How a small band of determined legal academics set out to persuade the Supreme Court to undo the New Deal—and have almost won.
In case anyone was wondering why philosophy — or call it foundational studies if you think the term "philosophy" is outdated — is important.
As the article observes, Libertarianism is a form of conservatism. However, it is based on an assumption of self-sovereignty that is actually an extreme form of liberalism in that it prioitizes prioritizes individual freedom.
But how can a conservative position be liberal?
The answer lies in the paradoxes of liberalism. Economic liberalism leads to disparity of wealth and income and the de facto institution of social class and political power through economic means. This is anti-democratic, which Libertarian dismisses as the tyranny of the majority over the individual.
So Libertarianism leads to neo-feudalism of "capital" under economics liberalism unrestrained by social and political liberalism through democratic governance based on government of the people, by the people and for the people under popular sovereignty, a pillar of political liberalism.
Conservatism is about rule by most qualified, that is, the privileged few who rise to the top, on the assumption that this is chiefly due to merit when violence is taken off the table under the rule of law in which the basic law is self-autonomy and an absolute right to private property. Sociologists beg to differ.
Libertarians are correct however in arguing that America was founded as conservative country rather than a liberal one as the founding documents and the controversy around their composition and adoption reveal. Slavery was enshrined in the constitution, which is illiberal as it gets.
The American government is that of a republic rather than a popular democracy, which early debate reveals was designed to favor those who able to amass political power, which is typically a matter of wealth in societies in which violence is ruled out as a political tool. The design is to preclude "the rule of the rabble."
As the article observes, Libertarianism is a form of conservatism. However, it is based on an assumption of self-sovereignty that is actually an extreme form of liberalism in that it prioitizes prioritizes individual freedom.
But how can a conservative position be liberal?
The answer lies in the paradoxes of liberalism. Economic liberalism leads to disparity of wealth and income and the de facto institution of social class and political power through economic means. This is anti-democratic, which Libertarian dismisses as the tyranny of the majority over the individual.
So Libertarianism leads to neo-feudalism of "capital" under economics liberalism unrestrained by social and political liberalism through democratic governance based on government of the people, by the people and for the people under popular sovereignty, a pillar of political liberalism.
Conservatism is about rule by most qualified, that is, the privileged few who rise to the top, on the assumption that this is chiefly due to merit when violence is taken off the table under the rule of law in which the basic law is self-autonomy and an absolute right to private property. Sociologists beg to differ.
Libertarians are correct however in arguing that America was founded as conservative country rather than a liberal one as the founding documents and the controversy around their composition and adoption reveal. Slavery was enshrined in the constitution, which is illiberal as it gets.
The American government is that of a republic rather than a popular democracy, which early debate reveals was designed to favor those who able to amass political power, which is typically a matter of wealth in societies in which violence is ruled out as a political tool. The design is to preclude "the rule of the rabble."
The Rehabilitationists
Brian Beutler
8 comments:
I am getting tired of this false dichotomy of republic vs. democracy. True, the author qualifies democracy by saying "popular democracy", but that is so that he can feed the meme. By the 19th century, and probably earlier, Americans distinguished between aristocratic republics and democratic republics, and said that America was a democratic republic. When the constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states, it means a government of the people, not rule by a monarch, emperor, or what we later called a dictator. If any state instituted legislation by direct democracy, the Federal government would not interfere. When Lincoln spoke of government of the people and by the people he was talking about a democratic republic.
This pernicious ideology is not confined to America. Is it even unique to America?
It does not concern me why someone is a 'Rehabilitationist' or why they hold certain views. It is a given that their world view will be based on some sort of rationalization.
How does Rehabilitationism compare with Objectivism? I've heard that the latter does not qualify as a philosophy.
How does Rehabilitationism compare with Objectivism? I've heard that the latter does not qualify as a philosophy.
Rehabilitationism is based on Libertarianism, which has several versions. Some include Objectivism under Libertarianism as a category; other hold that it is different enough not be included.
These are indeed philosophies as explanatory and normative intellectual theories that are not scientific theories. I think that most trained in philosophy wouldn't rank them very high on the scale of intellectual endeavors historically. However they have been somewhat influential in the social, political and economic world. It remains to be seen how long this will persist and how far it will spread. It could well be that if globalization is successful under transnational capitalism, some version will become the rationale for the world order under it that maintains the privilege of wealth and the power and status wealth bestows, and keeps democracy in check.
All philosophies are rationalizations of approaches to life and ways of living that usually get generated ex post through reflection on existing conditions.
Sociologist Randall Collins explores this in The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, for example.
Marxism is an exception in that Marx formulated his work based on the assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to change the world. That it did, and it's not over yet.
When Lincoln spoke of government of the people and by the people he was talking about a democratic republic.
"Government of the people by the people, for the people" was a slogan. An elite was firmly entrenched in power in the republic. The US was still under slavery at the time of the Gettysburg Address in Nov 1963 since the Constitution was not amended until 1865, although the Emancipation Proclamation had already been issued as an executive order in January 1863. A women's suffrage amendment was not passed until 1920. Former slaves and their descendants were excluded from voting in the South de facto until the Civil rights era. Many descendants of slaves are still excluded through various means, often involving intimidation but also legal disenfranchisement.
What Americans call "conservatism" - at least of the economic variety - is what most other people in the world call "liberalism" or "classical liberalism". Anywhere in Europe, a pro-laissez faire or free market party would be called "the liberals".
But Americans evolved the confusing habit of calling social democracy or democratic socialism "liberalism". The New Deal was the triumph of a large set of ideas that originated within the socialist tradition. Any European Party that did the things FDR did would have been called the "socialists", or "social democrats" at least.
Why didn't Americans call it such and celebrate the triumph of these enlightened socialists ideas. Because after many decades of red scares, J. Edgar Hoover, Palmer raids, cold war communist paranoia and whatnot other purges and persecutions of the left, Americans were terrorized into avoiding anything with the words "socialist" or or even "social" in the name. So the stupid left goes into its political wars fighting classical liberalism with ... um ... something that is allegedly just more liberalism. That's why instead of saying they are for things like socialized medicine, the stupid American left is forced to use euphemisms like "single payer" and "single provider".
Of course, American classical liberals have had to adjust to the confusion by relabeling their own views "libertarianism".
The US needs a clearly labelled democratic socialist alternative to classical laissez faire liberalism, which is why the Sanders campaign is such a breath of fresh air.
Sanders may carry the label, but how will he interpret it?
More confusion is likely.
All philosophies are rationalizations of approaches to life and ways of living that usually get generated ex post through reflection on existing conditions.
Sociologist Randall Collins explores this in The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, for example.
Marxism is an exception in that Marx formulated his work based on the assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to change the world. That it did, and it's not over yet.
Marx reflected on the conditions of his time, and became a critic. Had he been a celebrant of capitalism, what would have changed?
"Conservatism" is the answer to when the anti-democracy people say "we cant trust the politicians" like the Petifor lady did when she disagreed with Bill in the Q&A when Bill proposed merging the CB into the Treasury and letting democracy work...
iow when they say, "how can we trust the elected officials?" the answer should be "we seat conservative ones..."
libertarians masquerading as conservatives are not conservatives...
Post a Comment