Ancient Liberty vs. Modern Liberty

[AmerikazMost]

I'm taking a Modern Political Thought class at college and one of the central themes of the course is the concepts of liberty between ancient peoples and modern peoples.

In the past, people viewed liberty as the ability to participate in government affairs. "No importance was given to individual independence, neither in relation to opinions, nor to labor, nor, above all, to religion." Basically men were expected to sacrifice his private life for the good of the community. Every individual action was under the scrutiny of the public. Slaves would do the labor, women would take care of the home, and the men would dedicate their lives to political affairs.

Today, people hold an entirely different view on what liberty means. To us, liberty means being individually free. We can say what we want, worship how we want, and work the job we choose. Rather than worry about the laws and the policies of the nation, we elect representatives to do it for us.

The argument against ancient liberty would be that each single person does not get the opportunity to live the life he may want for himself. The argument against individual liberty is that if we ignore our political responsibilities in favor of our own self-interest, we may lose our freedom all together.

Do you think the ancients were justified in their views? Do you think their concepts could be applied to today's world with vast nations, most of which do not institutionalize slavery? Do you think people all too often ignore their civic duties? Have we today found a nice balance of the two liberties or do we give our officials too much slack?

 

[Duke]

[2cents]

The problem with "ancient liberty" as you described it, with every man engaged in politics on more or less the same level is that it only works on smaller scales. You couldn't run today's democracies with millions of people like that. You need to resort to representatives on different levels to retain functionality. It's not a matter of choice rather than an evolution of government.

That said, today's individual liberty is still restricted on so many levels. If we take the US for example, there are so many things you're not allowed to do or say. Which also means that in today's democracies, some can still not live life the way he or she wants it. But yet i also feel that some of the restrictions placed upon individual liberty are inevitable for the functionality of society on the whole. The obvious question of course is, where is the limit? Where does the line between individual liberty and the welfare of the community needs to be drawn?

The argument against individual liberty is that if we ignore our political responsibilities in favor of our own self-interest, we may lose our freedom all together.

Well said. Although "losing our freedom alltogether" in current democracies is very hard, if not impossible, today's democratic governmental structures do require the individual civilian to give some things out of hands to representatives higher up in the political pecking order. Theoricatically, this is a bad thing for the individual, unless the representative thinks exactly the same as the individual. As there are many individuals per representative, this is not going to happen. Ever.

But the individual has the vote. Both a good and a bad thing. It means that the ultimate choice is still in hands of the public. Which is good. And democratic. It also means a vast mass of easily influenced people of all kinds make certain important decisions.

Do you think people all too often ignore their civic duties? Have we today found a nice balance of the two liberties or do we give our officials too much slack?

Ignore which civic duties? We don't have that many anymore, do we?

I don't think we've struck a nice balance so much as we've come along way and currently are in this system. Such things aren't decided, they happen. They evolve per country and on smaller levels. I don't think such a simple question is possible on this matter.

Personally, i can make a list of a hundred or even a thousand things that are "not right" in today's (democratic) governments. Solutions however, i have not. Maybe a few. I don't think anyone has all the answers and solutions. The issue is too complicated for that.


Random notes: The best government is a dictatorship with a know-it-all in charge. That however, is impossible. Also, this just came into my head, when in todays society an individual, or small group of individuals, needs to make an important choice. A jury for example. I think many individuals, because they barely hold any power overall, are too concerned with pressing their own personal stamp on an issue. And this, of course, doesn't limit itself to the common man. Politicans and "mighty" men are still prone to this.

[/2cents]

 

[Amara]

If ancient liberty is described as the ability to participate in government affairs, it reads to me like democracy. Although not without a measure of modernity as the ability to participate is not limited to resonably well off men. So what I understand is that the essence of ancient liberty as opposed to modern is the underlying sense of civic duty (severed from its form in practice..slavery etc). Therefore there is no reason why this could not be applied with success in the modern environment...after all, this is the kind of rhetoric we hear from places like Singapore everyday. That kind of approach or that sense of duty is very much lacking I think in most states.

I think there is much to be said for the excessiveness of individual liberty. At face value, it appears we are now having to rectify a lot of the problems of this individualism. So if it now appears individual liberty is being restricted, I think it a kind of backlash to the fact that it was overdeveloped at the expense of community values, which now need to 'reinvented' or 'reinforced' to overcome the errors in society created by exorbitant individual liberty. As for Duke's question, where do you draw the line between individual liberty and community welfare... comes back to Mill's harm principle, I suppose. Although that in itself probably isnt a definite answer. (I'm half asleep, that'll do).

 

[Rukas]

Ancient liberty in my opinion wasnt so much about participating in government (as we know it today) as it was in participating in community. Basically the community was the government, on that level one's liberty was to participate in what was going on around ones self.

To put a lighter spin on things, look at the Simpsons, every time there is a crisis or something to vote on they all go to town hall and discuss it, every single person in the town goes. That is liberty.

In modern times I dont think its that our perception or idea of liberty changed, I think it was taken from us. We cant go up to Bush and be involved with his political plans, we cant involve ourselves on a government scale because the government is no longer the community and really doesnt care about the community anymore, but rather about the grander scheme of the country, good or bad.

However that doesnt mean we cant express localized liberty anymore by simply involving ourselves in the community, local council, ect ect. Just because we dont have the liberty to effect government doesnt mean we cant make a community based change...

... Hmmm Im ranting. Sorry.

 

[Illuminattile]

I think this emphasis on the community was probably so strong in past times because it had to be. People had to work together for the good of the community, because if your neighbour didn't do his duty, that would have a direct and immediate effect on you and everyone else. Nowadays it's not so. We don't really live in communities any more. This message board is more of a community than the area I live in. As the world has continued to 'shrink', there's less emphasis on the group and more on the individual. People can afford to be more selfish, and it's only natural for people, given the opportunity, to put more emphasis on their own personal needs than the needs of others.

 

[Rukas]

As the world has continued to 'shrink', there's less emphasis on the group and more on the individual. People can afford to be more selfish,

Im not disagreeing with you because I think you're totally right.

But this principle makes me laugh. I mean you'd think if the world was shrinking and we're all getting closer there would be more emphasis on the group and people would be less selfish because more so then ever, the next persons selfishness in the long run DOES effect me.

 

[Duke]

eh, nm, i was confuzzled