I am glad that you are a fan of Eric Hoffer. Then you should appreciate where my position regarding freedom and control comes from:
"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do.
...
The significant point is that people unfit for freedom — who cannot do much with it — are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a "have" type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a "have-not" type of self. If Hitler had had the talents and the temperament of a genuine artist, if Stalin had had the capacity to become a first-rate theoretician, if Napoleon had had the makings of a great poet or philosopher they would hardly have developed the all-consuming lust for absolute power.
Freedom gives us a chance to realize our human and individual uniqueness. Absolute power can also bestow uniqueness: to have absolute power is to have the power to reduce all the people around us to puppets, robots, toys, or animals, and be the only man in sight. Absolute power achieves uniqueness by dehumanizing others.
To sum up: Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power."
Journal entry (28 March 1959)
My point is that too much time and effort on the progressive side is spent on positions that rightly or not come across as demanding charity, protection, special privileges, etc. This is a losing proposition (not to mention wrong). Rather the effort should be spent on tearing down barriers to achieving self actualization. Within the American psyche, it is a much more defensible position to fight for an individuals right to opportunity to achieve all that he can be than to push for protection, subsidies, and so on. Even when there is some overlap between the two, one formulation is far more likely to win support than the other.
ST |
