The Rhetoric vs. Praxis of Liberty
John Stuart Mill’s seminal work, “On Liberty,” is frequently cited as a foundational text championing individual freedom. Mill argues against societal tyranny over the individual, emphasizing the importance of personal autonomy for societal progress. However, Mill’s advocacy for liberty is intertwined with the socio-economic context of his time, particularly aligning with the interests of emerging industrial and capitalist classes. His emphasis on ‘individual freedom’ and ‘limited government’ intervention supported the desires of particular entities to operate without excessive regulation, safeguarding the privileges of certain economic elites and ‘containing’ broader societal freedoms.
The Need for Deep Philosophical Foundations in Education
Understanding the distinctions between the rhetoric of “liberty” and its actual practice necessitates a deep engagement with metaphysical and philosophical foundations of self-governance and popular sovereignty. However, such profound philosophical inquiry has been largely absent from standard educational curricula. Why? This omission benefits existing power structures by producing citizens who lack the critical tools to question and challenge the status quo, thereby maintaining established hierarchies and limiting genuine self governance.
Beneficiaries of Philosophical Omission in Education
The exclusion of comprehensive philosophical education serves to benefit those in positions of power who prefer (and require) a populace that is compliant and less likely to question authority. By not equipping individuals with the philosophical frameworks necessary to critically assess concepts like liberty and sovereignty, educational systems inadvertently (or deliberately) perpetuate systems that favour elite interests over popular sovereignty and self governance.
So what?
A superficial understanding of philosophical concepts like ‘individual liberty’ facilitates the unwitting (?) support of systems that undermine personal freedoms and self governance. To foster genuine self-governance and popular sovereignty, it is imperative to integrate deep philosophical and metaphysical education into academic curricula - as its bedrock or cornerstone - enabling individuals to exercise discernment in critically engaging with the structures that shape their lives. Understanding what is requisite for upholding and defending them.
What Realists Discern About Individual Liberty & Constitutional Principles That Nominalists Cannot
Those trained in metaphysical and philosophical realism can distinguish true individual liberty and self-governance from rhetorical illusions, while those schooled in nominalism remain blind to the deeper implications and consequences of their political assumptions.
1. Realists understand that rights are inherent and pre-political, while nominalists believe they are granted by institutions.
• Realists see Natural Law as an objective moral order, ensuring that liberty exists independently of government recognition.
• Nominalists assume that rights are social constructs, meaning they can be modified, revoked, or redefined by the state or elite-controlled legal frameworks.
2. Realists recognize that popular sovereignty is derived from fixed moral law, while nominalists believe governance is a flexible social contract.
• Realists understand that self-governance depends on moral certainty, meaning rulers and the ruled are both bound by the same objective principles.
• Nominalists view government as a human-made system of negotiated power, making sovereignty subject to majority rule, technocratic management, or shifting political goals.
3. Realists see the Constitution as an embodiment of fixed truths, while nominalists view it as an evolving document.
• Realists uphold constitutional principles as immutable, ensuring the permanent protection of individual liberty.
• Nominalists favor legal positivism, allowing constitutional interpretation to shift based on “social progress,” often leading to judicial activism that erodes original protections.
4. Realists recognize how nominalist governance leads to soft tyranny, while nominalists believe evolving governance ensures freedom.
• Realists understand that when laws and rights are fluid, power consolidates in the hands of those who control legal and moral narratives.
• Nominalists assume that adapting laws to contemporary needs enhances liberty, not realizing that this enables incremental authoritarianism.
Why This Matters
A realist education allows individuals to detect and resist attempts to redefine liberty in ways that undermine self-governance. Without it, those operating under nominalist assumptions become passive subjects; blind to how their own political engagement contributes to the erasure of their sovereignty and constitutional protections. Prey to what has been comprehensively and admirably documented by
with devastating consequences for everyone:
Share this post