Hi Kevin, On Dec 2, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote:
> Hi Kevin, > > On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote: >>> Yea, I can buy that but you jumped to the idea that community institutions >>> are necessarily government. When I read the piece my communitarian >>> sensibility was thinking the family, little league, churches, the Boys and >>> Girls Clubs, Cub Scouts, and also government schools. You seem to see a >>> larger role for government in the developmental landscape than I do. >>> >>> As an example of what I believe is wrong. Look at any place where there is >>> anomie. It is because the government supports and services have grown at >>> the expense of natural supports. >> >> Um, no. You also see it places like Somalia and post-Saddam Iraq, where >> government has broken down completely (unless you define anomie very >> strictly, just to avoid that comparison). >> >> This is what i refer to as the Libertarian Blind Spot -- they obsess over >> areas where there's too much government, but refuse to even admit there >> exist places with too little government. > Um, no - and why must you use a patronizing tone in your responses? I've > said several times that I am not a libertarian so why are you continuing to > place me in a box that I am not owning for myself? My apologies. You are right. First, you're right, I've been patronizing. I was wrong. I am sorry. Please forgive me. Second, you're right, I did jump over the civil society/government distinction. The key thing for me is actually "governance", which I see as a continuum running all the way from the family and local book clubs up to and including the federal government. Most libertarians deny the validity of such a continuum, which is why I was keenly interested in your response to that point in my questionnaire. Third, you're right, I have been assuming you share the key beliefs of libertarians, based on many of your comments. I hadn't realized that you formally disowned that association. I would welcome hearing what *your* critiques of Libertarian thought are. > I believe you are a progressive masquerading as some kind of centrist. > Jumping to a government solution from the Brooks story is an example of your > bias toward a government approach to building community. You seem to have a > blind spot. I agree that was a poor choice of words on my part. And yes, I do think of myself as a progressive, as well as a conservative, which is why I consider myself a centrist. I get the feeling you may be using the term "progressive" as a very specific form of pejorative, in a way that I don't quite understand. >> I don't think the government is modeling or nurturing much of anything these >> days. > > I completely agree that our current federal government is by-and-large > broken, as our most of our states. I also believe that our current > corporate/financial structure is largely broken. > > Um, no. It is not that government is broken. That is the progressive party > line. In the United States there have been too many failed centrally planned > efforts to make a better country and those efforts need to be unwound. > Government is trying to do too much and it needs to be shrunk. Your > progressive blindspot has you believing we are looking at a problem of > inefficiency when we are looking at a problem of ideology, intent, and > structure. Ah, okay, I see where I (in my attempts to fight the Libertarian strawman) gave you an incorrect impression of my beliefs. Let me clarify: I completely agree that: a) "we are looking at a problem of ideology, intent, and structure" b) Much of what government is doing today it should not do at all c) Much of what government does causes more harm than good d) We do not not need top-down central planning; we new bottom-up intellectual and cultural renewal Still on the same page? Where I think we part company is that I also believe: e) There are some critical things government should be doing it is not doing f) The purpose of government involves more than simply enforcing so-called "natural rights" g) A bottom-up renewal will *eventually* also require some top-down reforms Does that sound like a fair characterization? > This doesn't mean that *all* government is bad, any more than it means that > *all* corporations are evil. > > Of course not. Who ever said that? Straw man argument. Touché. But I read *your* line of argument as "Government is doing all these bad things, which is 'prima facie' evidence that government is fundamentally taking on responsibilities it should never take on." Do you really consider *that* a valid line of inference? Or did I miss your point completely? > Sure, I agree that any attempt to fix government is short-term in some sense > of the word; but as they say, in the long term we are all dead. There are no > perfect solutions that will work forever. But there are better solutions > that will work for quite a while. And they do NOT just happen > "spontaneously"; we have to invent them. That's what God put us on earth to > do. > > God did not put us on Earth to BE God, although you seem to be well on your > way. I half-agree. I believe we absolutely need to keep in mind that we are fallen, imperfect, self-deluding creatures, yet at the same time attempt to be God's hand and feet in the world. It is an uneasy tension. > I swear, sometimes Libertarians sound like a retread of Rousseau's noble > savage: if we only didn't have all the trappings of civilization, how wise > and noble people we would all be! > > Another straw man argument. Have you ever taken a logic course? Yes, though mostly computer logic. :-) Here's the logical argument I though you were making: 1. Government as it exists today is solving the wrong problems and mostly making things worse 2. If that government collapsed, those distorting influences would disappear 3. In that reduced state, people would be forced to grapple with fundamental natural rights 4. This would (via "spontaneous order") naturally lead to creating a superior form of government Is that not the argument you were making? If not, can you spell it out more clearly for me? Whether or not -you- believed that, can you see how *I* perceived (c) and (d) as implying something similar to Rouseau's noble savage theory? Thanks, -- Ernie P. P.S. Good use of constructive conflict! I appreciate having you around, and especially you calling me on the carpet when I fall short. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
