right does anyone have to ban them? As long as I’m not forced to drink coffee or wear a skirt, it all falls in the “none of my business” category.
Likewise, I recently talked to someone neck-deep in the woke movement. She’s convinced that she’s on some spiritual crusade to help humanity transcend beyond the shackles of gender, family and work. She even suggested that Jesus, Krishna and the Buddha were all transgender.
And she wants you to believe it too.
She wants you to sign her rainbow flag and preach the Gospel of Woke.
This is why I’m against any form of government based on virtue. The government should be based on harmlessness. The virtue-signalling “ahimsa” movement would claim that harmlessness is a virtue. I disagree. Harmlessness is not a virtue, just the absence of malice. The fact I didn’t kill anybody today doesn’t make me good.
That’s why I stand in the freedom camp. I don’t want to waste time forcing other people to be “good” when it’s a full time job trying to keep my own life on the virtue track. It’s only when the actions of others impede on my freedom that force, and even harm, is justified. Otherwise, Christians, Muslims and any other persons who want to outlaw “sinful” actions that only harm the person doing them are partly responsible for governments spreading their Gospel of Woke.
— John C.A. Manley
I love John Manley’s take on the issue and that he stands for freedom so clearly and strongly. I try to live my own beliefs and analyze them according to the overriding principle of freedom and peace. Self-defence against oppressors is acceptable under this principle.
Ultimately, I am a Warrior for Freedom and Truth in the Army of the Prince of Peace. We are not violent but abhor userers who seek to enslave us in debt bondage through deceit.
Amen
Great thread Goldtent
Wow! You guys know how to have a discussion.
I 100% agree society needs virtue to flourish. I just 100% disagree it’s the government’s job to enforce virtue. It’s up to the individuals working together. People have turned over that job to the government and look what happens: It’s virtuous to inject yourself with poison. And if you die, it was for the greater good. It’s virtuous to get your testicles cut off. It’s virtuous to go broke paying carbon taxes.
Exactly.
It is hard to be virtuous, as it requires acceptance of responsibility, a heavy load to carry.
The majority seem to have simply passed the responsibility onto their government … and we now see the disastrous results.