Back in the Swing of Things
I've decided to get back into this whole blogging thing. Much like Thomas Jefferson or John Adams had private writings and letters, I have this blog. Although I cannot pretend to reach the greatness of those men, it seems to me that these men understood that life requires careful thought and recognition of deep moral, philosophical, and legal issues.
For me, I'm going to try to shift this blog to the latter of those issues - the law. I have learned a great deal so far in law school, and I only wish to continue to expand my knowledge in all the facets presented by this unique profession. This will necessarily implicate cultural and political issues, but I hop to always tie those issues back to legal questions and implications.
Possibly Related Posts:
Conservative Authoritarianism
As an impressionable young undergraduate at the University of Virginia, I first encountered so-called "liberal" philosophy in action. Not the classical liberalism of our Founders, mind you. No, this was the liberalism of Marx and Lenin, less concerned with freedom of thought and association and more concerned with issues of race, class, and gender.
Classically understood, liberalism embraces freedom in personal and economic matters. It appreciates the value of individual rights and generally avoids the use of force, except to remedy private wrongs and to punish evil-doers. Accordingly, classical liberalism appreciates the maleficent impact that power coupled with the authoritative assertion of ideas can have on individuals and society.
Unfortunately, modern-day liberalism has turned from its roots. Backed by the coercive power of the state, today's liberalism generally embraces government indoctrination of citizens backed by the implicit use of force. Where liberalism once exalted the free marketplace of ideas, it now seeks to silence speech with which it disagrees. This makes modern-day liberalism unbelievably illiberal.
Today's mainstream university wants to teach you what to think, not how to think. Conservatism, at least in the mainstream college atmosphere, entirely rejects this abuse of power and commends the power to decide what to think to the free choice of individuals acting within the marketplace of ideas.
Unfortunately, there are many strains of "conservatism," and not all of them embrace classical liberalism. A limited number of conservatives have no inherent issue with the power of the state. They only wish that the state used its power to create onerous laws to serve their own purposes.
A proper law sets forth duties, obligations, and penalties that apply equally and fairly to all and that remain consistent with the natural order of the universe. Part of that natural order includes the God-given rights of the individual.
As the Declaration of Independence proudly pronounces, all individual have the right to liberty. Liberty naturally implies the freedom to think. Hence, it comes as no surprise that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of thought. Of course, the First Amendment only forbids certain behavior on the part of the government. That doesn't mean, however, that conservatives can't embrace the values inherent in the amendment and carry them out to a reasonable degree in private settings.
We must stand for this simple truth: that a free society relies on well-informed people that freely accept to believe or disbelieve certain propositions, and our society and our side will win out when we tolerate and appreciate the value added by the advocacy of ideas which we may personally reject and even find abhorrent.
And as much as we might abhor particular leftist ideas, we must recognize that a philosophical system that outlaws the expression of those ideas altogether is infinitely more abhorrent.
Possibly Related Posts:
- A Letter to Senator Webb on Healthcare “Reform”
- Remember, Remember the Seventh of November
- Republicans Resurgent in Elections
- David Frum Is Wrong
- Government: Let’s ‘Stimulate’ the Economy by Producing Less