tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post1811672275013503042..comments2024-03-16T11:33:57.107-05:00Comments on Throne, Altar, Liberty: The Tory and FreedomGerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-28443526541176945052015-08-10T10:53:25.960-05:002015-08-10T10:53:25.960-05:00Shlomo,
The entire point of this essay as a whole...Shlomo,<br /><br />The entire point of this essay as a whole was to argue, as you say, that "freedom stems from order". <br /><br />To say that authority undermines itself by seeking to foster freedom, however, raises the question of what is meant by fostering freedom. In the part of my essay you quoted I say that freedom is part of the common good for which society is organized and that church and state must recognize that. I go on, however, to identify how they do so, and in the case of the state's role, I argue, citing King Charles I as an authority, that it is by passing laws securing their lives and property. I do not see how doing this could weaken the state.<br /><br />The question now becomes what we mean by the strength of the state. Is the strength of a state measured by its stability and security? If so, then it is safe to argue that the stronger the state, the freer the people will be. If, however, the strength of the state is measured in terms of the extent to which it exerts control over peoples' lives, then it would be nonsense to make this claim. <br /><br />With traditional authorities this goes without saying, for a king that were to attempt to regulate every area of his people's lives would be undermining the stability and security of his state by doing so for he would soon have a revolutionary mob at his doorstep. Thus, the freedom of the people increases as the strength of a king's government, measured in stability and security, increases, but the latter decreases should the strength of the government measured in terms of asserted control increase beyond a certain point. <br /><br />With modern democracy it is different because a revolution would have to involve the people revolting against themselves. The stability of a democratic government does not depend upon its refraining from tyranny the way a traditional government does. Therefore, the strength of a democratic government, does not guarantee freedom. This is yet one more reason why democracy, if it is to be included in a mixed government, must be subordinate to the institutions of monarchy and aristocracy (or Senate).Gerry T. Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-35091338090844048072015-08-09T20:35:56.872-05:002015-08-09T20:35:56.872-05:00Gerry,
"Freedom, therefore, is an absolutely...Gerry,<br /><br />"Freedom, therefore, is an absolutely essential part of the common good of society that the Tory sees as the end of royal and ecclesiastical authority and neither church nor state can assist man in the pursuit of virtue if they do not also seek to secure his liberty."<br /><br />Freedom stems from order. Insofar as authority is stable and secure, the subjects under said rule experience greater freedom of action than they otherwise would. Inasmuch as authority seeks to foster freedom, the stability of its power is eroded.<br /><br />You seem to be misunderstand this idea in a similar vein as libertarians tend to.<br /><br />It's not by weakening the state that liberty flourishes and attempting to foster freedom is a sure way to weaken the state.shlomo maistrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01248107684249750519noreply@blogger.com