Characters | Images | Testimonials | Philosophy

Biography | Why Living History | Caveat Emptor

Caveat Emptor
25 September 2001

What is History? It is that part of past human existence that historians (and writers, politicians, teachers, etc.) know about and, through their own values, decide it is important for you to know about.

No one can know all of human existence. "True and complete history" thus can not be told. All "history" which you learn is to some extent taken "out of context." None of us can possibly know the whole of the context. Thus, historians must learn and search and investigate and then present history in a minimized and filtered form.

The filter we all use is our personal value system. Thus, it is only fair that I state my relevant values and how I view the world and human action within it. (I likewise challenge all other historians and cultural commentators to do the same, for you, the consumers of history, have a right to know.)

I believe that human life is fundamental, for without it, nothing else matters.

I believe that ethics and morality have nothing to do with majorities and minorities. The simple fact that two people, or two hundred, or two billion, agree on a particular point has no affect on my perception of that action’s rightness or wrongness. Theft, for example, is theft whether committed by one person or by many people under some word other than theft.

I believe, with the founding fathers, in the fundamental importance of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and in property.

I place a high value on individual liberty and believe in the efficacy and the morality of the "free market" as compared with any form of "command economy."

I believe in the right of people to do, and to contract mutually to do, anything they wish as long as they neither deny, nor threaten to deny, anyone else the same. Don’t miss that last part. There are proper limits on human choice when someone else’s choices are threatened.

I believe that the "Golden Rule" has enormous value and that we deny it at our peril. I likewise understand that the Golden Rule has a corollary which I call the "Corrosion Rule," that if you do harm to your fellow man, sooner or later you are likely to have reciprocal harm done to you.

I do not believe in sacrificing one’s personal values to another, nor expecting anyone else to sacrifice their values to you. Intellectual independence is the hallmark of a free person. And people who are intellectually free are far more interesting to me than those who are not.

I believe there are lessons to be learned from failure as well as from success, perhaps greater lessons. Thus, not "permitting" people to fail (if such a silly and morally flawed proposition were possible) can and often does have harmful results for all. We possess the power of reason for a purpose.

I believe that many things commonly viewed as proper and just and good today will be viewed by subsequent generations as wrong and evil as well as counterproductive. This is precisely the way most of our contemporaries, with some sense of condescension, view people from the past. This is also an indictment of the dangerous shifting sands of "political correctness."

I believe that viewing people from the past as "the good guys or the bad guys" is ineffective. People and life and history are far too complex. I find it is much more useful to judge ideas rather than people as good or bad, effective or counterproductive.

I believe, though technology is ever changing, that human beings are hardly any different today than they were several thousand years ago. Thus, I also believe that one can establish classic principles for human relationships.

I believe we often attribute far too much importance to "celebrity." "Celebrity" alone should give no one additional credibility or moral standing, though our society often highly rewards it. Academic degrees are much the same, though they do indicate some level of perseverance and focused attention that may result in useful knowledge. Many titles may only be valuable as they indicate the possessors’s desired position relative to you.

Purveying products and/or services in a free market environment is different than hunting and harvesting in that, rather than the predator/prey relationship, in voluntary interactions there must be mutual benefit. Both parties to transactions would rather have what they got than what they traded away. Both sides won.

This should help you to judge me and my work more effectively, whether you share my values or not. Do other "cultural commentators" offer you this insight into their values and beliefs? If not, why not?

--Richard A. Cheatham