Re: Stuff Just Happens
The Libertarian perspective seems to be things “just are,” “stuff just happens,” and civilization “just is.” In moral value, as opposed to economic value, so long as the people at large are availed wide latitude for socially libertine activities, Libertarians suppose that there is little difference in the “civilization” of (1) a democratic republic that is inviting of assimilable immigrants (America), versus (2) a racially insular society (Japan), versus (3) a despotic society (China), versus (4) a trading society that buffers more gigantic national neighbors (Singapore, which is ranked “partly free” by Freedom House).
For Libertarians, it appears there is no natural principle that justifies “just is” for governmental intrusion (even though, obviously, governmental intrusion occurs within Nature). Rather, the only over-arching, moral principle of Nature appears to be “don’t harm and otherwise don’t interfere.” Well, then, does this universal principle also apply to children, adolescents, and the physically and mentally handicapped? Apart from “don’t harm,” there appears to be little in the Libertarian philosophy by way of affirmative duty to God, Country, or Family. Rather, a sort of Invisible Hand is supposed to sustain civilization, wealth, decency, ... indeed, all of natural society.
Although the fundamental difference in the supernatural nature of the faith of Libertarians versus Christians seems not as substantial as may commonly be noticed, there is reflected a difference in actions and concerns. A Libertarian, once rationalizing his proclivities, feels little need to put flesh on his duties, little need to consult parables and traditions of old, and little need to commune in respect of any actively reconciling higher guidance. Rather, he tends to prefer a new logos, ungrounded and freed from all traditions and parables of yesteryear, viewing communications in respect of yesteryear as being retrograde, silly, counterproductive to the pursuit of pleasure and profit, or worse.
For a Libertarian, God tends to be less than air, merely an imaginary spaghetti monster. Yet, he takes it on faith that a principle of “don’t harm” somehow still abides, unifies, and permeates the universe.
Conveniently, a Libertarian's “moral faith” in this Flying Universal Principle (FUP) avails him mainly to do as he otherwise wilt. Thus, he would earnestly admonish Americans to follow, lest dreaded social conservatives should somehow play into the hands of those who are ripping the flesh from America's economy ... as if the unraveling before our eyes of decently assimilable and sustainable mores had nothing whatsoever to do with our economic plight.
Does not the view by Libertarians seem Unbalanced? Libertarians profess a Heavy “right,” under some kind of supernatural, pagan, law of nature, not to be subjected by others to harm, but only a Light duty, which is not affirmatively to harm others (sort of like the anti-good-Samaritan last episode of Seinfeld). This proclivity among Libertarians, at least in what they profess, is readily noticed by those whose empathies rather put pursuit of happiness for their families on at least an equal plane with happiness for themselves.
Does it really appear that a Libertarian philosophy of “things just are” offers anything of meaning to the sustenance of decent civilization? Does it not rather appear that such philosophy is simply a supernatural justification for “do as thou wilt,” offered up by those who have not yet accepted familial or social responsibilities or apprehended how beholden they are in their faith system to that which is supernatural (i.e., beyond merely substantive or empirical formalization)? Or is “don’t harm” supposed to be some kind of universal, science-based value, which is accepted by every human, animal, and vegetable?
Whatever the Source of empathetic moral sentiments, it seems to be one-of-a-kind, and not reducible, explicable, or approachable in measurement, science, or wishfully libertine notions. What tends to be stubbornly resisted and under-appreciated by faux "scientific moralists" is that the Source is obviously, based on "inside information," approachable in a quality of communal good faith.
Why is this important? Notice how Libertine Libertarians fairly shout at social conservatives not to allow concerns about mores to grease the way to re-electing Libertine Liberals, while then acting offended when social conservatives point out that the slide in decent mores obviously has much to do with the economic crisis that Libertarians feign to wish to save us from. Is not the rampant unraveling of mores as obvious as it is poisonous to our economy? What is the opportunity COST that necessarily drains us and accompanies our society's rates of: loss of respect for higher and assimilable values; celebration of drug use and flamboyant lifestyles (White House promotion of "Common"); disrespect for the institution of marriage; divorce; single parent families; abortion; feelings of entitlement; resentments against country; and rush to sell out family and country?
From A.T. --- If I recall correctly, a Libertarian had previously commented in order to listas an example of a civilization that does not rely on religion to assist in assimilating itself.
Interestingly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Singapore, “The Government has banned the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church. The Government does not tolerate speech or actions that it deems could adversely affect racial or religious harmony.” “According to a 2000 government survey, 85 percent of citizens and permanent residents profess some religious faith. Of this group, 51 percent practice Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor worship, or other religious practice traditionally associated with the ethnic Chinese population. Approximately 15 percent of the population is Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and 4 percent Hindu. The remainder is composed of atheists, agnostics, and adherents of other religions including small Sikh, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Jain communities.” “The Government plays an active but limited role in religious affairs. For example, the Government seeks to ensure that citizens, most of whom live in government-built housing, have ready access to religious organizations traditionally associated with their ethnic groups by helping such institutions find space in these housing complexes.”
Question: Precisely how does this suggest that Singapore preserves its civilization without reference to religion, or to a core of assimilable values?
REGARDING "THINGS JUST ARE": To moralize that “things just are” is to conceptualize that our guiding mores are ephemeral derivatives of derivatives, manifestations in respect of epiphenomena, not representatives of any high principle, not expressions of feedback of a Reconciling Consciousness, but merely accidental accompaniments of whatever may abide as Inanimate Originating Cause, not partaking of any lasting reality, but subject to the evolving, phasing shifts of sand. Our mores are not quite real; rather, they “just are.” Our Creator came and went, is no longer interested in us, we need not be interested in our Creator, and, apart from ephemeral interests that “just are,” we have no reason to be interested in the well being or feedback of one another. On this head, the Libertarian would rationalize and celebrate immediate gratification so far around the bend as to turn it into self-defeating faith and prophecy. On this “foundation” of base consciousness, the Libertarian expects he should establish a lasting and decent civilization. Lol!
Like language, a culture’s fables, myths, parables, and figures of speech have much to do with how it, as an assimilated society, helps its citizens communicate unfolding concerns in light of shared traditions, values, and aspirations. It would make little less sense for an American to adopt Standard Hindi as his language to communicate with his neighbors than it would for him to adopt Hinduism to try to communicate his everyday moral concerns. Each of us needs to communicate with neighbors in respect of a prevailing, assimilated culture. It does little service to jettison our language and shared parables in trade for generalized moral formulae that have little to do with everyday flesh and blood decisions, but much to do with simply rationalizing whatever each proponent wishes to justify ... which is much the same as having no moral code at all. This is why Libertarianism tends to be the faith that is adopted by people who are so wrapped in individual wants as to have established few social roots. I suspect Libertarianism tends to be the faith of men of 30 or older who have by and large failed to involve themselves in everyday, responsible society. I can see the use in learning how to communicate with other nationalities, as a secondary concern. But why should any longstanding or successful society consent to have its politics largely hijacked or diverted by proponents who, apart from capacity for drawing attention, are at best of marginal significance to everyday concerns?
Given Conscious well being, there is such a thing as moral illness. It tends to be found among those heedless souls who over indulge in short term pleasures. When their coasters hit a down side, they blame it, circularly, on illness: addiction to too much pleasure. Often, the more fundamental cause is social disease: disease of moral confusion.
In a way of thinking, it is not the taking of a measurement by a perspective of consciousness that collapses and gives expression to the rest of the world; rather, it is the holistic expressing of the rest of the world that collapses and avails each perspective of consciousness. The Holism and each Perspective of it are engaged in perpetual feedback, in a dance of "I sense you."
Thus, all our work is deeply indebted to some aspect of religious or spiritual Faith. Every apparent form that avails expression to consciousness expresses capacity to: Interpret the rest of the world, apart from such form's perspective of consciousness; Inject or communicate aspects of that interpretation into the information or experience of surrounding forms and beings; While remaining synchronous with, and respectful of, some reconciling Aspect ... which Itself can never be comprehended or mapped ... except in respect of limited perspectives ... which IT, in unlimited appetitie, simply encompasses and consumes ... and therewith avails multiplications upon multiplications of new perspectives.
The perspectives we happen to share regarding Forms of Substances do not define or limit the Reality of the Potential that presents Substances before us. All of our communications are related in respect of Things, Signs, and Forms that we conceit to comprehend, but which are mere bubbles, fluxes, and expressions of a synchronizing Agency that we cannot bound. As we tirelessly measure and quantify the relations of such forms as appear before us, we often take it on conceit or Faith that our measures are "Real," and that Reality is bound to "Laws," which Laws, however, concern only the expression of ourselves. From more holistic perspective, we are only communicating about the tiny slice of Potential that happens here and now to be expressing us. All our work is deeply indebted to some aspect of religious or spiritual Faith.
We mortal beings do not relate, one to the other among us. Rather, each of us relates, one to the other of all that remains. It is only via the Whole that we are ultimately reconciled in reality. When I at the end of mortal time apprehend my own situation, then may "I" apprehend all other perspectives. Except in respecting all of The Other, I am less the able to respect its aspects among other individuals. To adequately respect other persons is to respect the universe that abides in them.
Our electorate has been suckered by cons shilling for international corporations, selling penny lick sugar highs. We have traded lousy jobs for low consumer prices; we have traded good jobs for cheap third world labor. After the sugar high, comes the crash. Obama is either the chief shill for international corporatists, or he is their number one sucker. In any event, he has passed the point of being able to change, without nailing himself to the point. The Story of O (and of every Dino and Rino) is a farcical tragedy for America.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Posted by Dlanor at 8:03 PM