Liberals act as if they have a monopoly on the concept of “Freedom.” For liberals, only they are the defenders of freedom, and anyone who is not liberal is an enemy of freedom.
For liberals, liberalism arises in modernity and more precisely at the beginning of the twentieth century, however, this would mean that until this extremely recent moment in the history of humanity, there were no defenders of freedom and no free men either. The absurdity inherent in this position escapes the tiny brains of the liberals.
The basis of the liberal error lies in its fundamentally anarchist and anti-social conception of liberty, according to which this concept would be linked to the absence of restrictions on individual action. In the absence of the individual, the foundation of freedom can not be individual action, nor can it reside specifically on the individual sphere.
In this sense, it remains to understand freedom in the two truly existing dimensions of the human existence: personal and communal. In this, the ancient Greeks are still exemplary and irrefutable teachers. According to liberals, the alcoholic is free if there are no impediments or external interference’s that prevent him from drinking according to his wishes. However it has been agreed amongst traditional people that the alcoholic is a slave. Freedom is self-government, not in the sense of isolation from external impediments, but in the sense of mastery of human desires and drives by the higher faculties of man.
Thus, contrary to the “liberal” understanding, freedom depends on self-imposing restrictions, impediments, and limitations.
And what about human community existence? By analogy, to the city or kingdom or nation, the logic is the same. Community freedom depends on everyone being organised and disciplined to carry out their duties, to work for security, order and general prosperity and to have their prerogatives and rights respected. And by analogy, the guarantee of community freedom has, as its instrument, coercion and education, directed by the part of the community designated to protect and coordinate the directions of the community.
What is the conclusion? The conclusion is that, not only do liberals not have a monopoly on the idea of freedom, but more than this, the conclusion is that liberals, as defenders of the idea of a “negative freedom”, as defenders of the idea that freedom is the absence of external impediments, are true apologists of slavery and of servitude. It is not contradictory, therefore, that the liberals, in the collective scope, defend all the measures and public policies that tend to subject nations and imprison populations. Everything is quite consonant with the very essence of his philosophy.
There is no freedom unrelated to virtue and discipline.
Based on an article from “Nova Resistencia”.