“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”, is how Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) one of the most influential Western philosophers expressed wonder and awe.
Kant points to the starry night, which can and should dwarf our sense of self-importance.
The human moral sense, particularly those who gravitate towards liberal theories, may be vulnerable to moral illusions.
Rather than philosophers who enjoy shaking people out of naïve beliefs that are bound to have implications on human predicaments, to assess the build of two-sided conflicts, politicians employ moral equivalence as a tool of perception, applying illusions against the five senses.
Although obscured in normal conversation, there’s a more than subtle difference between “liberty” and “freedom.”
Freedom is about the restrictions people or a person places onto another. Whereas Liberty is a matter of constraining the mechanisms of government. These concepts are so closely related that they’re often confused. The mechanisms of government constraining the American people can break; with “the many” American’s detecting false illusions.
For us Americans, our founding fathers and our framers were greatly concerned with Liberty, which meant placing restrictions on the types of laws made. Still, they were not sufficiently worried about freedom.
How do I know this? By noticing there were not enough consistent farmers willing to abolish slavery; allowing the practice to persist.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution did a great deal to ensure Liberty, insofar as the government was restricted from restricting the rights and privileges of citizens.
But from a citizen to a non-citizen, there were incredible abuses—and this abuse remains today.
I think the problem of our time is that freedom and liberty run in direct conflict. The means employed to end slavery—that is, expand freedom—required that many of the constraints placed on government be either loosened or broken altogether.
As a member of “the many” I’m constantly reminded that “the many” might be considered unfit to have charge of his own political community and should -at most- be trusted with a partial role of governing.
Honestly, I’d be okay with that this scenario if the “better-elected officials” were being checked by “the many.”
See, I’m not blinded or limited to seeing the fight to rights as being the same as the fights to benefits. And I haven’t been under shortsighted sense while witnessing personal and individual rights issues become political issues to then see judges rule on the benefits; not “rights” of others.
Pushing aside personal theories and intellects, my spirit finds it difficult to break away from the perspective that all people are equal, that all people hold natural rights, and that each man is bound to be governed by self-consent.