[UPDATE TO THIS COMMENT: fixed!! Thanks for the help!]

Hi everyone.

I need some help. When I look at this entry on the main page it looks fine, but when I look at the archived version here:

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000167.html

I get all kinds of weird characters. Do others see this as well? And does anyone know what to do about it?

BW

Good to have you back.

Fortunately, we have some data on how "freedom" works v "justice". Count me in on the side of freedom, thanks. Seems to better align with human nature. I'll take Silicon Valley over the Gulag any day.

It's due to the character encoding. The post uses characters that are UTF-8, but the archive page is set to iso-8859-1 (if you view the page source, it's one of the first tags at the beginning of the page). I don't know what software your site uses, there may be settings in your admin area where you can adjust it, or you may need to edit your templates.

Well said

Thanks again for a great write up! Like the first person here commented, I think I lean towards freedom over justice; I would rather endure some injustice than have some of my liberties taken away.

On a side note, I'm looking forward with great anticipation to when you broach the topic of global warming!

Thanks, ecurbh.

I think I got it. You are the best!

Traction Control agrees. Thank you, Bill!

I think you are starting with incorrect conceptual definitions that are putting two very compatible ideas in conflict.

There is a vast difference between liberty and license. Liberty is the freedom to act up to the point where you are infringing the liberty of another. License is being able to do whatever you damn well please.

Likewise, justice does not mean everything for everyone must be equal. Justice means the outcome is equal to the action. If you are smarter and work harder than the guy next to you, justice would be that you reap a greater reward. If you violate the rights of another, justice demands that the punishment fits the crime.

I would argue that you cannot have liberty without justice, and that you cannot have justice without liberty.

Freedom is not license.
Justice is not equality.

I certainly prefer freedom to that kind of justice. It's interesting that in common usage, justice has come to mean equality of outcome instead of opportunity. I think it's a sign of how much the concept has been co-opted by people pushing egalitarianism.

Roll back to a more, well, traditional, idea of justice and I think a lot of the conflict goes away. Justice in this sense is a necessary tool to protect freedom.

As far a people advocating egalitarianism out of self-interest: spot-freaking-on.

Just a moment to register some doubts about Stephen Macklin's post. I'm working on a Ph.D in political philosophy, and while Bill hasn't quite expressed it in technical vocabulary, he's hit the nail on the head. There is a tension in liberal theory (read liberal as political freedom, not politically left, cf. Mill) between liberty and impartiality (what a lot of contemporary liberals think justice amounts to). Too much liberty naturally creates a very unequal society as naturally unequal individuals sort themselves out by their native talents, but enforced impartiality constrains individual liberties by leveling the playing field in particular ways (it doesn't have to be all economic, cf. Bill of Rights). I think one of the greatest differences between the contemporary political left and right is where they think the balance point is.

I don't see a need to choose between justice or freedom. The choice to be made is between living alone on your own island and enjoying complete freedom or living in a society where justice is the tool of society used to define the limits of ones freedom with in the society.

In general the rule of justice states that your freedom to swing your fist in the air ends where my nose begins.

Since basically no man is an island I'd argue , if anything, justice supersedes freedom.

I usually agree with you, but I don't agree with you here. And the reason I disagree is that I believe your definition of justice is incorrect.

Justice is, roughly, the recognition that each individual has a specific identity and must be treated for that identity - that you need to assess the virtues and vices he has shown in word and action, and treat him accordingly.

Redistribution is not Justice. It is its exact opposite. By no concievalbe standard of justice can one be punished - have ones property taken - for just for having made it, earned it. This is not justice, it is its exact opposite.

"perfect justice: no difference in income"

Hold on there.. There's nothing at all unjust about differences in income, unless someone's making their money by fraud or theft.

-jcr

I understand what you say Ben, but I think Stephen Macklin is exactly right. In Bill's original post he mis-identifies the concepts of freedom and justice by equating freedom with absolute license and justice with egalitarianism. Perhaps that's how contemporary political philosophy defines these concepts, but in the standard usage it isn't.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/29/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

"Most calls for “more justice” or “more freedom” are really just the cries of people who want to adjust the mixture one way or another, and if you turn a cold eye upon them you will discover that nine times out of ten they do so only because it is in their self interest to do so."-Bill

In an attempt to fill in the remaining Tenth, I submit that Justice or Justness denied will throw off any hope of ever having a True scale in which to even begin with.

We must identify and make right that which has imbittered our bellies.

Very nice post.

So, in the question of altruism, is it altruistic to let a student struggle a bit rather than spoon-feed the solution in order to help them better seat the knowledge? Or is it selfishness that you had to struggle so they should, too?

And the bigger question...

And are you fooling yourself that you are altruistic? And how would you tell if you were? Would you be willing to submit to a test?

Clearly you (this is the generic "you", no one in particular) feel that there is a difference between acting altruisticly and acting selfishly. How would you feel if, in order to test whether you really are altruistic, periodically you had, say, to flip a coin and just give away the store (i.e., a portion of your hard-earned effort) rather than require whatever you think of as a quid pro quo for that portion. What would the crux of the test be? It'd be how you feel, deep down, about the coin coming up tails and you giving it away.

Does it grate that you even have to try such a test? Well, for some of us it does, because it uses up resources that we might otherwise apply, in what we think of as, to better effect. Hence, in committing to such a test, know we may deliberate cause a bit of waste to test whether we are as altruistic as we think.

Now, on to my first thought when reading the piece. And I see that others have weighed in on this in several ways. Just my opinion, but...

Justice isn't equal outcomes. Justice is present in slackers getting slack results -- a la The Little Red Hen.

Justice is present in equal starts. And because people don't all start the game (of Life) together, verifying equal starts across time and place can be difficult.

On the other hand, the natural (and occasional) human desire for everyone to be happy, universal happiness, is a noble thought. And equal happiness implies equal outcomes because happiness is outcome-based.

(Oops. There's a thought in here that I've lost somewhere. I'll have to continue when I track it down. Sorry for leaving a cliff-hanger -- or maybe just as well that I've ended the inchoate ramblings.)

A world of perfect freedom would be a world without purchase, where the distinction between being totally bound and totally free would be meaningless. The fact that you can walk from point X to point Y is partly a result of constraints like gravity and friction... creating control surfaces. Absent any constraints there are no control surfaces, so you'd just drift, flailing helplessly in random brownian motion.

Mr. Macklin, Mr. qwer, Mr. Loss, et al, are technically correct (or, more precisely, have used for their analyses more historically accepted and precise definitions of "freedom" and "justice" than Bill did . . . HOWEVER, (i) consider the concept that Bill knew full well he was taking a little "poetic license" in his definitions, and was using this to illustrate what is a VERY REAL tension in our current society - and applying the names that the respective PROPONENTS of the two "opposing" forces apply to themselves - and cut him some slack, and (ii) Bill has, REGARDLESS of linguistics, identified a very real tension which seems to be inherent in humanity. As far back as history provides us any records, there has been a tension between human impulses to control others (whether it be equality of outcomes, or sheer, unadulterated love of power), and a human desire for maximum PERSONAL freedom (or license, if you prefer). The impulses exist; the tension is obvious.

Another way I like to parse it out internally is that wonderful Clinton quote, that to me TYPIFIES modern "liberalism" - "Well, we could give you a tax cut, but you might not spend it the right way." And there it is, folks. Ole Billy Zipperpants (and his harridan spouse, the Hildebeest) want to control you, because THEY'RE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU ARE that they need to make sure you do what is "right" in THEIR view. At the other end of the spectrum, the TRUE "libertarian," or even anarchist, crazies want a society in which there is NO imposed authority - and that is clearly not possible (unless you LIKE the idea of living in a TRUE "urban jungle" - the thought of which puts me in mind of my favorite line from "Braveheart" (slightly modified): "God says he thinks I can take care of myself, but you're all pretty much fucked.")

Liberty is wonderful, as is justice. If DEFINED PROPERLY, the conflicts are minimized, but certainly not eliminated. But I think, as Bill posited it, the conflict is between conflicting human tendencies to authoritarianism and libertinism.

qwer,

Want to quibble with you a little bit - justice is NOT "equal starts" - Bill Gates' kids are NOT getting an "equal start" to my kids, but there is no "injustice" there (at least as far as I'm concerned). "Equal starts" REQUIRES (at least after the first generation, if not sooner), some sort of forced equality of outcomes from the PRIOR generation.

Justice is equality of opportunity for all similarly situated, and elimination (to the extent possible) of structural or societal barriers to achievement (such as REAL racism - Jim Crow laws, "separate but equal," females as "property" of their family or husband, etc.)

And I am NOT an altruist, and I agree with Heinlein's comment that, if you are dealing with someone who PURPORTS to be a true altruist, you are either dealing with an insane person, or KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR WALLET. Give me a good, self-interested, RATIONAL person, any time. "Altruists" scare the bejesus out of me. Hillary and John Edwards are out there CLAIMING to be altruists. Anyone here believe either of them???????? Anyone here think either of their (very similar) "altruistic" visions for our country would produce anything but disaster??????

F*** altruists, and the unicorns they ride in on.

Hello Mr. Whittle,

first of all, i am deeply impressed by your writings and their explanation of the American way of life. They showed me why it works and why it works well. Your essays cover a lot of thoughts that i didn't find anywhere else.

Well, until now that is ;)

With "FREEDOM versus JUSTICE" you walk a Path that has been walked before. I think Stephen Macklins comment is right, when he says, that the concepts have to be more precise. The words "liberty" and "freedom" have a lot of different meanings which increases the confusion a lot and have often been misused for political reasons. There are two authors, which i can highly recommend in that matter: F.A.v.Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. They may be known as economists, but what they write goes way beyond economics. They explain exactly why capitalism works and why communism doesn't, and how liberty, justice, the market and the state influence each other.

When it comes to balance between freedom and justice, i think you are entirely right, when you say, the right way is somewhere in the middle, but i don't think it is a compromise between the two. As Stephen Macklins alread wrote, "Liberty is the freedom to act up to the point where you are infringing the liberty of another", which is a sentence defining an exact point between freedom and justice. In practice it may be hard to find that exact point, but in theory it is well defined.

Well, i definitely think your thoughts in your essay go in the right direction and i would like to recommend two really good shortcuts: "Human action" by Ludwig von Mises and "The road to serfdom" by F.A.v.Hayek.

A word of caution. These books are not easy readings and lead straight to libertarianism ;)

I have some interesting links too:

http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
(a perfect introduction to these ideas)

http://blog.mises.org/

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal" F.a.Hayek

"If one objects to the use of coercion in order to bring about a more even or more just distribution, this does not mean that one does not regard these as desirable. But if we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion" F.a.Hayek

Greetings from Munich, Germany
Kaneda

Remember "Harrison Bergeron"? There's your endpoint of "equality" (or as some people seem to say, "social justice").

Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Mr. Whittle.

--AG

Flagwaver, Hillary and Edwards aren't altruists. Altruism isn't giving someone else's wealth to those you consider less fortunate, it's giving your own wealth to the less fortunate. That's interpreting the term "wealth" broadly to mean anything you have that can be of benefit to others, including knowledge, moral example, etc. as well as economically valuable goods and services. But it has to be your own wealth for it to be altruism.

My first reaction was remarkably similar to some others ... "where on earth did you get that definition of justice ... or freedom " ... and then, reading through the comments, I gained the realization that Bill weasn't out of step ... I was.
While I may not look at freedom or justice in those "eyes" ... it seems quite obvious that a great mant people do ... especially those who "work" for the government.

As usual, Bill, VERY thought-provoking. Would, only, that you actually had some workable solutions so we could keep them from turning this (25 years late) into the world of 1984!

This whole thing is just ate-up.

Freedom does not automatically engender callousness(‘Just because you can, you will.’), any more than Justice demands equality of result.
(by the way – ‘perfect justice’ would not mean that every crime is avenged, but rather that crimes are only perpetrated against bad people, by bad people, against whom crimes are later perpetrated)

And neither one can be institutionalized (read; ‘forced’) – they come from agreement between people; try to institutionalize both or either, and what you end up with is neither - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is fine, as long as it’s your choice to conduct yourself that way – it becomes a problem when you try to institutionalize it.

And ‘perfect’ altruism would require that a person knows that he will see absolutely no benefit from his actions - ever. Since you can degree-of-separation that idea out of the realm of possibility, the only way to achieve ‘perfect altruism’ would be to have an atheist sacrifice his own life, in a way that he knows would never be discovered, in an attempt to save the world in which he has essentially no hope of success.

Anything else is just degrees of ROI, and Character is how much attention you choose to give to that ratio ‘going in’.

Societal tensions are caused between people who cannot force themselves to release their own aggrandizing self-images and just understand that.

- MuscleDaddy

Both freedom and justice depends on definitions. Currently "justice" is defined as: whatever "I" want. So "social justice" means take from someone to give to someone else. Most people don't follow up on the ramifications of that definition, ie, everyone winds up with less. Which is "just"....everyone is equally poor...except the annointed doing the redistributing. Excellent post, Sir

Again, these are issues that have been around for a long time in the philosophical tradition, and J.S. Mill grappled with some of them. There was also an intense debate relatively recently between Amartya Sen (the "paradox of liberalism), John Gray, et al vs. the Virginia Public Choicers (like Jim Buchanan) that involved the definition of freedom/liberty and "meddling preferences." The upshot of that debate was that Buchanan suggested abandoning the issue of liberty and freedom, and rested his case on sovereignty (meaning the right to pull up stakes and move elsewhere).

Freedom/liberty are problematic for a number of reasons, although it makes sense to attempt to optimize freedom and responsibility as tradeoffs (another definition of sovereignty, btw).

Personally, I think Buchanan got it right, and Sen and Gray wrong. It IS an issue of sovereignty. Always has been. Always will be.

Slight correction. Buchanan didn't suggest "abandoning liberty and freedom." That would be crazy. Rather, he suggested that the only way to sensibly think about freedom and liberty was by thinking about issues involving state and individual sovereignty. That sidesteps a number of vexing problems imposed by notions of freedom, not least of which is the "degrees of freedom" issue I related above. (Too much freedom leads to impotence.)

Sovereignty involves not merely freedom, but also self-control, etc.. Couching things in terms of freedom vs justice is, therefore, misleading.

Hope I haven't screwed this up too badly. Folks should pay more attention to Buchanan.

Toria, perhaps you would care to elaborate on Bill's logic, or his (to you) lack thereof?

And for those of you who think Bill is messing up his terms, I blame Dougman.

All negitives flow through me, without sticking...like cling-ons stick sometimes after ..oh , never mind.

Economic justice is an oxymoron. Capitalist economies create winners and losers. The problem with capitalism is that it can stratify a society between the super-rich and everyone else. The best answer to date, though by no means perfect, is to adopt a system of progressive taxation. Make more pay more (as a percentage). But money is liquid and tends to flow around barriers like progressive taxation (or campaign contributions). Something like a 10% flat tax might mitigate the distortions caused by government interference in free markets, but it lacks "fairness". The poor pay the same as the rich. But then, when you consider that America's poor are more likely to suffer from obesity than hunger, the facts seem to indicate it's time to move the goalpost.

Capitalism is inherently "unfair". Collectivism is fairness that reduces everyone to a miserable mean. Given that capitalism for all its abuses tends to raise all boats, and collectivism tends to sink entire armadas, I vote for the imperfect former.

What is "justice"? I've read Plato's Republic three times and I still don't know. Which I guess is the point, because Plato didn't know either. I can only defer to America's founding fathers and opt for equal protection under the law (even if the rich can afford better lawyers).

But here's the really cool undeniable proof: Capitalism combined with maximum freedom (not license) has produced modernity. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways: painless surgery, intercontinental travel, refridgeration, electricity, clean water and sewage, a longer life span, time for leisure, instantaneous communication, central heating, grocery stores, human rights, the United Nations . . . umm, scratch the last one, but you get the idea.

The current conundrum in my mind runs as follows: How does humanity manage itself into a global civilizaiton without reverting to tyranny?

Oh Sh_t!
Dougman, you let the Klingons follow you?
You were supposed to ditch them.
Warp 8 to TCL. I've got your back.
-D4

"A state with the power to enforce equality and bring total justice is a state that needs to be powerful enough to constrain a great deal of freedom."

There seems to be an assumption here that "equality" (of outcome? of opportunity?) is somehow required for a nation or a society to have justice.

Justice, however, is upheld by the twin pillars of Reward and Punishment, according to The Glory of God (1853-1892), Who made Justice the central theme of His dispensation, and the Oneness of Mankind the pivotal point around which all other laws and principles revolve.

If we are educated to the spiritual nature of humans (the words we use to think; the words we say to ourselves; the words/concepts we use to guide our individual and collective actions: SPIRIT, human spirit) then we can see that unity is NOT equivalent to uniformity. Harmony of outcomes is NOT predicated on equality of input, either in quality or quantity.

A nation which bases its ideals and its practices on Justice and Courtesy is a nation which safeguards the masses from the few actual and potential, would-be, aggressors, thugs and usurpers.

Such a nation does not need onerous laws or 'religious police' because the people are practicing courteous restraint, with Justice set ever before themselves.

But that's just the way today's Baha'is live their faith.

"How does humanity manage itself into a global civilizaiton without reverting to tyranny?"

Love one another?

That shouldn't be too hard for a world with so many Religions, would it?
Oh, no...Religion has been around forever and a ef'n day but people still don't get it.

I Gno!

FEAR... Yeah, That's it!
Fear and ((Trembling))!

D4
I Wish, wish, wish I could get there now, but for this damned stick up my ass while I'm at work.
"Social Networking and Personal Websites filtered". As well as a long list of other denials...

My Right to Assembly is being infringed upon I tell ya!
But I do acknowledge that had my employer not givin me access to the Net in the first place, I wouldn't be here in the Last place.
Tension! Ain't it grand!

Well, one of the reasons I consider this a fragment rather than an essay is because I obviously failed to be clear on one key issue.

These are not my definitions of freedom, or especially of "justice." Referring to the latter, it is the definition of "justice" put forward by the left: 'economic justice' means to them that there is no major disparity of income.

I would have hoped from the example of the sales tax that I gave that I do not consider forced eqalitarianism to be the same as "justice" -- merely that others were calling it thus.

And as for Toria, I can only assume he or she is from the left, because, as usual, they proceed to call something hogwash without providing the slightest reason why they do so. That's good work if you can get it. Unfortunately, it also makes it painfully, transparently clear that logic has nothing to do with it. If the post was as completely illogial as he or she claims, then dismantling it would be an easy matter. To fail to do so is to admit defeat on the face of it: to telegraph your own failure.

Thanks for stopping by! You illuminate my point better than the entry did.

Hello Mr. Whittle,

first of all, i am deeply impressed by your writings and their explanation of the American way of life. They showed me why it works and why it works well. Your essays cover a lot of thoughts that i didn't find anywhere else.

Well, until now that is

With "FREEDOM versus JUSTICE" you walk a Path that has been walked before. I think Stephen Macklins comment is right, when he says, that the concepts have to be more precise. The words "liberty" and "freedom" have a lot of different meanings which increases the confusion a lot and have often been misused for political reasons. There are two authors, which i can highly recommend in that matter: F.A.v.Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. They may be known as economists, but what they write goes way beyond economics. They explain exactly why capitalism works and why communism doesn't, and how liberty, justice, the market and the state influence each other.

When it comes to balance between freedom and justice, i think you are entirely right, when you say, the right way is somewhere in the middle, but i don't think it is a compromise between the two. As Stephen Macklins alread wrote, "Liberty is the freedom to act up to the point where you are infringing the liberty of another", which is a sentence defining an exact point between freedom and justice. In practice it may be hard to find that exact point, but in theory it is well defined.

Well, i definitely think your thoughts in your essay go in the right direction and i would like to recommend two really good shortcuts: "Human action" by Ludwig von Mises and "The road to serfdom" by F.A.v.Hayek.

A word of caution. These books are not easy readings and lead straight to libertarianism

I have some interesting links too:

http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
(a perfect introduction to these ideas)

http://blog.mises.org/

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal" F.a.Hayek

"If one objects to the use of coercion in order to bring about a more even or more just distribution, this does not mean that one does not regard these as desirable. But if we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion" F.a.Hayek

Greetings from Munich, Germany
Bruno

That you for that bit of academic blasphemy. One of the points I've made in similar arguments is that the left tries to frame the (Heath care, taxation, etc.) argument as the working class versus the ultra-rich, and like a commenter above mentioned, that's not how it works. The top 5% will go out of country for their medical care, hire lawyers to get around the taxes, relocate to a tax-haven, or otherwise dodge the bullet.
Really, this issue pits the professional middle-class and skilled workers, who get benefits from their jobs and make enough to be actually hurt by taxation, against the unskilled working class and welfare class. Since the welfare class doesn't pay taxes anyway, they have the most to gain of anyone.

Wow, this is the first post I've ever read where I learn more from the comments than the entry.
No wonder Bill thought Ejectia would be a great idea.

Flagwaver -- your analysis looks good to me, and it's always nice to see Heinlein quoted.

As for your point on "equal starts", the family setting and income is one of the things I had intended to factor in that changes from one time and place to another. (Clearly I need to write more clearly. :) Your point is well-taken.

As for your opinion of altruists, I would have to agree in part. (And worse, I have to agree with Heinlein only in part as well.) I certainly wasn't that clear in what I wrote. Some people believe that when one helps one's neighbor it is only for enlightened self-interest -- as in the building up of credit, a loan so-to-speak to be called in when the situation is reversed. Others point to the Golden Rule as to why one helps. But should we call the Golden Rule altruism, or should we call it a facade for enlightened self-interest? I prefer to call it the former. As to the part where I agree with you (and Heinlein -- you're in very good company there), is when some self-proclaimed Altruist wants to help their neighbors with the fruits of my own efforts; and without a bye-your-leave. I believe that these Redistributionists have given, and are still giving, Altruism a bad name.

Toria wrote:
Your thinking is so illogical it pains me.

Sorry it hurts. Please take an Advil for the pain; and illuminate the logical issues so that I understand which areas are problematical. TIA

Whatever else happens, don't let this discourage you from posting before too much refinement in the future- feedback refines ideas much faster and more efficiently than individual reflection.

Just about every good idea I've ever had wasn't any good until it'd been subjected to a hell of a lot of "you are wrong because".

Because, yeah... what LabRat said. I think the discussion in the comments might be more enlightening than 400 repetitions, of "Bill, you are SO right!"

Well, for everyone but Bill, of course... I imagne that doesn't get old... =D

Put one single person on an island and you have both perfect freedom and justice. Put two on that island and look out!

Thank you once again, Bill, for the fortifying dose of mental vitamins! Nutritious and highly relevant food for thought, to be sure. A couple of recurring thoughts that your post very adeptly brought again to mind for me:

The gradual twisting of the term “justice” in recent times has got to be a major linguistic coup for the left, on par with the coinage of “progressive” (implying one who is in favor of progress, as any reasonable person would of course naturally be…). I mean, I think we may have seriously underestimated the importance and implications of this shift in casual usage.

Nowhere do our nation’s founding documents talk about “fairness”, but they sure do call out “justice”, and if folks on the left can get people to think “fairness” when they hear “justice”, it seems to me that they’re scored big time. Everything we were taught as children about our country being founded with strongly declared aspirations toward “justice” is instantly transformed — presto, change-o, 1984-o! — into a deeply institutionalized call for fairness. Imagine (as one has to now) a world where instead of demanding “social justice” people on the left called for “social fairness”. Isn’t it interesting how that simple change of wording immediately decreases the caliber of the ammo? Perhaps then we could all sit down and have a reasoned discussion of the matter. (Or not.)

Secondly: Your point about abstract, absolute freedom in the absence of governance being vulnerable to abuses brings to mind John Locke’s famously eloquent statement on the matter, which I have long treasured and I think hits the proverbial nail pretty squarely on its head:

The end of the law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law: and is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists. (For who could be free when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) But a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be the subject of the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.

Locke, I am told by a friend in academia, is often dismissed nowadays as being "elitist" or whatnot. Clearly there's an imperative that the purveyors of dangerous ideas such as the striving for individual liberty and personal responsibility be dismissed... *sigh*

Thanks to all present, too, for the top-notch comments! MWP’s short but sweet ode to Modernity above hits the essence of it exactly for me -- thank you for that! And in resonance with Pantera’s comment, I was just now sitting here appreciating what a rich, stimulating conversation about important founding American ideas I’m having the privilege of enjoying and participating in here, and chuckling at the unlikelihood that I’ve have ever been able to have such a discussion with a group like this in an expensive university setting (including at the school I attended). We truly have here, in the E!3 comment sections, the primordial essence of Ejectia, and boy is it precious.

Altruists and unicorns … Heh!

Bill, here's my take on the situation:

http://kendersmusings.blogspot.com/2007/08/open-letter-to-socialists.html

Bill,

You need not apologize for a fragment, though your addendum does clarify and refine the thesis. While your readers enjoy a finely tuned essay, there's nothing wrong with tossing out the occaisional bit of chum.

Economic justice is nothing more than code for income redistribution. There is nothing that will corrupt a body politic faster than a chance for one faction to vote itself a pay raise at the expense of another. Plato knew it. He warned explicitly that a democracy of the poor was to be avoided. Latin America is a perfect illustration: oligarchy, populism, dictatorship, and revolution follow one another in a predictable cyclic pattern. I hardly need to mention Venezuala as the current manifestation.

In the United States and Europe politicians on the Left get elected and maintain power with continual promises to take from Peter (producers, corporations, the "rich") and give to Paul his "fair" share. When a nation buys into this scam, it signals that the body politic has been corrupted. The message to citizens is that they have a "right" to consume more than they produce, guaranteed by government. It's bad economics and worse social policy.

Now, if you have a keen eye or have ever worked in government, you will understand the following. The primary purpose of government is to grow itself. The primary ambition of bureaucrats is to create a better position for themselves within the hierarchy. James Madison for all his wisdom missed something when he wrote Fed #10. What happens when government becomes the dominant faction within a nation-state? You get a super-state run from Brussels is what you get. Damn the voters, damn the process, and damn anyone who gets in the way.

This is not good news. But the Europeans apparently prefer to be coddled by a nanny-state even if it means national, cultural, and racial suicide. I think it was Toynbee (or maybe Gibbon), feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, who said that empires don't die from external threats, they die of suicide. It looks bleak.

Except for this "construct" called America. Race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, and language don't count for much (unless the Left gets its way). What do we do better than anyone else? We DO stuff. Like what? It doesn't matter; we DO what needs to be DONE. (That's pretty vague). Maybe, but if it needs DOING, we'll figure it out and devise a plan to DO it. (Americans are arrogant). I'm okay with that. I have a whole list of DO's on my fridge, so get the f*** out of my way asshat . . . socialist . . . bureaucrat . . . pond scum . . . progeny of a hamster and an elderberry tree . . . I got shit to DO.

Mark, you had me first despondent, then cheering with glee. Bravo, and Amen! :-)

"...progeny of a hamster and an elderberry tree..."
Ha!
I fart in your general direction!
I have a deep abiding faith in the general cussedness of the heartland, especially the south. It is no accident that the greater portion of our volunteer military comes from there.

Bill, I posted a message regarding plagiarism of one of your articles at the end of your "SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER ME" story. It should have been posted here so you would have a better chance to review it. Hope you check it out. It may be nothing, but wanted you to be aware.

KC

Sorry for the double post. I'm an old sheepdog, and my trigger finger still gets itchy once-in-awhile.

"social justice" of course is an idiocy. hayek coverd that well. and anybody who knows your writing at all understands that you know the distinction.

best wishes on the screenplay, bill. look forward to seeing it in action,

I've always taken issue with Lord Acton. Not everyone with true freedom of action would choose to act on their lowest, basest, most animal instincts. Freedom does not rob one of one's empathy, decency, and honor.

A free man can choose to restrain himself without being coerced into acting as a human, not as an animal.

I more than amply agree that there are many barely humanized individuals out there who cannot be trusted with power, but I am not one of them.

Humans need not be animals.

My best, warmest greetings to All!

I am back in the Hong Kong/China area, enjoying the fruits of Bill's labors, and those of the commentors, from afar once again. It is a glorious thing in which to partake! (Not so much China/Hong Kong, but instead the postings/commentary, just to be clear).

I must wholeheartedly agree with those who have said, (paraphrasing, of course), "Bill, please do NOT be concerned about posting what you might consider an unfinished, or unrefined, or incomplete entry here." As some have pointed out, that gives us in the "unrefined masses" category a chance to, (dare I say it?), contribute to the conversation and development of the logic. It may even encourage a bit of practice at that thing some call critical thinking if they so dare. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Toria does not so dare.

The absolutely, incredibly, fantastically, awe-inspiringly BEAUTIFUL thing about this E3! "community" is that said practice seems to occur, and be encouraged, and grows, without conscious effort... it almost "just happens." And I love it!

As for my own reaction to the post, Mr. Whittle, I tend to revert to the basics in many of my thoughts. That leads me to take to heart the principle underlying premise of the article, if I may be so bold, as being that "words mean things." In defining Freedom or Justice, or freedom or justice, as the case may be, the premise of the argument, whatever it is, becomes defined. The outer and inner bounds of the playing field, and many of the rules, relationships, and possible moves become enabled or constrained.

As a result, the first thing I try to do in applying thought to a matter is make sure I am clear on the "things" the key words in the argument's statement "mean." The effort spent in this activity by a thinker/analyst/commentor is almost never "wasted," IMnsHO.

In fact, once definitions have been agreed upon or settled, much of the remainder falls neatly into place. At least that has been a part of my own limited experience.

Good Day to ALL! And definitely looking forward to more! Sincere thanks, Mr. Whittle, for the thought provocation!

Bill,

Speaking from the "left" (actually I'd consider myself a moderate but will surly be branded as left here) let me offer a word of caution for your re-write. First most people like myself, most of the left , are not socialist or communist. Most don't believe that equality of outcome is a desired result. So be careul about the first strawman you are already set to put out there. It adds little to the debate of a very important issue. An issue so important we fought a revolution over it. In general we'd argue that shared prosperity is a wanted desire and that the huge income inequalities as we've seen grow ever since Reagan are not based on merit but in fact based on abuse of power and abuse of our democratic and political institutions.

Your rewrite, I'd suggest, should keep in mind he following quotes from past great leaders.

Dwight D Eisenhower

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Teddy Roosevelt

"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."

Teddy Roosevelt

"The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. _– Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, “The New Nationalism” (August 31, 1910)"

"The government is us; we are the government, you and I."
Theodore Roosevelt

"Great corporations exist only because they were created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions. "
– Theodore Roosevelt

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
--Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906

"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." — Mussolini

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
-FDR

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction...by consolidation of power first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary. The two other branches, the corrupting and corrupted its instruments."

Jefferson 1821

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

"Weather the people of the United States are to govern through the representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or weather the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgement and control of their decisions."

Andrew Jackson

" We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. But I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow. And the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country then ever before even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless"

Abraham Lincoln

I think this might actually be my first comment on your blog, sir.

I've come by about once a week to look for new material, and I am *so* glad you're back!
My entire family has missed you, and we really look forward to your next essay!

muirgeo
Greetings and well met. Thank you for the many quotations. They help to illustrate the boundaries of freedom in an organized state. The most common link among them is the issue of corruption. I am quite certain, from studying the historical record, that corruption did not originate with the practice of unfettered free-market capitalism. Rather, it has been endemic to every govorning system yet devised by mankind. The problem seems to be one of human frailty and not the product af any specific economic system. Free-market capitalism has proven to be the most efficient engine of production yet devised. Govornments on the other hand are usually inefficient and wasteful as far as production goes, but do very well in the consumption category. Therein lies the basic conundrum which leads to corruption. Any civic arrangement of any appreciable size will need funds to operate. These funds are usually generated by some form of taxation. It is this parasitic arrangement between the means of production and the regulation of a society that creates an environment conducive to corruption. The more the govornment tries to regulate business, the more business will try to influence govornment. It seems then that the best way to limit corruption is to reduce the size and scope of govornment. Attempting to limit "unfair money-getting" only results in an increased tendancy torwards corruption. I am a great fan of T.R. but much of his economic theory was unsound. I hope that I have not created any straw man fallacies here and look forward to any thoughts you might have on the subject.
Welcome to Ejectia!
Svin

svinrod,

Free markets are not perfect nor are governments. However, I do not see them as completely opposed. Markets rely on good government... they can not survive with out government. Likewise, IMO, I still believe government by the people is best. And we truly have lost that.

The biggest problem I see today is that the economy and people of money run the government. It should be the people running the government.

You stated, "The more the government tries to regulate business, the more business will try to influence govornment."

To further this conversation I would ask how indeed can business influence government?

It's a somewhat rhetorical question.... we all know the answers. But the answers shouldn't be and until we make these answers obsolete we will have corruption that undermines both the competitive nature of the markets as well as our democratic institutions.

I often here the claim that we need to reduce the size and scope of government to limit corruption. On some levels this may be true but if the government is US, We the People ...I'm not sure it needs to be "weakened".

My solutions;

Take the money out of politics. We have many good citizens who cold run the government honestly but money from lobbyist and business promotes the corrupt politicians over the honest ones.

Lobbying for hire should all but be illegal.

Bribes and conflicts of interest should be severely punished.

Elections should be publically funded. Or at least contenders should have the option to accept only public funding.

The election cycle should be shortened.

We should have instant run off voting to promote third parties.

Any public official who broke the public trust should be severely punished.

The government must be open at all levels. Every meeting between a public official should be open to the public with very few exceptions.

At the federal level the abuses of public confidentiality are stunning and need to be stopped.

IMO opinion a weakened government can not enforce the very laws that prevent corruption. The key is to diffuse power throughout the different branches and to have an active and participatory democracy where incumbents don't have such a great advantage and where people run the government not money.

muirgeo,

I try to be open-mined. In that vein, I'm willing to be educated by a display of data.

Most don't believe that equality of outcome is a desired result.

Unfortunately, the leadership of the Left acts this way, their words notwithstanding. In the decision between which to believe, I prefer to believe acts as they speak louder.But, I'm willing to be be convinced otherwise. A quick demonstration that the preponderance of their acts are not representative of this way is in order.

It adds little to the debate of a very important issue.

Actually, as the question of whether the Left leadership does or does not so believe is, for me at least, still open, I think it adds a great deal to the debate. I see no reason to close the debate on this issue prematurely. Perhaps you could supply your reasoning on this point?

and that the huge income inequalities as we've seen grow ever since Reagan are not based on merit but in fact based on abuse of power and abuse of our democratic and political institutions.and that the huge income inequalities as we've seen grow ever since Reagan are not based on merit but in fact based on abuse of power and abuse of our democratic and political institutions.

I don't have a hard opinion one way or the other. So, I'm willing to be educated. A quick demonstration that no "huge income inequalities" are based on merit will, I'm certain, convince me. (And, as you specifically called out Reagan, I'm sure you'll cover why the meritless inequalities began with him and were not present prior to him.)

Re your Eisenhower/T-Roosevelt quotes, it's good that you're concerned with undoing lobbying influence with Congress and the Administration. Perhaps you could illustrate your bone fides by commenting on the current Democrat-leadership effort to reduce transparency in government. I didn't like it when the GOP-leadership did it, but the current Dem leaders explicitly ran in the last election on increasing transparency and reducing corruption, not the other way around.

Re your Mussolini quote, I agree with it. To illustrate your bone fides in this matter, perhaps you could comment on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his nationalization of his major industries? By the way, the merger of State and corporate power in Mussolini's fascism was achieved by letting the unions run the corporations. It would be nice to hear from you about undo union power in key industries, say education for example.

Re your FDR quote, perhaps you don't realize that FDR has it exactly backwards. Fascism is the State controlling corporations, not the other way around. I'll give FDR the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't know this -- it was all new at the time. But you, certainly, should be aware of this. You are, aren't you?

Re your first Jefferson quote, it has been taken a bit out of context here. Here is a fuller context:

We may sometimes have mistaken our rights, or made an erroneous estimate of the actions of others, but no voluntary wrong can be imputed to us. In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

As you can see, he is specifically concerned with the "monied aristocracy" attempting to circumvent governmental laws, and also specifically concerned with a "profligate government", the latter being something which we have today.

Re your second Jefferson quote, it has been taken a bit out of context here. I'm not sure that you are advocating support of slavery. Jefferson was implicitly in his advocation against the federal government adjudicating the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Here is a fuller quote:

Our govmt is now taking so steady a course as to shew by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidn first, & then corruption, it’s necessary consequence. The engine of consolidn will be the Fedl judiciary, the two other branches the corrupted & corrupting instruments. I fear an explosion in our state legislature, I wish they may confine themselves to a strong but pacific temper. Protestn Virge is not at present in favr with her co-states. An opposn headed by her would determine all the anti-Missouri states to take the contrary side. She had better lie by therefore until the shoe shall pinch an Eastern state. Let the cry be first raised from that quarter & we may fall into it with effect. But I fear our Eastern associates wish for consolidn, in which they would be joined by the smaller states generally, but with a foot in the grave I have no right to meddle with these things.

Re your Jackson quote, it refers to Northeastern corporate influence on the National Bank. Jackson had been an opponent to the bank since its foundation, primarily on how it favored the northeast corporations rather than the South and West agricultural industries. Jackson succeeded in his desire to remove the Bank, but caused both heavy inflation and an economic panic as a result. Thus, I don't think it particularly apposite to your intent. In fact, it's better as a cautionary tale in meddling with government institutions.

Re the Lincoln quote, I agree with it.

And following this, it seems to me that the vast bulk of the so-called conservatives of this country who refused to vote in the last election did so in order to allow their own bums in Congress to be rousted out. Perhaps it doesn't seem that way to you. And it also seems to me that the principle moderate argument advanced by the Democrat leadership in the last election was to reduce corruption in government. Again, perhaps it doesn't seem that way to you.

In approaching a solution to the problem of corrupive private influence in government, I favor a quote by Justice Brandeis in regards to moneyed corporations, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" (Harper's Weekly, 1913, Other People's Money: What Publicity Can Do). Any further control by government of corporations leans too far toward fascism in my opinion. But then, I'm willing to listen.

Take the money out of politics.

A worthy ideal, but I believe that you will only take the honest law-abiding money out of politics. Rather than force the money into hidden byways, I would shine a light on it. Make it easy to use money in politics, and shine a strong light on it. Make it transparent. Otherwise, you punish the law-abiding small-time voters who will lose their influence. You don't want to ask government to control funding for government elections -- that seems a recipe for disaster.

Lobbying for hire should all but be illegal.

Another worthy ideal, but I believe that freedom of political speech is the one essential speech freedom, and throwing it out is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Bribes and conflicts of interest should be severely punished.

I agree. So, where are they not already severely punished?

Elections should be publically funded.

I agree completely. Let's repeal the current odious government funding of political elections.

The election cycle should be shortened.

For a moment there you had me fooled. Pass laws on how long candidates are allowed to run for office. Good joke, Soviet-style.

We should have instant run off voting to promote third parties.

Interesting idea. Perhaps you could more fully explain your idea here.

Any public official who broke the public trust should be severely punished.

I thought that was the way it is, now. Which laws do you think need strengthening?

The government must be open at all levels.

Are there public officials who aren't? Who are they? What did you have in mind?

Every meeting between a public official should be open to the public with very few exceptions.

What exceptions did you have in mind? I'd certainly like meetings between lobbyists and Congressional members to be transparent.

At the federal level the abuses of public confidentiality are stunning and need to be stopped.

I assume you'll want to replace the current crop of Democrat leadership so as to facilitate transparency in government? Or did you mean something else?

The key is to diffuse power throughout the different branches

I don't quite follow. Did you have an amendment or two in mind?

to have an active and participatory democracy where incumbents don't have such a great advantage

Tell that to California. They may need to hear it.

and where people run the government not money.

Transparency laws would be a great help, here. Again, how do you feel about the current Congressional leadership's reduction of transparency?

muirgeo and qwer,

An excellent series of comments here developing! I appreciate the substantive, meaty, thought-provoking quotes and discussion! From you both! I also appreciate the civility and respect shown thus far!

The "money in politics" issue is a thorny one, that often and easily turns emotional. My own opinion on this particular aspect of the discussion agrees with qwer, emphatically.

Exposing sources and amounts of all campaign funding, with verifiable audit trails especially for PACS and NGO's, will put information into the hands of the people who make up an informed electorate. Shining "the light of day" on the back room funding so influential in so many ways, (e.g., George Soros, et al), should result in a much better-informed electorate making "better" decisions. But there's the rub.

Perhaps, as a part of the discussion, we might address the question of expanding that portion of the electorate that is, and continuously seeks to be, "better informed," since that would seem to me to be a more critical factor than several that have been examined?

And, for clarification, I do not refer to a "better informed electorate" simply as being evident in a higher proportion that "agrees" with me, but rather as that portion of the electorate that actually applies some analytical reasoning to their opinions. That is, how do we "lead the horse to the water," and "make it drink?"

I eagerly await further illumination!

muirgeo
We can agree that the right to govern derives from the consent of the governed. That is a good thing.

I have not advocated for a weaker government as weakness in authority only tends to invite ridicule and contempt.

What I advocate for is a sharply reduced range of Federal programs, agencies, departments, subsides etc...

The primary duty of the Federal Government IMO is the defense of the realm. This duty would include management of the Armed Forces, conduct of diplomacy and the ability to secure territorial borders. It should also moderate disagreements between the states in terms of interstate commerce, but it has abused that function so thoroughly that I believe a new referendum on the scope of federalism is in order.

It should establish and maintain a national currency and and banking system.

There may be other limited functions that cannot be managed by the states such as counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering, but that is a contentious issue that I shall not raise here.

Apart from those listed above, the various states may be the best guardians of the liberty of their citizens.

I do not tend to parse things as closely as qwer is wont to do. If that makes me seem vague, I would be happy to answer any questions in further detail. I tend to rely on a core set of ideas, widely applicable, in evaluating any situation. The promulgation of new rules and regulations is rarely the best answer to perceived problems.

Col. Cooper expressed it best when he stated(and I am paraphrasing here);
"Whenever congress passes a new law, they should be horse-whipped. Whenever congress repeals an old law, there should be a national holiday with free beer for everyone."

My sentiments exactly.

Svin

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.

“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.

“Huh?” said George.

“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.

“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.

“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.

“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”

“Um,” said George.

“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. “If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday – just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”

“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.

“Well – maybe make ‘em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”

“Good as anybody else,” said George.

“Who knows better’n I do what normal is?” said Hazel.

“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.

“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”

It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.

“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck. “Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”

George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.

“You been so tired lately – kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”

“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”

“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean – you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just set around.”

“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”

“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.

“There you are,” said George. “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?”

If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.

“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.

“What would?” said George blankly.

“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?”

“Who knows?” said George.

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and gentlemen – ”

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me – ” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.

“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under–handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen – upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.

The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever worn heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H–G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.

Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.

And to offset his good looks, the H–G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle–tooth random.

“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”

There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.

Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.

George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. “My God –” said George, “that must be Harrison!”

The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.

When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.

Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.

“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

“Even as I stand here –” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”

Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.

Harrison’s scrap–iron handicaps crashed to the floor.

Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.

He flung away his rubber–ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.

“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”

A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.

Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all, he removed her mask.

She was blindingly beautiful.

“Now” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.

The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. “Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”

The music began. It was normal at first – cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.

The music began again and was much improved.

Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while – listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.

They shifted their weights to their toes.

Harrison placed his big hands on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.

And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.

They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.

They leaped like deer on the moon.

The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling.

They kissed it.

And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.

It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.

It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.

Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George.

But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel.

“Yup,” she said,

“What about?” he said.

“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”

“What was it?” he said.

“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.

“Forget sad things,” said George.

“I always do,” said Hazel.

“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.

“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.

“You can say that again,” said George.

“Gee –” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”