The birth of liberty

[SigniferOne]

I was recently browsing through an archive of ancient English books, and came upon this one (of which here is the title page).

It would be truly strange for anyone to say that the West has not held a moral advantage over the rest of the world, in the intellectual grasp of the nature of government, in the recognition of its own rights, and in the accurate and moral delineation of the process through which people delegate their in-born rights, and only thereby governments acquire legitimacy. This book comes FROM THE 1600s.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Ever heard of the Divine Mandate in China where it says that if the ruler behaves poorly to the people and cannot keep their authority the people have the right to rise up and appoint their own ruler. Examples being the Han and Ming dynasties and various other rebelions due to poor behaviour.

[SigniferOne]

Ever heard of the Divine Mandate in China where it says that if the ruler behaves poorly to the people and cannot keep their authority the people have the right to rise up and appoint their own ruler.

No, I do not see any evidence that "the people have the right to rise up and appoint their own ruler". That's not how the concept works at all. The concept works by the succeeding dynasty overthrowing the previous one, and explaining that the only way Heaven would allow this would be because the previous one ruled unjustly, and the new ruler was "better". It's just a power ploy between different rulers, the people play no role in it, and there's certainly no understanding of the nature of government or room for anything other than absolute monarchy. I mean even other non-European nations were more advanced about representation than China; it should be the last country for an example of political liberty.

[G-Megas-Doux]

No, I do not see any evidence that "the people have the right to rise up and appoint their own ruler". That's not how the concept works at all. The concept works by the succeeding dynasty overthrowing the previous one, and explaining that the only way Heaven would allow this would be because the previous one ruled unjustly, and the new ruler was "better". It's just a power ploy between different rulers, the people play no role in it, and there's certainly no understanding of the nature of government or room for anything other than absolute monarchy. I mean even other non-European nations were more advanced about representation than China; it should be the last country for an example of political liberty.

Lui Bai was a peasant so was the founder of the Ming dynasty. Also your explaination does not presume that people who serve in the higher levels of any government would all serve because they feel that it does not benefit them but because they must have no right to do so. People only follow if they get what they want and that it lowers risks. But everyone who feels they are hard done by will always feel that they have the authority to do what they like whether it is expressed in a litery or educational fashion.

People do what they want when they have to or feel that they have to.

[SigniferOne]

Lui Bai was a peasant so was the founder of the Ming dynasty.

I'm not sure what your point is. The Chinese absolute rulers didn't always have to be of royal blood, so what?

If a peasant can too become an absolute tyrant, this for you is an example of liberty and advanced insight into the morality of government?

Also your explaination does not presume that people who serve in the higher levels of any government would all serve because they feel that it does not benefit them but because they must have no right to do so.

I didn't 'not presume' that at all. People can serve to a monarch by choice, so?

[G-Megas-Doux]

I'm not sure what your point is. The Chinese absolute rulers didn't always have to be of royal blood, so what?

If a peasant can too become an absolute tyrant, this for you is an example of liberty and advanced insight into the morality of government?

I didn't 'not presume' that at all. People can serve to a monarch by choice, so?

In china Divine mandate was a a religious stance and explaination for historical changes in the rule and that it was moraly right.

How is that any less then European divine right of Kings and constant wants of people to have representation and fight for it. There have been many uprisings in China over the centuries demanding the oportunity of liberty. What you have printed is just a pamphlet trying to justify a particular opinion at the time in England.

Just one of those things that has survived. Europe does not have the manopoly of liberty and it is just a mask. Everyone who needs a following always says that they represent the people and that the people have the right to raise grievances. Accusing any government of lack of representation or petition is standard for attempted destabalisation.

Not quite phrasing the way I want but I have the flue at the moment.

[Mr. Scott]

Ever heard of the Divine Mandate in China where it says that if the ruler behaves poorly to the people and cannot keep their authority the people have the right to rise up and appoint their own ruler. Examples being the Han and Ming dynasties and various other rebelions due to poor behaviour.

Actually it wasn't based on whether they were poor or not. Whenever an emperor/ruler was overthrown it was believed that it was mandated that the people were meant to rebel at that moment and that the monarch had lost the divine mandate.

They believed that when a ruler lost the divine mandate, that a rebellion would form and overthrow him rightfully. Not the other way around.

[MAXlMUS]

[SigniferOne]

...

[Last Roman]

tee-hee, moral advantage, that's why the West has imposed some of the most brutal and tyrannical forms of government on itself and others, right?

Political systems are not based on moral advantage, they are based on the needs and wants of a people.

[G-Megas-Doux]

tee-hee, morals. Political systems are not based on moral advantage, they are based on the needs and wants of a people.

Agreed, the moral advantage is just a way to swing opinion not basis of government.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

tee-hee, moral advantage, that's why the West has imposed some of the most brutal and tyrannical forms of government on itself and others, right?

Not to derail the thread, but like what exactly? Rule by the Machete? Because I'm pretty sure most places that had that after we left had it before we arrived...

[MAXlMUS]

I did. As far as I remember, Gilgamesh did not establish a Parliament, expand on the inalienable rights of man, or write down a Bill of Rights.

assemblies of free men? yes. the other stuff? no. no bill of rights, or universal human rights. but i'm not aware that the athenians or the romans had any either. code of laws? these are very ancient. senates? the carthaginians, as well as other peoples, had them. what you're asking for are very recent innovations.

Liberty for an individual is not quantitative, but liberty in a country certainly is.


In an absolute monarchy, only the king himself is fully free, but that doesn't mean the country quantitatively has any liberty at all.

i'm afraid you're too philosophical for me. i like measuring things with SI units

I didn't. Is there any indication in them of establishing a Parliament, of mentioning the inalienable rights of man, or listing a Bill of Rights?

you were arguing that

There wasn't even an approximation to the values discussed in this thread.

clearly those 3 poems contain two important values, which are at the core of any modern country: democracy and secularism. there is no place in historiography to speculate what might of been - but the fact is that before the sack of baghdad, these values had roots (and i'm not implying in any way they were widespread throughout the abassid caliphate, or that they were of any consequence) in at least one area outside of western europe (i.e. britain/holland), at a time when the english were in effect living under absolutist lords and monarchs.

[SigniferOne]

assemblies of free men? yes. the other stuff? no. no bill of rights, or universal human rights. but i'm not aware that the athenians or the romans had any either. code of laws? these are very ancient. senates? the carthaginians, as well as other peoples, had them.

I could strongly challenge you about the Greeks and Romans being not unique, but let's leave that for another thread.

what you're asking for are very recent innovations.

Yes, England stands above all previous innovations. That's why I called this thread the birth of liberty.

i'm afraid you're too philosophical for me. i like measuring things with SI units

It is possible for there to be increasing or decreasing levels of liberty in a country as a whole. In an absolute monarchy, it is not true that nobody is free. In point of fact, the monarch is one who has complete liberty, he is the only man that's free. But that doesn't prevent the country as a whole from having no liberty.

clearly those 3 poems contain two important values, which are at the core of any modern country: democracy and secularism.

First of all there was no talk in the OP about secularism, and secularism has nothing to do with political liberty or the rights of the people. Communism is a completely secular tyranny. So secularism is completely beside the topic. Can you tell me why you decided to bring in an outside topic into this conversation? As for democracy, it is not in those poems in any meaningful way. There was no hint of democracy in any social institutions of the time period, and political works on political theory. You are reading your own values into a work that hadn't had them, a classic fallacy.

there is no place in historiography to speculate what might of been

Let's all strongly agree with that statement.

[SigniferOne]

tee-hee, moral advantage, that's why the West has imposed some of the most brutal and tyrannical forms of government on itself and others, right?

Not only is this garbage, but are you so strongly inured in political correctness that you find yourself incapable of responding to the topic at hand?

Political systems are not based on moral advantage, they are based on the needs and wants of a people

As people's wants are at all times to be free, those systems which produce greater liberty are more moral than the ones that don't.

[Last Roman]

Not only is this garbage, but are you so strongly inured in political correctness that you find yourself incapable of responding to the topic at hand?

How is my post "PC"? It'd be incredibly stupid to deny that the west has throughout history put up brutal systems in place. Absolute monarchy ring a bell? Fascism anyone? How about the segregationist/apartheid systems across the globe? And I responded to the OP in the freaking sentence below.

As people's wants are at all times to be free, those systems which produce greater liberty are more moral than the ones that don't.

countless counter-revolutions seem to contradict your statement. Hell, as we speak, Putin and Co. are tightening their grip, and many Russians seem a-ok with that. I would agree there is a limit to how much we want to be controlled, but not everyone wants limitless freedom, otherwise we'd all live in anarchy.

[SigniferOne]

How is my post "PC"? It'd be incredibly stupid to deny that the west has throughout history put up brutal systems in place. Absolute monarchy ring a bell? Fascism anyone? How about the segregationist/apartheid systems across the globe? And I responded to the OP in the freaking sentence below.

It is PC because I post an example which could only have been written in the West if you didn't know anything else about it, and you rush to 'mitigate' its ebullient effect with a contrary narrative.

countless counter-revolutions seem to contradict your statement. Hell, as we speak, Putin and Co. are tightening their grip, and many Russians seem a-ok with that.

They may be more and more enslaved, but that doesn't make slavery moral. You don't seem to understand how governments derive their legitimacy from the people, so a book like the one in the OP was written for you. Of course it was written 300 years ago, so this provides an approximate date for your political thinking.

In china Divine mandate was a a religious stance and explaination for historical changes in the rule and that it was moraly right.

Exactly, it's an after-effect, an explanation after the fact to legitimize the new ruler, nothing more. In Europe there was the same thing; if a new king took over, that means that the divine right of kings transferred to him instead and he was now divinely mandate to rule. There is nothing profound about the chinese example at all.

How is that any less then European divine right of Kings

It isn't, they're exactly the same thing, and on the same low level of understanding the nature of government as well as the nature of its legitimacy.

What you have printed is just a pamphlet trying to justify a particular opinion at the time in England.

I entitled this thread the birth of liberty, because this 'particular opinion' in the OP was a universal understanding of all governments as such, wherever the may be, and whether they are run by people with Chinese names, or not. It was an understanding that was missing even in many parts of Europe, not to mention the rest of the world. And this understanding was slowly taught to other Europeans, and then, over time, everywhere else across the globe.

[Visna]

I wonder what was going on in England in 1639? Oh wait, I think I remember now Wars of the Three Kingdoms. A series of wars over religious and civil disputes. If "the west" truly had a "moral advantage" such matters would have been resolved peacefully. Instead they were killing each other with such efficiency that a man like Cromwell is still despised in Ireland. Although that could also say something about Irish long memories, it's hardly a position from which to claim a sort of moral advantage.

[skh1]

I wonder what was going on in England in 1639? Oh wait, I think I remember now Wars of the Three Kingdoms. A series of wars over religious and civil disputes. If "the west" truly had a "moral advantage" such matters would have been resolved peacefully. Instead they were killing each other with such efficiency that a man like Cromwell is still despised in Ireland. Although that could also say something about Irish long memories, it's hardly a position from which to claim a sort of moral advantage.

1689. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3503194

At first, I thought it the Parlimentarian Colonel Thomas Harrison who was hanged, drawn and quartered for his involvement in the execution of Charles I. It's not. I have no idea who this guy is.

Anyway, @ OP, isn't that rather a large claim to make on the basis of one obscure pamphlet?

[Last Roman]

It is PC because I post an example which could only have been written in the West if you didn't know anything else about it, and you rush to 'mitigate' its ebullient effect with a contrary narrative.

what I got from that: "rabble rabble rabble, I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE WEST BEING SUPERIOR TO ALL, rabble rabble rabble." Nothing about my explanation was PC, you're just mad that I provided counter examples.

trying to hide behind long winded explanations won't do you any good I'm afraid.

You don't seem to understand how governments derive their legitimacy from the people,

you sure about that?

me in post numero 5:

Political systems are not based on moral advantage, they are based on the needs and wants of a people.