an interesting read

[detbuch]

Hey Spence, I particularly liked the following part of the article and think it would be a good point of discussion:

"Thus the State lays claim to govern all groupings within the society: it is the final arbiter of legitimate and illegitimate groupings, and from its point of view, the only ontological realities are the individual and the State.

Eventually the State lays claim to set up its own education system to ensure that children are not overly shaped by family, religion or any particular community; through its legal and police powers, it will occasionally force open "closed" communities as soon as one person claims some form of unjust assertion of authority or limits upon individual freedom; it even regulates what is regarded to be legitimate and illegitimate forms of religious worship. Likewise, marriage is a bond that must be subject to its definition.

A vast and intrusive centralized apparatus is established, not to oppress the population, but rather actively to ensure the liberation of individuals from any forms of constitutive groups or supra-individual identity. Thus any organizations or groups or communities that lay claim to more substantive allegiance will be subject to State sanctions and intervention, but this oppression will be done in the name of the liberation of the individual. Any allegiance to sub-national groups, associations or communities come to be redefined not as inheritances, but as memberships of choice with very low if any costs to exit.

Modern liberals are to be pro-choice in every respect; one can limit one's own autonomy, but only if one has chosen to do so and generally only if one can revise one's choice at a later date - which means, in reality, that one hasn't really limited one's autonomy at all. All choices are fungible, alterable and reversible. The vow "til death do us part" is subtly but universally amended - and understood - to mean "or until we choose otherwise."

IV

As Tocqueville anticipated, modern Statism would arise as a reaction against the atomization achieved by liberalism. Shorn of the deepest ties to family, place, community, region, religion and culture, and profoundly shaped to believe that these forms of association are limits upon our autonomy, we seek membership and belonging, and a form of extended self-definition, through the only legitimate form of organization available to liberal man: the State.

Robert Nisbet saw the modern rise of Fascism and Communism as the predictable consequence of the early-modern liberal attack upon smaller associations and communities: stripped of those memberships, modern liberal man became susceptible to the quest for belonging now to distant and abstract State entities. In turn, those political entities offered a new form of belonging by adopting the evocations and imagery of those memberships that they had displaced - above all, by offering a new form of quasi-religious membership, now in the Church of the State itself."

Any comments from others on how it applies to the American State? Spence? I can see how the modern "liberal State" could be very appealing to many. Any defenders?

[scottw]

crickets...easier to stick to the low hanging fruit....I think the "ancient" references he made are simply an acknowledgement that these (more pertinent)arguments have existed for quite sometime and pre-date the current or modern apparent belief that history began in the 1960's or some other time in the 20th century. The entire dynamic has changed, the "ancient" arguments(which were much the same arguments of Locke and Hobbs... Burke? I mean, on the overall scope of the debate in an historical context it's truly amazing to look at where these progressives fall... "Individuality is left out of their scheme of government. The state is all in all. Everything is referred to the production of force; afterwards, everything is trusted to the use of it. It is military in its principle, in its maxims, in its spirit, and in all its movements. The state has dominion and conquest for its sole objects—dominion over minds by proselytism, over bodies by arms", and the Founders that produced the Document that we barely cling to today), the very basic arguments of whether the individual is capable of self-governing and the responsibilities that relate or whether the individual is just one in a herd of sheep that must be governed by enlightened individuals who dole out "liberty" in doses of government provisions and dictates.....the progressive argument in all things can be summed up as "we're smart...you are stupid", oozing out of every speech, press conference and arrogant sneer.... so naturally, the inclination is to dismiss any argument(this is a truism that I'd read regarding a leftist mindset that I've found to be quite accurate) that disagrees with their world view regardless of whether or not it conflicts with "natural law", if they've come to the conclusion...it must be "settled science", despite the "shifting sands" of logic, rhetoric and "science" employed to arrive at the conclusion...the "ancient" debate over the "ancient virtue of self-government, and true liberty itself", is dismissed, ridiculed...as someone stated a while back...the argument is no longer over the proper size and role of government but over who is best equipped to steer the behemoth...

"We only know what we know.

On Tuesday, the president of these United States called for an end to the “rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government,” so that he might move forward with his economic agenda uninhibited by “stale political arguments.” It was an interesting moment. The president’s childlike faith in his own ability to direct resources according to his own vision is almost touching in its way, though when the actual costs are accounted for it is terrifying. The president’s understanding of how the economy works is about as sophisticated as was my understanding of anatomy and nutrition at the age of four: Lean this way and we’ll strengthen the middle class, lean that way and we’ll nourish the working poor. He doesn’t even understand the debate that he wants to preempt: It is not only a question of the size of government but a question of what government does.

He only knows what he knows."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/369884/print

but for a small constantly maligned and marginalized body of thought the debate no longer exists....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hey Spence, I particularly liked the following part of the article and think it would be a good point of discussion:

It's interesting...but makes a big error by attributing an obviously false motive to the State's actions.

The State doesn't set up an educational system to exert control over supra-individual identities. The behavior is driven by a belief that more consistently educated children will make for a better Country.

The author tries to work on the old 'liberals don't have foundation principals so they must worship the State' schtick...but this flies in the face of reality, many liberals embrace religion, community, culture...did they really say culture?

At best it's an academic or nearly theoretical perspective.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The State doesn't set up an educational system to exert control over supra-individual identities. The behavior is driven by a belief that more consistently educated children will make for a better Country.

The author tries to work on the old 'liberals don't have foundation principals so they must worship the State' schtick...but this flies in the face of reality, many liberals embrace religion, community, culture...did they really say culture?

-spence

Do you believe that the State's consistently educating children reinforces the "reality" of "liberals" embracing their religion? Does the consistent education by the State strengthen the differences of various communities, liberal or otherwise? Does the State's uniform curricula with its consistent orientation encourage the diversity of all "cultures" liberal or conservative?

Does the State allow the "embrace" of religion to supersede the State's demands? Does the State's definition of marriage replace a liberal's religious definition of marriage? Does the State's definition of life and when it begins strengthen a liberal's religious definition? Does the State attempt through consistent education and legislation to "liberate" people from religious or cultural views on sexuality. Does the State attempt through consistent education to manage the people's views to a more uniform perspective on things personal and civil? Do you, or do "liberals" believe that the State has the right and the power to do these things, and if so, do you believe that the State is more important than your religion, or community, or culture? Is allegiance to the State , for "liberals" greater than religious worship or cultural "inheritance?" Does a more consistently educated society make for a "better country"? Or is that a sort of worship of the States "schtick"?

Just trying to stir the pot.