Now that we are in a post-materialist era in the developed world I believe that these easily reducible and atomized concerns are fading into the background. Though many of the basic “Culture War” issues like abortion or gay rights are framed in an individual rights context, I believe that more deeply they’re really about a collective vision of society. Individual liberty and tolerance quickly cedes ground to a collective moral vision. This is not a prescriptive model, this is for me a descriptive one.
The reality is that for a minority of humans a fundamentally liberal/libertarian moral framework is profoundly appealing. It makes intuitive sense to us. I say us because I’m one of those individuals. But I don’t think it describes most human beings. And we have to begin with the modal human being when generating an empirically informed rich moral framework. Don’t we?For the most part, human beings are made to live in community. Insofar as the libertarian vision is one that seeks atomized individualism at the expense of community, it is doomed to failure -- it's as contrary to human nature as Soviet totalitarianism was. While there are some people who seek to live apart from society (hermits, people of poor disposition, solitary monks & nuns, and a few who simply wish to dwell in the wilderness unbothered) this is not the normative condition of human beings. As the author of the Book of Genesis puts it, "it is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18).
While Mr. Khan may object to the Lord being brought into this conversation, his essential point is well-supported by Genesis. Human beings need each other, need to live in society with each other, and as such, must live under norms and values that are at some level mandatory, not voluntary. Conservatism understands and embraces this reality. Libertarianism, alas, does not. Which is yet another reason why libertarianism, while a helpful perch from which to critique government activism and statist ideology, is not itself a sufficient replacement for the things it critiques. It's view of humanity is too thin, its reflexes too distorted, for that.
8 comments:
i don't care if you bring your god into the discussion. just isn't relevant to me, and totally unpersuasive to nonbelievers. obviously fine if you are talking to christian libertarians though.
Welcome Mr. Khan! I'm happy that you paid my humble little blog a visit. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
Of course, I wouldn't expect scripture or divine authority to appeal to an atheist. The group I am trying to appeal to when discussing libertarians are those libertarians who identify with Christianity or with theism in general. As a Kirkian/Burkean conservative I place a high value on religion and on the place of religion in understanding human activity and human flourishing.
I would argue that even an atheist should be interested in the perspectives of various types of religious scriptures, though, not because of their claimed divine origin but for a different reason: as products of human culture, they often reflect the wisdom of the people who produced them. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is full of such wisdom, the vast majority of it quite hard-headed and realistic about the human predicament.
Cheers -- and thanks for visiting!
If I did not believe in a Creator-God- I would opt for the libertarian bent--and-these days- I long for less government intrusion- as did the Founders--way back when---
thank you - too - for adding me to your list in your Thanksgiving post--
your blogs are of great help to me - they set a course of focus---
Carol-CS
If I didn't believe in God and/or if I wasn't a Christian, I think that I would most likely not change very many of my views on political or social issues. I would still remain broadly conservative -- because I am convinced that conservatism offers the best political understanding of the human person and his or her relationship to others. My views on some specific issues might change, but on the big picture issues -- government spending, abortion, excessive regulation, etc. -- they would remain pretty much the same. That might be a good thing or it might be evidence of how little my faith actually influences my politics!
You are more than welcome for the mention in my Thanksgiving list, Carol. I meant it -- I enjoy your blog a great deal and appreciate your unique perspective! Cheers!
Again, you misunderstand libertarianism. (Funny you have to reach out to an athiest for a fellow-minded take).
Libertarianism is not anti-community. It is pro-voluntary-community. Voluntary, not coerced.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
But in organizations larger than the family or a small business, communities are not voluntary. And even within families, not everyone is there voluntarily. Children, for example, don't chose what family to belong to.
No, actually, everything is voluntary to one degree or another. Some children choose to run away, for example. Every contextual situation comes with a set of "givens" that just "are" for all practical purposes. What individuals do within the context they find dealt to them is entirely a matter of free will. The criminal "chooses" to disobey the law. The revolutionary "chooses" to attempt to overthrow the established order. The defender of the established order "chooses" to leverage existing law to thwart the revolutionary. And on it goes ad infinitum.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
An interesting idea, but it still begs the questions: 1) Are human beings wired for community? 2) And what kind of community are they wired to seek? True community is rarely chosen -- in a few instances perhaps, but for the most part community is something that one is born into, something that one is part of not because of conscious choice but because of circumstances and context. Of course, libertarianism denies this, insisting on precisely the kind of itomized view that you have expounded on so well in this comment thread. But that view simply doesn't comport with human nature.
Post a Comment