Liberalism & Conservatism

[Circa]

This presupposes people don't already understand what you have posted, while having formed their own opinions on political subjects. Both arrogant and condescending at the same time. Congratulations.

BTW, I don't fit any political party because at heart they are just machines and I never found them flexible enough to want to be governed by their rules or principles. Too many times they required me to compromise my individual thoughts to become part of some 'collective'. And if you look at voting records for the last two decades, you see both parties almost identical so I would argue the political parties are really two sides of the same machine, at the moment. This has not always been true in American history, as deep differences have existed. But not so much now.

I have always been an independent and reserve my inalienable right to think for myself. Couldn't care less what a political party thinks because I don't feel the need to identify with one. Not everyone can think this way; some people have a stronger need to belong to something. That is their right.

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/70eocNVm1M89y" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[Cackalacky]

Ugh. This couldn't have come at a worse time for me. I am totally interested in this..... I could so benefit too. My free time is almost negligible.

 

[ACamp1900]

Ugh. This couldn't have come at a worse time for me. I am totally interested in this..... I could so benefit too. My free time is almost negligible.

This is so true...

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Mr. McGibblets]

It's a shame this thread wasn't released later in 2015. I've a feeling this thread could've
Ended up as an IE Award "Thread of the Year " Candidate, especially Considering Whisky's ownership rebuttal to consonants from earlier. Alas, it'll be forgotten during the ratings/award nominee season.

 

[NDRock]

It went the way of the Dodo. Thanks mainly to LBJ, and Obama. Which I've never really understood. You'd think with the amount of people relying on government assistance in the south there would be more people voting Democratic.

I live in one of the most Republican counties in East Tennessee. Seems that religion is a big factor in many people being Republican. I've heard countless people tell me you can't be a Christian and vote Democrat.

In a related story, the next county over is still old school Democrat. It's also 98% white with maybe one black family in the entire county. They are voting Republican much more since Obama came into power. Interesting place.

 

[Irishnuke]

Racist.

Race baiter

 

[woolybug25]

It went the way of the Dodo. Thanks mainly to LBJ, and Obama. Which I've never really understood. You'd think with the amount of people relying on government assistance in the south there would be more people voting Democratic.

To add, it's always been intriguing to me the difficulties the conservative message has had with getting buy in from Latinos and southern African Americans, two of the most religious wings of the US population.

 

[Irish YJ]

To add, it's always been intriguing to me the difficulties the conservative message has had with getting buy in from Latinos and southern African Americans, two of the most religious wings of the US population.

Intriguing and delicate conservation.

 

[irishog77]

My fly-by hot take, Wooly:

The Confederacy fought a war against a nation lead by a Republican(s). Then, perhaps even worse than that, Republicans from the Union represented the carpetbaggers and Reconstruction-- much of which was opportunistic and unethical. So Democrats were the obvious party of choice of southerners.

Status quo...Status quo...

The Great Depression hit and Mr. Roosevelt saved us all.

Status quo...

The Civil Rights movement came into full force, and the overwhelming majority of southern politicians were Democrats (and against integration and equal rights).

Status quo...

The Civil Rights movement and its effects settled in, the Depression was a distant memory, the Civil War was so long ago it literally was history...and then people realized many of the tenants of guhvment they had always been in favor of (stronger states' rights over federal, a more limited guhvment, right-to-work, etc.) were more in line with the Republican party than the Democrat party.


That's the brief gist.

I am fascinated by the whole idea of essentially an entire large region to be so overwhelmingly in favor of one party...then to now be overwhelmingly in favor of another.

 

[Cackalacky]

My fly-by hot take, Wooly:

The Confederacy fought a war against a nation lead by a Republican(s). Then, perhaps even worse than that, Republicans from the Union represented the carpetbaggers and Reconstruction-- much of which was opportunistic and unethical. So Democrats were the obvious party of choice of southerners.

Status quo...Status quo...

The Great Depression hit and Mr. Roosevelt saved us all.

Status quo...

The Civil Rights movement came into full force, and the overwhelming majority of southern politicians were Democrats (and against integration and equal rights).

Status quo...

The Civil Rights movement and its effects settled in, the Depression was a distant memory, the Civil War was so long ago it literally was history...and then people realized many of the tenants of guhvment they had always been in favor of (stronger states' rights over federal, a more limited guhvment, right-to-work, etc.) were more in line with the Republican party than the Democrat party.


That's the brief gist.

I am fascinated by the whole idea of essentially an entire large region to be so overwhelmingly in favor of one party...then to now be overwhelmingly in favor of another.

The case can be made that the Republicans and their Southern Strategy ( namely cultivating white Christians into one solid voting block based on conservatism) was a huge factor during the civil rights era. The old wounds of Jim Crow never healed and the republicans cultivated that. It's one reson I think they cease to connect with the minorities. I should add that the southern democrats became further and further estranged from the Democratic Party based mainly on civil rights issues.

Additionally, the Republican presidents from 1900 to FDR were some of the most corrupt leaders we have ever had. People flocked into the Progressive Democrats camp because of the wreckage they heaped up and the southern democrats began to split away from the progressive Dems. They found their conservative nature meshed better with the Republicans. The Dixiecrats were kind of that bridge during the transition.

 

[palinurus]

The case can be made that the Republicans and their Southern Strategy ( namely cultivating white Christians into one solid voting block based on conservatism) was a huge factor during the civil rights era. The old wounds of Jim Crow never healed and the republicans cultivated that. It's one reson I think they cease to connect with the minorities. I should add that the southern democrats became further and further estranged from the Democratic Party based mainly on civil rights issues.

Additionally, the Republican presidents from 1900 to FDR were some of the most corrupt leaders we have ever had. People flocked into the Progressive Democrats camp because of the wreckage they heaped up and the southern democrats began to split away from the progressive Dems. They found their conservative nature meshed better with the Republicans. The Dixiecrats were kind of that bridge during the transition.

With respect, I disagree with virtually all of this. Far from cultivating whites as a separate voting block, Republicans opposed Southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Right Act in the 1960s and Republicans helped LBJ (in fact were decisive in passing) pass the legislation. If anything, their lack of prejudice hurt them for years; Southerners ran their own candidate and voted for Democrat-running-as-an-independent George Wallace for president in 1968 rather than the Republican Nixon. It wasn't until the Dems went far to the left with McGovern in '72 that Southern conservatives backed a Republican. That, -- i.e., hard shift of Democrats to the far left -- not cultivating racism (which is what you imply), began the migration to the Republican Party for Southern Democrats. Reagan, an old Democrat himself, completed the shift -- Reagan, the guy who signed the bill making MLK's birthday a national holiday.

I also strongly dispute the comment re Republican corruption between 1900 and FDR. Yes to Harding, but Coolidge cleaned up Harding's corruption (a party cleaning up its own scandals is pretty uncommon); Hoover was indisputably honest, and I've never heard anything about Teddy Roosevelt or Taft being corrupt; Teddy is, in fact, a hero of modern liberals.

Edit: I'm not a particularly big fan of either party, as organizations, btw. But facts is facts.

 

[GowerND11]

I'll be following. Hope to add when i can. Looks mighty interesting.

 

[Black Irish]

That looks like a very interesting course. I'm short on time (moving) but I'll certainly pop in for some stimulating debate. Really, I just want an excuse to use smart sounding phrases like "theoretical underpinnings" while I swirl cognac in a snifter and adjust my monocle.

 

[Bishop2b5]

It wasn't until the Dems went far to the left with McGovern in '72 that Southern conservatives backed a Republican. That, -- i.e., hard shift of Democrats to the far left -- not cultivating racism (which is what you imply), began the migration to the Republican Party for Southern Democrats. Reagan, an old Democrat himself, completed the shift

As a native Southerner, I agree with this 100%. Racial issues, religion, etc. had little or nothing to do with the total migration of southern conservatives to the Republican Party. It was the Democratic Party's hard turn to the left that started the migration and Reagan cemented the deal. Most southern conservatives would strongly agree with Reagan when he said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The assigned sections from Locke's Two Treatises on Government make for pretty quick reading. Should take most people less than an hour, I'd guess.

Levin's The Great Debate can be be downloaded from a large number of sources listed here. I got it as an *.epub file, downloaded the Readium app from the Chrome Web Store, and am reading it in now my browser.

 

[Cackalacky]

With respect, I disagree with virtually all of this. Far from cultivating whites as a separate voting block, Republicans opposed Southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Right Act in the 1960s and Republicans helped LBJ (in fact were decisive in passing) pass the legislation. If anything, their lack of prejudice hurt them for years; Southerners ran their own candidate and voted for Democrat-running-as-an-independent George Wallace for president in 1968 rather than the Republican Nixon. It wasn't until the Dems went far to the left with McGovern in '72 that Southern conservatives backed a Republican. That, -- i.e., hard shift of Democrats to the far left -- not cultivating racism (which is what you imply), began the migration to the Republican Party for Southern Democrats. Reagan, an old Democrat himself, completed the shift -- Reagan, the guy who signed the bill making MLK's birthday a national holiday.

I also strongly dispute the comment re Republican corruption between 1900 and FDR. Yes to Harding, but Coolidge cleaned up Harding's corruption (a party cleaning up its own scandals is pretty uncommon); Hoover was indisputably honest, and I've never heard anything about Teddy Roosevelt or Taft being corrupt; Teddy is, in fact, a hero of modern liberals.

Edit: I'm not a particularly big fan of either party, as organizations, btw. But facts is facts.

Southern Strategy

During this period, Republicans regularly supported anti-lynching bills, which were filibustered by Southern Democrats in the Senate, and appointed a few blacks to office. In the 1928 election, the Republican candidate Herbert Hoover rode the issues of prohibition and anti-Catholicism to carry five former Confederate states. After his victory, Hoover attempted to build up the Republican Party of the South, transferring patronage away from blacks and toward the same kind of white Protestant businessmen who made up the core of the Northern Republican Party. With the onset of the Great Depression, which severely impacted the South, Hoover soon became extremely unpopular. The gains of the Republican Party in the South were lost. In the 1932 election, Hoover received only 18.1 percent of the Southern vote for re-election

In the 1948 election, after Harry Truman signed an Executive Order to desegregate the Army, a group of Southern Democrats known as Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party in reaction to the inclusion of a civil rights plank in the party's platform. This followed a floor fight led by Minneapolis mayor and (soon-to-be senator) Hubert Humphrey. The disaffected Democrats formed the States' Rights Democratic, or Dixiecrat Party, and nominated Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for president. Thurmond carried four southern states in the general election: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The main plank of the States' Rights Democratic Party was maintaining segregation and Jim Crow in the South. The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered. In 1964, Thurmond was one of the first conservative southern Democrats to switch to the Republican Party

In addition to the splits in the Democratic Party, the population movements associated with World War II had a significant effect on the makeup of the South. More than 5 million African Americans migrated from the South to the North and West in the second Great Migration lasting from 1940-1970. Starting before WWII, many took jobs in the defense industry in California and major industrial cities of the Midwest.[citation needed]

Changes in industry, growth in universities and the military establishment in turn attracted Northern transplants to the South, and bolstered the base of the Republican Party. In the post-war Presidential campaigns, Republicans did best in the fastest-growing states of the South with the most Northern settlers. In the 1952, 1956 and 1960 elections, Virginia, Tennessee and Florida went Republican, while Louisiana went Republican in 1956, and Texas twice voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower and once for John F. Kennedy. In 1956, Eisenhower received 48.9 percent of the Southern vote, becoming only the second Republican in history (after Ulysses S. Grant) to get a plurality of Southern votes

Many of the states' rights Democrats were attracted to the 1964 presidential campaign of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower. Goldwater's principal opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate (and pro-Civil Rights Act) Northern wing of the party (see Rockefeller Republican, Goldwater republican).

In the 1964 presidential campaign, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign which broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) since Reconstruction. However, Goldwater's vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign everywhere outside the South (other than the South, Goldwater only won in Arizona, his home state), contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964.

Richard Nixon saw the cracks in the Solid South as an opportunity to tap into a group of voters who had historically been beyond the reach of the Republican Party. Much of this strategy was fairly obvious in retrospect given George Wallace's strong display in that election, where he garnered 46 electoral votes and nearly 10 million popular votes, attracting mostly southern Democrats

Due to several factors, historical focus of republicans on the white voters in the Solid South is obvious. The have pandered to the conservative southerners dislike of Civil Rights and gung-ho attitude for states rights issues, southerners indisputable will to support the much more conservative candidate and those opposing civil rights issues, and even preying on religious and racial bias (particularly anti-Catholocism in the south). Nixon's Southern Strategy was clearly designed to drawn southern democrats into the Republican party.

Even big D southern democrats like Bill Clinton are nothing like the Southern Democrats from prior to the Dixiecrat split and eventual assimilation into the Republican party. Teh democrat party was a mess until FDR and northern democrats versus southern demcorats virtually disagreed on all major issues.

Teddy Roosevelt might have been a "Republican" but he also had an extremely progressive platform. Roosevelt formed a progressive party because he did not like the conservative policies of the Republican party (Taft).

Anyway.... the electorate is always shifting and in flux.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Week 1-- Liberalism: Sources and Themes:

We are to liberalism as fish are to water: we swim in its currents without necessarily ever stopping to consider what water is. This week we explore the medium in which we swim.

Our readings for this week are several passages from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government and selections from Yuval Levin’s book The Great Debate that focus on the thought of Thomas Paine. Rather than spending any great length of time discussing many of the particulars of these arguments, I will focus rather on several common themes one finds in these introductory readings on liberalism, as well as interesting tensions between Locke and Paine that will be relevant to future discussions.

First and most centrally, both Locke and Paine begin with the construct of the “state of nature” that is intended to reveal what is most true about the human condition—our nature. This “move” already implicitly contains a set of philosophical assumptions, foremost among which is the belief that nature can be distinguished from history, or the accumulated experience and practices of humans over time. Thus, Locke and Paine reject the idea that tradition, custom, inheritance, or generational ties are a constitutive part of our natures. Rather, we can only understand our true nature by stripping the human creature bare of all these conventional and unchosen accumulations, and at least conceptually putting us into an ahistorical situation of “the state of nature.”

In this condition we are, in Locke’s view, at once likely to be most committed to our self-preservation, and, where no conflict exists between us, at least non-confrontational toward the preservation of others. However, Locke acknowledges that a state of peace will not long persist, since the state of nature lacks a neutral authority which can resolve inevitable conflicts. Locke thus oscillates between portraying the state of nature as one in which humans are minimally cooperative and at least indifferent—and so, a condition that is not as horrific as that one described in Hobbes’s state of nature—and a condition where conflict festers and exacerbates without resolution, leading to continual and escalating retribution without prospect of resolution (much like a feud). It is a condition that is not wholly unbearable, but filled with “inconveniences.” We agree to leave that condition on relatively strong negotiating terms, forging a social contract that creates the neutral authority of the State while retaining rights to “life, liberty and Estate.”

For both Locke and Paine, several key features of liberalism follow. Political authority—and most, if not all human relationships, for that matter—are only legitimate when based upon consent. Consent can only be given by autonomous individuals, hence, individuals that are notionally always conceivably situated in the state of nature. The terms of that consent rest upon the protection of certain rights. Government does not exist to shape or form us to certain ends (i.e., political authority does not exist with a view toward human teleology); it exists to protect our individual rights to pursue our own ends, what we each individually (or, through the joining of various associations, together) see fit.

We retain the right to remake that political contract, as well as any other relationship that we freely enter. We retain the right to “exit”—whether by withdrawing from contracts that no longer serve their purpose (e.g., leaving a political arrangement to which we can no longer consent, or rejecting the inheritance of our parents, or changing religion, or divorce of a spouse); or, in extremis, by overthrowing political powers when they cease to abide by the terms of the original contract (i.e., revolution). While revolution will be exceedingly rare, it remains perpetually as a possibility, thus serving as a regulative limit upon the State’s temptation to exercise excessive power that violates our rights.

There is a tension worth noting in this regard between Locke and Paine. For Locke, the state of nature is one that is theoretically peaceful, but likely to be riven by “inconveniences.” For Paine, humans are naturally cooperative and peaceful, and only agree to the creation of the State mainly when complexity requires. In Paine’s imagining, humans are generally good by nature, and there is the strong suggestion in his work that any human inclination toward wickedness is actually exacerbated by government. (“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”) As a result, Paine in this instance anticipates the “libertarian” belief in “spontaneous order.” He is also more radical than Locke in his willingness to embrace revolution as a solution to social ills, evinced in his fervent support not only for the American revolution, but the French Revolution as well.

While the “state of nature” scenario seems to be conceived simply to advance the idea that the State is the creation of individuals, it also becomes evident that in an effective sense, individuals are a creation of the State. The state of nature in fact cannot permit the full flourishing of our individuality, lacking the stability, security, and prosperity that can be attained with the establishment of the liberal state. So, while as a matter of theory the State is an artifice, notionally the creation arising from the consent of individuals, as a matter of fact the liberal individual cannot come into being without the efforts and power of the State arrayed toward that end.

For this reason, we see arguments in both Locke and Paine that at once defend the idea of a limited but strong and powerful State. The State is limited in its ends: it does not seek to cultivate a specific human telos. However, in achieving those limited ends, the State needs and requires extensive powers. Locke justifies the preservation of the monarchical exercise of “Prerogative” toward the end of preserving the State, which is the guarantor of liberty. “Prerogative,” he argues, can even be exercised in ways that violate the letter of the law and even the terms of the social contract, in extremis. Locke anticipates Justice Jackson’s famous phrase, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” In such instances, the recourse of the citizenry is not likely to be a successful revolution, but prayer.

The right that is perhaps most central in the classic liberal tradition is property. In Locke we see the argument that government comes into being less to cease a state of war than, in particular, to eliminate “inconveniences” that prevent securing of the right to property. The State comes into existence especially to protect and advance property rights, but with a very special purpose: to allow the differentiation of the “rational and industrious” from the “querulous and contentious,” or, those who are more fitted by nature or discipline to make good use of property, and those who are more likely to complain that they don’t have as much as the former. Locke argues that such an economy benefits everyone—most obviously the former, but even the latter, since the efforts of the “industrious and rational” increase the overall prosperity of society. While liberalism envisions a society of inequality (now based upon natural difference, rather than the artificial differences of aristocracy), it can be justified to the extent that everyone stands to benefit. Liberalism’s central wager is that economic increase will provide sufficient satisfaction to everyone in society, notwithstanding potentially titanic inequalities that such a system may generate.

Paine (as discussed by Yuval Levin) is at once an enthusiast for the ability of commerce to disrupt traditional forms of social arrangements (much as Marx will suggest at the outset of the Communist Manifesto, in which he describes the power of capitalism to make “all that is solid melt into air”), but comes to favor government activity to ameliorate the condition of the poor (or Locke’s “querulous and contentious”). Paine reflects a position that will come to define the divide between contemporary liberals and conservatives on the question of the societal benefits of “laissez-faire” vs. a commitment to basic liberal equality guaranteed by the State. However, we should notice that Paine also remains committed to the basic liberal faith and hope in the liberative effects of commerce. Like Paine, most “left” and “progressive” liberals today remain at base committed to the market as a primary engine of liberal society. That faith is reflected today in the shared commitment in both political parties for global free trade, for instance, notwithstanding debates over tax rates and levels of government assistance.

Locke and Paine are both proponents of “meliorism.” Aided by the liberation of belief from tradition (including opinion and religious belief), organized skepticism toward authority, productive property aimed at material increase, the rights to movement and self-definition, and a powerful government that comes into existence for the purpose of securing these various forms of individual liberty, liberalism at its core contains a belief in, and hope for, progress. In Locke, progress is assumed to be largely material: we can increase prosperity and prolong life, but we remain selfish and blinkered creatures. We can increase the prospects of peaceful co-existence by orienting our activities toward the economic realm and the protection of personal opinion and belief without expectation of achieving societal consensus. Paine seems more sanguine about the prospects for moral improvement and one sees incipient notion that perhaps narrow self-interest itself can be overcome with the correct social arrangements. His support for the French Revolution indicates a greater faith in establishing a more utopic society, expressed in his famous phrase, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” (NB: this quote was a favorite of the 20th-century’s most lauded conservative: Ronald Reagan).

In these passages, we see the basic commitments of classical liberalism, as well as many of the divisions it will come to manifest. In many respects, it is the basic constitutive belief of modern Western people (and, according to Fukuyama in 1991—as we will discuss next week—increasingly all humanity), whose various emphases and internal tensions inspire most of the political divisions and allegiances of our age. With few and fewer exceptions, we are all liberals.

This is water.

 

[Cackalacky]

Still working on Locke's treatises but not surprisingly....I don't agree with his assumptions on the state of nature and its basis for the social contract or his dichotomy of the state of nature and the state of war. I agree that we have social contracts in modern society but in terms of anthropology, and therefore societies not wholly included in Western philosophy, his concept seems to miss the mark for setting up the arguments. Further, I do not agree that men are free to do as they wish. Being social creatures, humans can exist in groups, small groups even, but interactions with alien groups and with each other in the groups are natural and invariably will lead to altercations over resources. His idealist version of man is not very historically or anthropologically accurate.

Regarding his statements on self preservation, a man must inherently be aware of conflict to be interested in self preservation. In nature there is always conflict. It seems to me he imagines man as idealic and then only worried about self preservation in the face of conflict. What is refered to as "rights" seems to me a bit nebulous to. If self preservation is the default state in the absence of authority then man has the right to secure his self under any circumstances. This is inherently conflicting as a man has a right, at least in theory, to obtain necessary resources through violence or other methods. The conflict arising from the fact that some other person may claim the necessity of those resources to. Who is within their rights? Are they both within their "rights"? Outside of the social contract... rights have little meaning. He even says as much regarding aliens from other countries and that should they violate the social contract or laws that punishment should not be given (I believe I read that correctly).

I also disagree with Locke and Paines argument that humans are by default peaceful. The range of human behavior is clear through history. Peaceful societies tend not to last very long with regards to more aggressive groups or are disrupted and assimilated.

So far the basis for liberalism is wanting IMO.

 

[Bluto]

To add, it's always been intriguing to me the difficulties the conservative message has had with getting buy in from Latinos and southern African Americans, two of the most religious wings of the US population.

In terms of Latinos the overwhelming majority are of Mexican origin. Most of them live in the South West. The GOP napalmed that bridge by supporting large agribusiness (and the rather violent tactics they employed) in the 50's - 70's when the UFW was trying to organize farm workers. The crazy ass campaign adds by GOP candidates showing things like Latino gang bangers streaming across the boarder to terrorize America have only served to reinforce that original anti Mexican stance.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Commenting to remember this thread. A little busy right now, but I'd love to read more on this stuff. It's been a while since I've read any political philosophy.

I did see "This is water" as I was scrolling. That should also be required listening/reading for everyone.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'll not be following this closely --- too lazy and too cheap to buy books --- but I did read the Locke.

Locke as a pre-Darwin idealist has begun his deductions on a vision of "Man in the State of Nature" which is, sadly, wholly erroneous. As Darwin said correctly, in the state of nature there is an inevitable struggle for existence in response to which those individuals more fit to survive do survive [statistically]. Whereas individuals within a species featuring the imprinted instincts of herd animals MIGHT have some latent sense of a larger group, top predators [humans are so] will not. The concept that all men in the state of nature are manifestly equal, is just untrue.

Nevertheless Locke needs some basis for his political philosophy, so he assumes one which allows him to deduce a livable state with rules. And, since all such states are created in minds which want them, he can create anything that he feels people will agree to, whether based on fiction or not. So perhaps it doesn't matter that it's a philosophical house built on sand.

Locke's world is then created not as a moral or a scientific society, but as an ethical one. Its ethics aim at one prime value: protecting each man's property {there is an entire conundrum about what constitutes "ownership" and what actions ownership allows the owner to do, which is very limply addressed, yet vital.} More significantly however, Locke's deduced society is based upon the prime value of Individual Rights, and not on the society or any concept of the greater whole --- i.e., when push comes to shove, it is the individual looking after his own rights/property which takes primacy.

My point is, I suppose if I even have one, that you cannot get to anything remotely like an ideal society this way. --- whether you call it "liberal" or "conservative" {this philosophy while not "conserving" the status quo of Royalty and Power is certainly aiming at strongly conserving ones own stuff}, this kind of thing will never achieve the required mindstate of anything like a Christ-inspired Beatitudes-based community. Locke is focussed on the self; Christ is focussed on the Others. Locke is focussed on gathering to oneself; Christ is focussed on giving to something larger than oneself, and Loving doing so.

Locke, I suppose, did the best that he could, if one begins with the assumption that one cannot employ greater Spiritual insights, consciousness expansions, mystic "communions" to one's thinking. To put it another way, you can't get the necessary Spirituality by simply extracting from animal nature [even erroneously imagined].

 

[wizards8507]

My point is, I suppose if I even have one, that you cannot get to anything remotely like an ideal society this way. --- whether you call it "liberal" or "conservative" {this philosophy while not "conserving" the status quo of Royalty and Power is certainly aiming at strongly conserving ones own stuff}, this kind of thing will never achieve the required mindstate of anything like a Christ-inspired Beatitudes-based community. Locke is focussed on the self; Christ is focussed on the Others. Locke is focussed on gathering to oneself; Christ is focussed on giving to something larger than oneself, and Loving doing so.

A couple of disagreements here.

1. I don't know that it's Locke's point to get to an "ideal society." Individual rights are not a means to an end (i.e. the best path to an ideal society), they are an end unto themselves. As a creation of God, Adam (man) received his being and ownership thereof directly from the Almighty. This extends to ownership over one's body and one's labor, creating a prima facie right to liberty. This was a direct act of God and therefore cannot be compromised based on some pursuit of the "ideal society."

2. Considering Locke in total, he belief is not that man ought to gather to oneself, but rather, that he ought be allowed to do so. No, greed is not a virtue but neither is the prohibition of greed. If we are not free to sin, what value is there in any virtue whatsoever? Christ tells me and you to love others. He does not tell some central authority to force me and you to love others, since what love is there in that? In 2 Corinthians 9:7, Paul tells us that "Each one should give as much as he has decided on his own initiative, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." In other words, caritas comes from an exercise of our Lockean ownership over self, not from any compulsion by the State to pursue an ideal society.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

His idealist version of man is not very historically or anthropologically accurate.

That's a great way of putting it. A false anthropology.

Locke's world is then created not as a moral or a scientific society, but as an ethical one. Its ethics aim at one prime value: protecting each man's property {there is an entire conundrum about what constitutes "ownership" and what actions ownership allows the owner to do, which is very limply addressed, yet vital.}

The issue of Justice in Initial Appropriation remains a sticking point for strict libertarians. I wonder how far along the enclosure of the commons was by the time Locke was writing.

1. I don't know that it's Locke's point to get to an "ideal society." Individual rights are not a means to an end (i.e. the best path to an ideal society), they are an end unto themselves. As a creation of God, Adam (man) received his being and ownership thereof directly from the Almighty. This extends to ownership over one's body and one's labor, creating a prima facie right to liberty. This was a direct act of God and therefore cannot be compromised based on some pursuit of the "ideal society."

This idea of "self-ownership" was utterly foreign to mankind prior to Enlightenment philosophers like Locke. For the classical and early medieval philosophers, there was no autonomous self. Individuals were defined by the duties they owed to others (as a father, son, neighbor, citizen, etc.) and the duties others owed to them. Strip all those things away, and you might as well be talking about a ghost, because it's not recognizably human.

Put another way, what Locke is attempting to do by reverse engineering an individualistic "State of Nature" is akin to a biologist attempting to divine the ideal contours of hymenopteran society by studying a solitary honey bee.

In any case, it's a bridge too far to read liberal philosophy into the creation myth of Genesis. The ancient Jews had no such conception of self or society.

In other words, caritas comes from an exercise of our Lockean ownership over self, not from any compulsion by the State to pursue an ideal society.

That's a good point. Autonomy is necessary in order for individuals to be able to give of themselves freely. But the problem is that liberal political philosophy elevates autonomy as the summum bonum of human life, which ends up undermining community and estranging one from his neighbors. The fact that Locke tacked on a typically Anglican-- "Oh, but don't be a selfish assholes (even though my entire philosophy is premised on that fact)"-- doesn't do much to save it.

 

[irishog77]

That's a great way of putting it. A false anthropology.

I guess I'm not following Cack or you here. Didn't Locke believe these things to be non-existent, or at least inconsequential for man in Nature? Do y'all believe Locke to be wrong in his overall approach? Or do you believe him to be wrong in his interpretation of something he essentially didn't believe in?

 

[wizards8507]

That's a good point. Autonomy is necessary in order for individuals to be able to give of themselves freely. But the problem is that liberal political philosophy elevates autonomy as the summum bonum of human life.

That's not correct. Liberal political philosophy elevates autonomy as the summum bonum of political life, not human life, and that's an important difference. Liberal political philosophy says that wizards8507 should be free to hire a prostitute, tax free and unregulated, but wizards8507 is also a Catholic and his Catholic morality prohibits such behavior. Liberal political philosophy tells me what I should be allowed to do, not what I should do. I reject the notion that individuals would fail to band together and form thriving communities without state intervention.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I guess I'm not following Cack or you here. Didn't Locke believe these things to be non-existent, or at least inconsequential for man in Nature? Do y'all believe Locke to be wrong in his overall approach? Or do you believe him to be wrong in his interpretation of something he essentially didn't believe in?

See OMM's post above. Locke needed to ground his philosophy somehow, so he invented a fictitious"State of Nature" that isn't even remotely close to actual human anthropology. And even if it wasn't intended as an actual anthropology, its failure to account for man's essentially political nature--and instead asserting the primacy of the individual--has led to a lot of social pathologies we see in the West today.

That's not correct. Liberal political philosophy elevates autonomy as the summum bonum of political life, not human life, and that's an important difference.

As Aristotle said, "humans are by nature political animals", so there's no real distinction there. Our society is founded on a philosophy that assumes: (1) that humans are autonomous individuals whose social interactions are premised on consent; and (2) that the primary job of society is to secure property. No surprise then that people in the West are increasingly alienated from one another (since they're presumed not to owe any duties to one another), and that greed/ materialism prevails.

Liberal political philosophy says that wizards8507 should be free to hire a prostitute, tax free and unregulated, but wizards8507 is also a Catholic and his Catholic morality prohibits such behavior. Liberal political philosophy tells me what I should be allowed to do, not what I should do.

This is a loaded assertion, since it assumes a negative definition of liberty. If Locke was wrong about humans being primarily autonomous individuals, and about the nature of liberty or the proper ends of government, then we're a long way off from the ideal human society.

I reject the notion that individuals would fail to band together and form thriving communities without state intervention.

This is slightly off-topic, since the shriveling of American civil society is mostly due to the growth of government, but how many thriving communities do you see out there today?

 

[wizards8507]

This is slightly off-topic, since the shriveling of American civil society is mostly due to the growth of government, but how many thriving communities do you see out there today?

That's the whole point. It's counter intuitive but top-down structure is detrimental to community, not a necessary component thereof. Communities are most effectively built from the grassroots.

 

[Guest]

+1 for Whiskey's point about the need for improved quality of discourse. I'm sure he appreciates you proving his point.

Like how? No one needs a lecture on how to view politics. The very idea that people need guidance on how to form their world views is arrogance at it's finest. And this is not a political board, but a sports one. How does this have anything to do with the reason most of us come here to talk about the Irish football team?

 

[Guest]

I don't think you could have interpreted those two sentences in a less charitable way. We debate politics and philosophy on IE quite a bit, and I think everyone (myself included!) could benefit from a better understanding of political philosophy. But if this is the sort of attitude you plan to bring to this thread, kindly keep your bravely independent and free-thinking opinions to yourself. (And I'm the arrogant/ condescending one?)



Note that the course isn't "Republicans v. Democrats". But a clear-eyed patriot like yourself likely has little time for things like "theory"; you're much too busy building your bunker for when Russia and China nuke the US in order to "pillage our resources."

Ok lets reset. Liberalism, conventionally attributed to liberals (democrats) and conservatism, typically attributed to Republicans. Now you get my point.

I think you miss the big picture. The two party system in reality is a farce. Forget the rhetoric, look at the vote. This is one political party system run by the guys with the money. They all vote the same, and very few political candidates have the balls to challenge the establishment.

And no I am not building a bunker, but I do see Russia and China as a serious threat. I find it laughable that Americans think the current situation is perpetual. Every empire rises and falls, and typically it happens through war. This is the history of the world. But the arrogance of the current establishment, embodied through politics, is too daft to see that the end of the American empire is already being plotted and prepared for by the opposition.

Further, nuclear war has always been a threat, hence the duck and cover drills and mass hysteria after WWII. It seems that many here have dismissed the threat without doing their homework. The situation is quite different than it was 40 years ago. But then again most people in America are busy watching Batman and Robin on the tele and can't be bothered to understand the current situation with our enemies. Most would rather huddle under the comforting rhetoric of the political classes that are busy stealing the citizens blind and killing the middle class than worry about external threats that are waiting for the right time to pounce.

But go on and live in your dreamworld where nothing every changes. History has shown most people cannot predict or handle the inevitable change in power that has characterized human history as we know it. Those of us who study history and are able to see the warning signs are besmirched by the brain-dead population that would rather watch Ironman and revel in hero fantasy.

Lastly, I wanted to let you know that I just graduated with a Masters from a private military school. I am a civilian, but the school had one of the highest ranking national programs in information security, so I signed up. It was a fascinating program and I graduated with a 3.95 GPA. Part of the program was a residency on campus for a week with other students. Being a military school, most of the master's candidates were abroad, many serving in roles in the Middle East and in Africa. I learned quite a bit from our men and women serving internationally, and greatly respect their sacrifices.

Anyway, one of the features of the residency was attending classes from the various colleges in seminar format. I attended a great deal of the military and political subjects. One, in particular, pitted an American professor of war history against (politely of course) a European diplomat invited to campus to discuss our current 'situation'. What I gathered from the 90 minute discussion and student Q&A was that most thought we were on the brink of WWIII due to the massive similarities in the current world to the situation predating WWI and WWII. It was very eerie to see that those who study military history are basically on the same page as I was, having studied economic and political history for my own purposes. We all think war is close and inevitable. So do my classmates who are currently serving abroad and have a much closer view on things outside of our own 'bubble'.