I found a very flash presentation (about 7min I think) called the Philosophy of Liberty that I found quite interesting.http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-IHS.swf
It is also interesting as you can apply modern events to the ideas that are presented.
I would be interesting to see what the Aus LDS read think about it.
Cheers
Stewart
February 13, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I just spent 7 minutes of my life watching this. I have to say I was only moved by the Air Conditioner that burrs away behind my head. I feel like whoever created it is looking to make a society where individual liberty is obtained through complete mutual consent. Really more a pipe dream than anything. In a large democracy like Australia, mutual consent is never going to happen and as such leaders are going to impose rules that others do not like. What this presentation advocates is a utopian view on what democracy is supposed to be. By following the rules it discusses, nothing would ever get accomplished at all.
February 13, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Hi Stewart,
Sorry, in advance, for the long response. You have really touched on something of interest to me.
I am extremely pleased that you put the question up, as it frames an ideological perspective of freedom that is the motivation behind much of what happens in the political world. I agree with parts of it but feel it tells only part of the story in its emphasis of liberty.
The LDS Church needs a liberty-based society in order to tolerated by older religious influences. This is the great aspect of liberty. Further, LDS believe in following commandments by their own conscience, not by constraint. These are vital aspects of liberty in relation to the gospel. These are the reasons why LDS often use words such as
‘liberty’
‘free agency’
‘valiant’
‘choice’
‘patriotic’ (related theme)
I respectfully submit that I find the framework of liberty as shown in the presentation, is, however, flawed.
I am an LDS who has consecrated everything I am and own, to the building up of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in principle if not in practice. However, one may argue that since this is voluntarily surrendered, that consecration does not apply to the message of this presentation. That’s fine. However, now that I have once made that covenant to God, I consider it eternally binding. The spiel stated to lose life is to loose liberty, but Christ taught “He who loses his life for my sake shall find it.” The emphasis is completely different.
It seems to me to also place too much emphasis on the link between property and liberty. This portion appears to focus on materialism. The founding principles of the US are often stated as “Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This presentation is concerned with “Life Liberty and Property”. I believe it is this replacement that does the damage in materialistic societies of all colours and stripes.
Further, it talks about the marketplace of values. Yes, we are free to experiment, but we are not free to escape the consequences of our experimentation. It should make that clear.
Also, because we live in society, we do have constraints placed upon our liberty by nature of our interaction with others. And as LDS, we do uphold our leaders even if the LDS view is the minority viewpoint. We compromise. This spiel says little of the value of compromise in our crowded, complex world.
A non-LDS who is busily competing for monetary happiness might see this presentation and think ‘Yes – I believe that’. However, I believe that person may miss out on much of what really counts in life – obedience to God, for starters.
I have been sincerely struggling for a while to understand the value framework in this presentation. Not so I can oppose it or support it, but simply because I see many neo-conservatives keywords and ideals in harmony with gospel concepts, yet wonder at the outcomes of their policies.
So I thank you for putting it up. Although I am often at odds with my brothers and sisters on this blog, I am gratified to be able to talk ideology from time to time.
February 13, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I found it interesting.
February 13, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I’m more than keen to talk ideology seeing as I have a love and appreciation for social and political theory. This presentation however seemed to me to be on the level of some undergraduate’s explanation of liberty. Not very well thought out and very simplistic. The property thing as you have pointed out Phil was problematic.
The other thing I disliked about the presentation was the topic of leadership. ‘You can’t vote a leader to impose on others’ I think was the rhetoric. That’s fine, but as I’ve already stated, in a large democracy, that’s always going to happen. It seems very much the utopian version of liberal democracy.
February 13, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I agree with you, there were parts that were impractical, impracticable and a little silly.
February 13, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I found it thought provoking but very idealistic.
February 13, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I actually think the presentation is very contemporary. It’s a pretty good summary of – and I cringe to have to use the buzz words again – neo-con philosophy. This variety of ‘freedom’ is equivalent to GW’s rationalisation for staying in Iraq after the WMD weren’t found. It is the framework under which the invasion of Iraq was able to be named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” or the ‘liberation’ of Iraq.
A quite complex challenge that confronts LDS who give a damn about peace, is the reality that LDS must choose whether or not they support the so-called liberation of Iraq, at the cost of peace and stability. If the US managaes somehow to calm down the whole situation over there, and say 10 years down the track, Mormon missionaries are allowed into that country, then the liberty that would have been created through the bloody US invasion could be seen to be a positive thing.
Moreso than in many Christian churches, Muslim hard liners can be very severe. What we call ‘Gentiles’, they call ‘Infidels’. When someone apostatises from Christianity, we feel saddened. When it happens to Muslims, they can be shot as being worse than a traitor. We in the west have felt threatened in the past by Islamist goals of forcing the whole world to choose between their version of God, and evil. We have been appalled at their indifference about human life, and their hatred for Jews.
If this is all true, can’t we as LDS sit back and say that the end justifies the means? But if we do, don’t we risk becoming like those Christians who failed to stand up to the evil of the Great Inquisition?
According to the ideological framework of that presentation, we could justify the invasion as ending a regime that limited freedoms and took lives. We could accept America’s need to protect it’s access to oil at any cost.
However, I don’t think of it as a truly Christian message. It just uses similar ideas and words.
February 15, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Even though the US declaration of independence talks about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – they including Jefferson were clear supporters of property rights. Nor do I think this means you are materialistic. In fact you can’t have true life or liberty without property rights.