Romantic Politics

In my previous post, "What is Romanticism", I outlined the basic goal of the Romantic philosophy as the glorification of man the individual and that if one subscribes to that premise then logic dictates certain ideological positions. In terms of politics this is summed-up by the single word Freedom.

When I was growing-up in Los Angeles freedom was a buzzword. The World War II veterans were in their sixties and all the freedom propaganda was still in their minds and in the minds of their children. I was born at the tale end of the 1960's and the hippies were still yammering on about freedom, and free love and free this and free that. The Cold War was still on and the films were all about the freedom loving Americans against the evil Communist.

During the 1980's patriotism was cool again. People were proud to be Americans again after the disasters of the 1970's and most of this was pouring from the Reagan White House and into popular culture. Even a song about the mistreatment of Viet Nam vets got turned into an anthem – Born in the USA. I grew-up hearing phrases like, "America is the freest country in the world" and the president being called "the leader of the free world."

After a while a person just becomes numb to the whole thing. The word freedom looses its meaning. It's taken for granted and seems unimportant. I doubt most people then or now could give a proper definition of the word; I know that I certainly could not.

Today I know that if you cannot define a concept then people can twist it to mean anything. Today I know what freedom is and how important it is. More importantly I know how incredibly rare and fragile it is.

As John Philpot Curron said in 1790, "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

In a society where freedom is taken for granted it is easy to become lax, accepting, and inactive while those who strive for power over others, driven by either ambition or a perceived moral sense, continue to fight for their objectives. The result is the loss of freedom.

Freedom is one of the four Romantic values. This is both social and economic freedom. Once you have accepted this as a value, then your political ideological course is fixed down a single political path. Otherwise, freedom is just a meaningless word to be used for your own delusion. Here is a short tale of the origins of that political path.

This story begins with the fall of Rome. The great empire was eroding from within and yet the facade was still appealing. People wanted to be part of the Roman system, but not just part of it. They wanted it for themselves.

Rome did not fall is one great clash of shields against the barbarian hoards. There were several raids over a century into the Roman territory by the Germanic tribes moving in from Central and Eastern Europe.

The government was no longer in a position to protect the people, so they took refuge on the estates of the great land owners. These men promised protection in exchange for rent (production). This was the beginning of the feudal system.

When the fall did come the tribal warlords divided the spoils amongst themselves. Remember these men wanted to be Roman. So they set themselves up as Roman nobles as best they could. Rome was feudal and Christian, so these Germans became the Holy Roman Empire.

The king was king because he owned all the land through the right of conquest. He then divided the land on loan to his friends who then sublet land to their friends and so on all the way down the hierarchy. These were the progenitors of the noble houses of Europe. Granted my explanation is simplistic, but this is how the medieval world of kings, nobles, knights, clergy, and peasants came to be, and it lasted over a thousand years.

The king's power was absolute. When the nobles thought that he was abusing his power they formed a council which in England evolved into a Parliament. The nobles and clergy formed the House of Lords and two knights from each county and two burgesses from each shire formed the House of Commons. This was the beginning of modern representative government.

This early Parliament had very little power. However, the equivalent in Scotland that was forming at roughly the same time was bolder. It went so far as to claim the right to depose their king and choose a new one should he abuse his power.

I was once part of a social club that met in a pub where the music was dictated by the management. Everyone accepted it. Later, we changed venues to one that allowed us to choose our own music. It was then that the infighting began.

Likewise, as the power of the absolute monarch weakened political parties began to form. In Britain there were the Tories who were pro-monarch and aristocracy and the Whigs who were for a less authoritarian government and pro the emerging business class.

On the most basic level all political ideology can be divided into these to camps. One is pro-central government authority and the other is for a limited government. If you accept that the primary value is Freedom for the individual, then which is the most Romantic?

I do not believe that any person in the world of any political orientation would speak out against freedom. However, they will constantly speak-out against the consequences of freedom.

The defining quality of the human animal is individual consciousness and its capacity for reason. Because of this every human being possesses the natural right to choose and act according to his values and the purposes derived from those values.

This is the right to liberty and it is part of the innate quality of being human. Freedom can be defined as the right to act according to your purposes. All actions require the power to act and all actions have consequences. These two aspects are key to understanding freedom.

Power is the means by which action can take place. The most important forms of power in this context are time and energy. Someone employs freedom in deciding how best to use the time and energy available to accomplish a purpose. Once that action occurs, or does not occur, it affects an outcome that ripples throughout the world. These are the consequences and the person who initiated or failed to initiate the action is responsible for the consequences, be they positive or negative.

I may want to climb Mount Everest; however I lack the power. I do not have the experience, the skills, the physical strength, the money, the materials, or the time. I may be free to climb Mount Everest, but I do not have the power to do so.

There are those who would argue that because I cannot act according to my purpose then I am not truly free. Therefore I have a right to the collective resources of society to empower me to accomplish my purposes.

Others may argue that so many tourists have flocked to Mount Everest that the natural eco-structure of the area is being damaged. Therefore, I am not permitted by law to attempt a climb of the mountain because of the potential negative consequences of my freedom on the environment.

In the first example, my freedom to act is confused with my power to act. So in an attempt to facilitate my freedom the government will take the production of other men's free will, time, and energy by force to empower me.

There are those who might say that my desire to climb Mount Everest is frivolous. The money that the central government collects is for humanitarian purposes and not to indulge my adventurous spirit. When all the money goes into one pot, then it pays to know who is giving the hand-outs. It would not be the first frivolous expense paid for by public funds.

In the second example freedom is thwarted by potential consequences. The enemies of freedom will say that you are free, however not in this instance because of the harmful consequences, or this instance, or this instance, or this instance, and so on. And so with the one hand they praise freedom and with the other they denounce it as destructive, or only for the deserving few, or only within this legal framework.

Consequences are important in that they are the natural check to freedom. If a man uses his freedom to be lazy and unproductive, then the consequence is that he will lack production. He will be poor and therefore lack the power to act on his freedom.

However, what if in the name of mercy or charity the consequences are removed? Then he is no longer self-responsible or held accountable; there is no visible warning to others to be productive or this will happen to you; and the existence of safety nets promotes risky enterprises or sloth.

Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want. From an ethical stand point, you may not act against the rights of others. One may live, be free, own property, and pursue happiness without infringing on the rights of others to do the same. However, the immorality of infringing on the rights of others does not prevent people from doing so. Therefore there is the implied right to defend your rights, by force if necessary.

The consequence of immoral exercises of freedom is retaliation. Or to put it more bluntly, if you fuck with people expect them to fuck with you. In a civilized society, we might call upon the police to protect our rights against those who choose to abuse their freedom and to restore order. And if a government abuses the rights of people, then expect the people to retaliate against the government as is their right.

When the consequences are removed then freedom must be checked by other means. Should people be saved from their mistakes by government charity or laws that prevent people from defending their rights, then more laws must be passed and more government agents hired to enforce those laws. Then over time people loose their freedom to the government.

These are the political principles held by the Romantics. For the purpose of preserving liberty one cannot call themselves a Romantic and simultaneously subscribe to a political ideology that restricts individual liberty in favour of a strong centralised authoritarian government.

The members of this camp were once called Whigs, and later Liberals, and they opposed any power that violated the natural rights of the individual. Unfortunately things became more complicated over time.

Remember that freedom is linked to action and the power to act, utilizing time and energy, results in production. Therefore people choose to sell their freedom for a specific period or purpose. The worker chooses to sell his freedom to his employer in exchange for a wage. Even from a non-economic stand-point, when we commit to a relationship we are in essence trading our freedom for love and companionship. This is not a bad thing. Freedom exists to be traded.

Now suppose jobs are scarce and the only available employer does not pay well and does not care for his workers. We might argue that the worker has no choice and is therefore exploited. However, the worker did choose the sell his freedom to the employer even if it was his only choice. Even though he cannot afford to leave the employ, he is still free to leave. He is in essence trapped, but still he is no slave.

And yet many Romantics during the Nineteenth Century looked upon the many working under these circumstances and sought to bring them freedom. On the one hand there was the authoritarian government and on the other the authoritarian businessmen. The apparent solutions were Socialism, Communism, Fascism or Progressivism to either take control of the means of production or regulate business, and initiate government institutions to provide welfare to empower people to rise above.

As this ideology gained potency the anti-authoritarian position of the Whigs/Liberals was displaced. It even became renamed in America to "Classic Liberalism" to distinguish it from the modern Progressive/Socialist Liberalism that dominated the Twentieth Century.

It is said that Socialism works in theory but not practice. From the view of the primacy of natural rights, it does not even work in theory. The redistribution of wealth for any allegedly moral purpose involves the government theft of property. Remember property is the result of production; production is the result of time, energy, and skill; and this is the result of the will to act according to chosen values, which is the essence of freedom. The transfer of wealth is the transfer of power, thus lessening the power of one group to act in order to empower another group. Therefore none of these economic systems can promote freedom because they are structured to destroy freedom.

So what then is the politics of the modern Romantic? I once read that Goths are apolitical. They just want to be left alone. This is true. However, the desire to be left alone is in itself a political belief. It is a belief in freedom, and freedom must be constantly fought for.

Today when we look at the political landscape we see two prevailing forces and both are pro a strong central government with a centrally planned economy. The last remnants of the small government and pro-freedom position are the modern libertarians.

Over the past two centuries key Romantics have been associated with a variety of political causes, from pro-government, to anti-business, to anti-government. Some even called themselves Socialists. The modern left embraces the artists and intellectuals and lays claim to the mantle of the Romantics and even goes so far as to lure the developing young Romantics into their camp. I know I was.

Today, given the course of Twentieth Century history and philosophical scrutiny, we know that the only political orientation for the Romantic philosophy is one that promotes freedom and natural rights as paramount. At present the only voice for this Classical Liberal tradition are the libertarians. Yes, there are pros and cons in the libertarian movement and within the world's Libertarian parties, but it is the only bus moving in the direction that we want to go.