I was recently set thinking about some key issues of concern to me. I am still in the process of refining my thoughts as subsequent posts will hopefully testify but I felt that drafting an interim report, even though still slightly confused, would help move my thinking forwards.
Are we locked in a fight to the death?
Amy Chua’s book, World on Fire, remains evidence for me about one of the sources of violence within society.
There were two threads to her argument: one was capitalism, and the West’s over-eagerness to export it, as well as democracy, and the problems which arise from forcing the pace of its implementation. Capitalism alone, some suggest, can make possible the rising standards of living that will in themselves reduce violence. Unfortunately, almost all statements which include ‘always,’ ‘never,’ ‘only’ and the like are automatically suspect. Amy Chua’s book strongly suggests that fast tracking a sawn-off version of capitalism in any country, especially when this is combined with a fledgling democracy which allows a previously oppressed minority to gain power, is a blueprint for disaster. The Phillipines, the country of her birth, spurred her to research this phenomenon more widely. She pins down the core of her concern early in her book (page 14):
It is striking to note that at no point in history did any Western nation ever implement laissez-faire capitalism and overnight universal suffrage at the same time – the precise formula of free-market democracy currently being pressed on developing countries around the world.
In the West capitalism and democracy in their present forms both evolved slowly over long periods of time. They cannot be parachuted from outside into an unprepared culture.
I have been influenced greatly by Michael Karlberg’s book – Beyond the Culture of Contest – which raises serious questions about a society like ours that is founded historically on:
- competition in politics, when the urgent and critical need now is to achieve consensus across all divisions of opinion in certain areas;
- adversarialism in the court room, where truth is less important than winning; and
- hyper-competition in the market place, where the need for profit and the desire to consume find their perfectly destructive match.
He does not argue that these can be replaced overnight, even though the need to do so is becoming increasingly urgent.
Which brings me onto the third point.
While I am sympathetic to those who argue that these problems are neither new nor necessarily worse, and even to those rational optimists who believe that the statistics prove that most of us have never been safer or healthier, I am attracted by the credibility of Jeremy Rifkin’s case, to give just one example, in his book, The Empathic Civilisation – where he argues that our strong empathic tendency has enabled us to build ever larger civilisations and the current version is globally interconnected. He writes (page 44):
The tragic flaw of history is that our increased empathic concern and sensitivity grows in direct proportion to the wreaking of greater entropic damage to the world we all cohabit and rely on for our existence and perpetuation.
In short, in history our separate civilisations have all too often got too big to sustain themselves and thereafter collapsed. In the past, that has been tragic but not catastrophic, in that there have always been other parts of the world totally unaffected by the crash. Not so now, possibly, when we have a virtually single civilisation planet-wide. If one part goes down we probably all do. I will be returning to his thesis in more detail in a later sequence of posts.
In that respect, as well perhaps as in others, our situation is therefore not exactly the same as it has always been, and our degree of interconnectedness potentiates the impact of destructive processes in a way that lifts them to a higher level, a difference of degree only perhaps, or possibly renders them of a different quality, i.e. different in kind.
Ken Wilber’s book, A Theory of Everything, which I will be reviewing in the next sequence of posts, points to another key factor i.e. the access those with narrow and hostile views now have to destructive high level technology. This is a fear that Jeremy Rifkin also shares in his panoramic survey The Empathic Civilisation to which I shall also be returning (page 487):
Weapons of mass destruction, once the preserve of elites, are becoming more democratised with each passing day. A growing number of security experts believe that it is no longer even possible to keep weapons of mass destruction locked up and out of the hands of rogue governments, terrorist groups, or just deranged individuals.
Nor are these the only perspectives on our tendency to violence and how to remedy it. Being oppressed is no guarantee that I will not be an oppressor in my turn if I get the chance. That was clear right from the French Revolution (See Michael Burleigh‘s ‘Earthly Powers‘) and nothing that has happened since causes me to think that anything is different now. Following on from the possibly flawed but none the less illuminating Milgram studies of obedience, Philip Zimbardo looks at the disturbing way group and organisational processes foster evil doing and explains ways of effectively counteracting that (‘The Lucifer Effect‘).
Jonathan Haidt in his humane and compassionate book ‘The Happiness Hypothesis‘ indicates that, in his view, idealism has caused more violence in human history than almost any other single thing (page 75).
The two biggest causes of evil are two that we think are good, and that we try to encourage in our children: high self-esteem and moral idealism. . . . Threatened self-esteem accounts for a large portion of violence at the individual level, but to really get a mass atrocity going you need idealism — the belief that your violence is a means to a moral end.
Richard Holloway sees it much the same way:
More misery and disillusionment has been visited on humanity by its search for the perfect society and the perfect faith than by any other cause.
(‘Between the Monster and the Saint‘: page 136)
Both Haidt and Holloway emphasise that not all such ideals are by any means religious. Haidt, for instance, also quotes the attempt to create utopias as well as the defence of the homeland or tribe as frequently implicated. Also, when Hitler’s probably narcissistic self-esteem successfully cloaked itself in the rhetoric of idealistic nationalism, mixed with scapegoating anti-semitism, we all know what happened next: narcissism and idealism make a highly toxic and devastatingly deadly combination.
What Haidt regards as central is this:
Idealism easily becomes dangerous because it brings with it . . . the belief that the ends justify the means.
Marc Hauser‘s examination of morality, ‘Moral Minds,’ comes at the issue primarily from a developmental angle, and he emphasises the power of labelling and disgust to remove inhibitions against genocide. I don’t think his argument here has been undermined by evidence that his own moral life in an unrelated aspect was not entirely exemplary. He explains (page 199):
Disgust wins the award as the single most irresponsible emotion, a feeling that has led to extreme in-group-out-group divisions followed by inhumane treatment. Disgust’s trick is simple: declare those you don’t like to be vermin or parasites, and it is easy to think of them as disgusting, deserving of exclusion, dismissal, and annihilation. All horrific cases of human abuse entail this kind of transformation, from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib.
I don’t think any of us, expert or otherwise, can claim to have a clear, complete and valid picture yet. In my view, though a layman in terms of my mastery of the complex evidence involved, it seems that we can either learn to sink our differences to a degree that will transform our culture, or else stick with our current patterns and sink without trace under our differences.
Is Capitalism really the answer?
There is clearly quite a lot depending upon which model of the way the world works the majority of humanity accepts – one model which accepts the inevitability of competition, the other which holds out hope for the probability of co-operation.
Evolutionary theory, when it has taken a psychological turn recently, accepts that humanity has a dual potential in that respect and, according to Michael McCullough, we can move beyond revenge towards forgiveness and cooperation, just as Robert Wright can legitimately argue that, throughout human history, we have proved ourselves capable of widening our sense of identity beyond the family or tribe to include ever more disparate and distant groups of people.
Economic theory is not my specialism. I do have a view though about its overall validity. For me, the problem with economics, as with any other social science such as psychology, my own discipline, is that it only goes as far as to provide a lens of our own, albeit systematic creation through which to observe and understand ourselves – a very tricky process whose conclusions have to be approached with extreme caution.
For example, what a convinced capitalist says reads well within its own assumptions, as does what I write to me of course. What he describes may apply if we accept the same premises and assumptions especially concerning human nature and the consequent social dynamics. For instance, one might argue that nothing does more to reduce violence and many other social ills than the rising standards of living that capitalism alone makes possible.
While I accept that capitalism has brought many benefits, as has liberal democracy, it seems to me that such optimism is missing a crucial point. It is not ‘rising standards of living’ that are necessarily the main issue but the rising inequality which unrestricted capitalism seems inevitably to produce, with all the socially destructive consequences this brings in its wake. Hardly a rationally desirable outcome, it seems to me, and certainly not a morally desirable one. I have already posted a review of The Spirit Level so I won’t rehearse those points again here.
Also, as John Fitgerald Medina pointed out in his book, Faith, Physics and Psychology (page 238):
Economic theory does not allow economists to make distinctions between renewable resources and non-renewable resources.
In a 2012 BBC4 documentary – Surviving Progress – David Suzuki indicated that this defect is at the core of economics, which he describes not as a ‘science’ but as ‘a set of values.’ He contemptuously refers to its dismissive description of natural resources as ‘externalities’ as ‘a form of brain damage.’ The sense of urgency in this recent programme suggests that any remedy to the current model of economics, so kind to short-term profits, has some way to go before it gains widespread and effective acceptance. It is not clear whether we have that much time before disaster strikes.
There is a need to dig a bit deeper though, and I plan to do so in the follow up post next week.
Many thanks for pulling all these different sources and thoughts together in a most illuminating way.
May I suggest two more titles that could be helpful here:
‘Mankind’s Last Chance: Healing for a Broken World’, by Richard Poole (Wiinchester: O-Books, 2013)
’23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism’, by Ha-Joon Chang (London: Allen Lane, 2010)
Both are available for Kindle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks, Barney. I’m part way through Richard’s book which I was reading with interest until I got derailed by Medina’s even more fascinating ‘Faith, Physics & Psychology.’ I am planning to return to ‘Mankind’s Last Chance.’ The second one I hadn’t heard of and will certainly take a look.
P.S. For those wishing to avoid Amazon it’s also available on iBooks for £6.99 UK. For those wishing to avoid Apple as well I’m out of soft-copy ideas! There’s only the old-fashioned book, of the kind that are bending my shelves.
LikeLike
Competition free models of all three areas you gave examples in were tried in the past and all failed horribly.
Abolish competition in the marketplace? A command style economy like in the Soviet Union and North Korea is extremely totalitarian and disrespectful of individual agency.
Abolish competition in the courts? The Inquistions where the prosecuting side basically persecuted the accused with torutre until the person confessed or eventually died from all the torture.
Abolish completions in politics? All forms of absolutism, despotism, dictatorship, and tyranny are examples of politics without competition because all alternatives to the current regime are banned. They are all lack popular sovereignty and representation of the will of the people.
Anti capitalism aka yellow baiting (since yellow is the color of classical liberalism/libertarianism, blue is for conservatism, red is for socialism/communism, brown is for fascism, and black is for anarchism) lacks constructive aspects because like anti communism or red baiting (again color scheme of politics) they criticize why a model is bad rather than specific why a specific model other than the criticized model is good.
Also, how would the alternative to capitalism and liberal democracy do all the things that they do? How will the right of every voice to be heard protected? How will freedom of thought be protected? How will human rights be protected? How will the people have self determination? How will everyone have the right to prove their innocence or prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? How will each individual have agency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Values_Survey
The World Values Survey places each country in the world on a graph with survival versus self expression as well as tradition versus secularism/reason.
Also, I’d recommend the following as well:
The Meaning of Is: The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton by Bob Barr
Lessons in Liberty by Bob Barr
Introduction to the Libertarian Party: For Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and Everyone Else by Wes Benedict
Libertarianism by David Boaz
The Libertarian Reader: Classic & Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman by David Boaz
Toward Liberty: The Idea that Is Changing the World by David Boaz
The Politics of Freedom: Taking On the Left, the Right, and Threats to Our Liberties by David Boaz
Cato Handbook for Policymakers by David Boaz
Why Government Doesn’t Work: Huge Tax Cuts Now! Huge Spending Cuts Now! A Balanced Budget Now! by Harry Browne
Liberty A to Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now! by Harry Browne
Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion: Discusing the keys to opening people’s hearts and minds to liberty by Michael Cloud
Unlocking More Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion by Michael Cloud
Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post Cold War by Ivan Eland
Recharging Rushmore: Rethining the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty by Ivan Eland
The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed by Ivan Eland
Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy from Iraq by Ivan Eland
Libertarianism: A Political Philsophy for Tommorow by John Hospers
Libertarians in One Lesson: Why libertarianism is the best hope for
America’s future by John Hospers
Seven Principkes of Good Government: Liberty, People, and Politics by Gary Johnson
Antidumping Exposed: The Devilish Details of Unfair Trade Law by Brink Lindsey and Daniel J. Ikenson
Against the Dead Hand: The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism by Brink Lindsey
The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed Americ’s Politics and Culture by Brink Lindsey
The Declaration of Indpendents: How Libertarians Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong With America by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch
Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice by Thomas G. Palmer
The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won’t Tell You by Thomas G. Palmer
After the Welfare State: Politicians Stole Your Future… … You Can Get It Back by Thomas G. Palmer
Why Liberty: Your Life Your Choices Your Future by Thomas G. Palmer
Pillars of Proseprity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property by Ron Paul
The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission by Ron Paul
The Revoluion: An Manifesto by Ron Paul
End the Fed by Ron Paul
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul
The School Revolution: A New Answer for Our Broken Educational System by Ron Paul
Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism by Charles Peña
The Future and Its Enemies by Virginia Postrel
The Substance of Style by Virignia Postrel
Are We Good Enough for Liberty? by Lawrence W. Reed
The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling, Gold, & Tax Cuts by Wayne Allyn Root
The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide: How to Survive, Thrive, and Prosper in the Obamageddon! by Wayne Allyn Root
The Murder of the Middle Class: How to Save Yourself and Your Family from the Criminal Conspiracy of the Century by Wayne Allyn Root
Libertarian Short Answers to the Tough Questions by Mary J. Ruwart
Healing Our World in an Age of Agression by Mary J. Ruwart
LikeLike
Many thanks for the reading list. I will be winnowing it on the basis of available reviews as I think I may be too old now to have the time to read them all.
Also I am holding back on your questions as I am sure that you are aware that they are point-scoring oversimplifications which ignore the idea of replacing competition with the kind of collaboration conspicuously missing in all the counter examples you cite. I suggest you read Karlberg’s book as a start if you really want to explore his point of view more deeply.
I am working on a long series of posts, parts of which will raise further issues but may also go some way to indicate how much more complicated the situation is than your immediate response suggests. The posts to follow will have to serve as my answer for the time being.
LikeLike
I do have quotes from Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz.
“We need limited government to usher in an unlimited future.” Page 5 Chapter 1 The Coming Libertarian Age
“No, a libertarian world won’t be a perfect one. There will still be inequality, poverty, crime, corruption, man’s inhumanity to man. But unlike the theocratic visionaries, the pie-in-the-sky socialist utopians, the starry-eyed Mr. Fixits of the New Deal and Great Society, libertarians don’t promise a rose garden. Karl Poppoer once said that attempts to create heaven on earth inevitable produce hell. Libertarianism holds out the goal not of a perfect society but of a better and freer one. It promises a world in which more of the deicision will be made in the right way by the right person: you. The result will not be an end to crime and poverty and inequality but less – often much less – of most of these things most of the time.” Page 26 Chapter 1 The Coming Libertarian Age
I took notes in this book and several other books over a long period of time. I started with Eight Ways to Run the Country by Brain Patrick Mitchell and then spread out to authors references by him in the book as well as others that were likewise referenced in those books as well. I only quoted from the first chapter of the above book, but have more quotes for later inquiry.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that you focus only on our areas of disagreement rather than including those points about which we agree. For example, my post includes the exact point you are sharing from Boaz against my alleged position:
‘Jonathan Haidt in his humane and compassionate book ‘The Happiness Hypothesis‘ indicates that, in his view, idealism has caused more violence in human history than almost any other single thing (page 75).
‘”The two biggest causes of evil are two that we think are good, and that we try to encourage in our children: high self-esteem and moral idealism. . . . Threatened self-esteem accounts for a large portion of violence at the individual level, but to really get a mass atrocity going you need idealism — the belief that your violence is a means to a moral end.”
‘Richard Holloway sees it much the same way:
“More misery and disillusionment has been visited on humanity by its search for the perfect society and the perfect faith than by any other cause.”
(‘Between the Monster and the Saint‘: page 136)’
For me, what would be far more fruitful is putting our heads together to work out how best to move forward in the light of the better understanding that would come from lifting our viewpoints above what divides us, rather than locking our horns and exhausting ourselves.
LikeLike
Pete, can you specify our area of agreement, in case we agree in more than what has been said earlier?
“Libertarianism is a Poltical philosophy, not a complete moral code. It prescribes certain minimal rules for living together in a peaceful productive society – property, contract, and freedom – and leaves further moral teaching to civil society.” Page 231 Chapter 10 Contemporary Issues
“Thus, on either approach, libertarians believe the role of government is not to impose a particular morality but to establish a framework of rules that will guarantee each individual the freedom to pursue his own good in his own way – whether individually or in cooperation with others – so lone as he does not infringe the freedom of others.” Page 106 Chapter 5 Pluaralism and
Toleration
“For libertarians, the basic unit of social analysis is the individual. It’s hard to imagine how it could be anything else. Indivudal are, in all cases, the source and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. Only individuals can think, love, pursue projecsts, act. Groups don’t have plans or intentions. Only indivudals are capable of choice, in the sense of anticipating the outcomes of alternative courses of acti n and weighing the consequences. Indivudals, of course, often create and deliberate in groups, but it is the individual mind that ultimately makes choices. Most importantly, only individuals take responsibility for their actions.” Page 95 Chapter 4 The Dignity of the Individual
Those are just a few more good quotes. There are others I don’t feel like quoting because they are too many throughout the book and to get you to read the book. There are mentions of voluntary mutual aid organizations and other NGOs as good examples of cooperation.
There is also the issue of micronstions. It’s not brought up speicically in any of the the books I mentioned in the list or the one book I quoted, but it is compatible with the ideas in them. Micronstions are tiny start up countries individuals and groups have started as alternatives to the 220 something nation states there are in the world. Forvik, Hutt River, Sealand, and Seborga are some of the best examples of ones that have achieved some measure of success. There are dozens of other micronstions, but they haven’t done as much as those four have.
Back to within nation states, since we both live in one whether the United States of America or the United Kingdom. Nation states are more difficult due to their size and complexity. I’d prefer that micronstions were a more viable option though. Anyways, I’d love to find out about your government free cooperation ideas like the coop movement or Pierre Joseph Proudhon’s Mutualism idea for examples. There are also various non profit organizations that exist as well.
Chapters of the book I quoted (Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz)
1 The Coming Libertarian Age
2 The Roots of Libertarianism
3 What Righs Do We Have?
4 The Dignity of the Inidividual
5 Pluralism and Toleration
6 Law and the Constitution
7 Civil Society
8 The Market Process
9 What Big Government Is All About
10 Contemporary Issues
11 The Obsolete State
12 The Libertarian Future
Specific more example of agreement given the more quotes would be helpful as well.
I know I may be speaking too much about micronstions, but they are probably one of the best ideas I have come across ever. I own a noble title of Count and various clothes, pens, and shirts I bought from the Principality of Sealand store. The website Sealand Gov Dot Org is the web presence and an abandoned sea fort of the coast of England is the physical location. I’m also curious about how much about it is common knowledge among Brits or is it speacialized? There is also the Principality of Seborga in Italy near the border with France and the Principality of Hutt River in Australia. Forvik Sovereign State is in the Shetland Islands in Scotland as well, but I know the least about that one.
There is also the Free State Project (New Hampshire), Free State Wyoming (Wyoming), and Free West Alliance (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) which are relocation movements in America to relocate people to those freer state in America for people who love freedom. It’s not a micronstions or seperation, but a unique usage of America’s federal system.
I could give specific info, but I feel it may be a little to America specific, so I would like you to give me more info on the United Kingdom as well. I also do have specific issues I read up on like LGBT rights, drugs, tax reform like the Fair Tax, imigration reform, etc. My issue number one would definitely be limited government like in the quote I gave posts earlier. I can’t remeber the quotes exactly or remeber where to find them. Gandhi once said something to the effect that the State by its very nature is violence, born of violence, and lives by the same violence. Max Stirner said something to the effect that the State calls the violence of the individual crime, but calls its own violence law. The State as an institution has been the biggest cause of violence the world has ever known. I wish I could find the quotes rather than having to give paraphrases from my incomplete memory of what they said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Stephen, for this comment. It has helped clarify your perspective for me.
Some of what you ask I’m not in a good position to respond to. I’m thinking about micronations in particular. What I will do is contact some friends who might know more and come back to you on that at a later date.
My take on things is influenced by my areas of expertise – literature and psychology basically – so I don’t regard myself as well informed about political and economic systems per se, except in so far as they are commented on within a psychology context.
This means also that the rest of what I am going to say may seem to be coming from a strange angle from your point of view, but please bear with me, as I think it may be illuminating.
I need to start from the general and work towards the particular.
I feel that we both may have been blinded to our common ground by the fog of our differences and may therefore not have fully unpacked in our exchanges where we can each help the other enhance the models we use without necessarily abandoning them.
I think one area where differences have seemed most salient is on the question of the individual, society and the state. Your approach values the individual almost exclusively. Mine doesn’t. I think you may have concluded from this, that I value the collective absolutely over the individual. I don’t. What is required is a proper balance which protects and fosters the individual while also giving appropriate respect to the collective, whether that be a local secular or religious community, a region, the state, or even in the end the United Nations (or a subsequent more developed World Government with restricted but essential peace keeping and environmental protective powers).
I cannot find the exact quote I want on this issue: that will have to wait till I have more time. This is the closest I could get: it’s from The Prosperity of Human Kind:
‘Because the relationship between the individual and society is a reciprocal one, the transformation now required must occur simultaneously within human consciousness and the structure of social institutions.’
Many years ago I was intrigued by a book by Richard Schweder – ‘Thinking through Cultures.’ I will be referring briefly to it in a subsequent post. For present purposes its interest lies mainly in what his research revealed about the difference in perspective between the Indian and American cultures. In America, individualism trumps any form of collective, possibly even the family, whereas in India the collective reigns supreme. To simplify one of his points somewhat, in terms of a favourite and acceptable science, America idolizes psychology, with its main focus on the individual, whereas India deifies sociology, because it looks at the collective.
I think a closer inspection might reveal that I value the individual more than you think I do. I also realize, from what you have just written that the individual is not given completely free reign, and is not so unbridled as to be able to create havoc or cause harm.
The fog lifted slightly and a patch of common ground seemed to become visible, which might be worth our exploring further together.
I think another source of difficulty for me is that I do not dwell in a land of absolutes and certainties and the language your perspective is conveyed in creates a problem for me sometimes, so I perhaps fail to grasp the underlying meaning. An example would be this paragraph you quote:
“Only individuals can think, love, pursue projects, act. Groups don’t have plans or intentions. Only individuals are capable of choice, in the sense of anticipating the outcomes of alternative courses of action and weighing the consequences. individuals, of course, often create and deliberate in groups, but it is the individual mind that ultimately makes choices. Most importantly, only individuals take responsibility for their actions.”
It is the word ‘only’ that creates the main barrier.
I of course accept that individuals do all the things you describe, so there is a basic agreement there, but it can so easily be negated by my quibbling with the word ‘only.’ Because I believe there has to be a balance between the individual and society, and on the holistic model society cannot be reduced to its elements anymore than consciousness can in my view be reduced to the neurons that enable it, we have to give each its due. Groups can have plans and, under the right conditions, can create plans that are more effective than any individual alone could devise. The chief danger of groups is groupthink and its offspring tribalism, so I am not idolizing them – merely suggesting that they are no more a demon than an individual is, and have their place in the overall scheme of things.
The right conditions include the inalienable right of all individuals to speak their mind clearly and straightforwardly. Without such divergence of views being encouraged, not simply permitted, blind conformity would rule. All individuals have the inalienable right to investigate truth for themselves, but closer approximations to the truth tend to come from collective endeavours. The progress of science testifies to this even though some individuals of genius, taken out of context, seem to suggest the opposite.
So, I do value the individual, though perhaps not as much as you would like.
And also, you value collective control although not perhaps as much as I would like. These two quotes you adduce testify to that:
“Libertarianism is a Political philosophy, not a complete moral code. It prescribes certain minimal rules for living together in a peaceful productive society – property, contract, and freedom – and leaves further moral teaching to civil society.” (Page 231 Chapter 10 Contemporary Issues)
“Thus, on either approach, libertarians believe the role of government is not to impose a particular morality but to establish a framework of rules that will guarantee each individual the freedom to pursue his own good in his own way – whether individually or in cooperation with others – so long as he does not infringe the freedom of others.” (Page 106 Chapter 5 Pluralism and Toleration)
There is much there I can subscribe to. I do not believe any more than you do with imposing morality. In fact, morality cannot be imposed. Only a reluctant conformity to someone else’s values. I agree that human behaviour has to be constrained to prevent harm.
Where my scepticism creeps in is that, although you believe this model does not impose morality, it really is not value free. Rules can be a disguise, a Trojan horse if you like, to sneak morals into our lives by stealth. For example, the degree of protection you would give, I suspect, to someone who wants to increase their profits and pay less tax, would be far greater than that which I would wish to grant. This is because you value our economic system more than I do. I regard this system as operating on a moral base I do not share with practical outcomes I frequently abhor. However, many regard it, if not as the natural order, as the only possible one to guide the conduct of our complex civilization. That is not a moral-free judgement though.
Even if I have attributed a view to you that you do not hold, please treat this as an example of what I am trying to say that will hold in other areas. I will be returning to this theme later on my blog so going into more detail now would be superfluous.
In terms of evaluating the worldview I have chosen to adopt and seek to understand more fully, it is important to distinguish doctrine from process. I am sure that the vast majority of people in the world at present would find it impossible to sign up to many items of Bahá’í doctrine. You are not alone in that. I would similarly find it impossible, for some of the reasons I have just adduced, to sign up to your worldview. That does not mean that your perspective has no value for me or vice versa.
Which is where I come to Bahá’í process.
In any earlier comment you asked what you my world would look like in terms of a host of variables. I cannot predict that because my world will be something that is created organically not mechanically by us all responding as best we can to the challenges of the time. It is not something Bahá’ís could, or would ever want to impose, no matter how you selectively interpret our doctrine from the outside to suggest the opposite.
We do though have suggestions that in my view would be valuable for the world at large to explore regardless of what anyone might think of particular doctrines.
I will be looking in more detail at some aspects of these in the next three posts coming out this week. For now I’ll short hand it be saying that our voting system, administrative structure and consultative process are three elements of more general value.
They are not of value only within a Bahá’í community and they cannot threaten any aspect of our current political system, in my view, other than sectarian, divisive and ultimately destructive interests. I accept that they will not be translatable overnight into the wider world, anymore than capitalism or liberal democracy can be exported into unprepared environments for the reasons Chua gives (sorry to mention her again – I realise she is a bit of a red rag for you although it’s not the colour but the movement apparently that triggers the bull’s reaction). They need time.
People need to experiment with what makes sense to them and then adapt it in the light of their experience. As I have explained elsewhere on this blog this pragmatic approach is very much part of the Bahá’í model. We need to read our reality, try something new if something’s not working for us, see if it works better then, and change it once more if need be. It’s very much the new paradigms in human research model, described in Peter Reason’s book and which I have also referred to elsewhere. Consultation as group reflection and the comparing of notes is an essential part of this process. Reason writes:
“. . [T]he practice of co-operative inquiry requires skills which are in short supply in our world today -particularly the skills of working in genuine collaboration on a complex task with a group of peers; of managing the anxiety which arises as we genuinely examine our world and our practice; of paying critical attention to our experience as we act in our world. All these skills are important; the last calls for a subtle rigour of consciousness which is particularly unusual. . . . These skills can only be learned through doing.
(From The Co-operative Inquiry Group in Human Inquiry in Action, page 19)”
I accept that the idea of electing people to committees etc and important positions by other means than nominations and/or party membership would be a huge step in many places and requires that the electorate have the time, access and motivation to get to know the other members well enough not to need a manifesto in order to decide. Most organisations are decades away from that as yet, just as humanity as a whole is centuries away from solving all the problems that currently beset us.
I hope that helps answer some of your points. I’ve run out of time now, I’m afraid, and must stop.
LikeLike