Re: The Myth of Neutrality Again
[Bruce Frohnen  02/24 09:07 AM]

I'd like to echo Mitch's excellent point. In Catholic social thought they talk about the service function of the state — we aren't here for the state, it must be here for us. But what does it serve? Traditional conservatism said it was here to serve us as social beings. That is, it's primary purpose is to protect families, churches, and local associations — the groups in which we live, the only places in which we can lead decent lives. Liberals, libertarians, and too many conservatives believe it is there only to serve individuals — protecting them from, among other things and perhaps especially, their families, churches, and local associations.

The charge I'm now expecting is that I'm in favor of some kind of local fascism. Someone no doubt will bring up some horror story about a local tyranny, whether in a town, a church, or a family, so let me be clear: injustice is injustice, no matter who's in charge or at what level. The question is, who do you trust, on the whole, to protect a decent life? Today's individualism (as Tocqueville predicted) leaves each of us pretty much alone to fight it out with the government which, frankly, is run by a few powerful interests. And that's precisely because the central government has all but stomped out a wide variety of local communities that used to have power — rights, responsibilities, and yes, real political power.

Liberalism and its variants are about liberating individuals from the ties that bind. Unfortunately, this not only leaves those individuals lonely, it also leaves them alone when the chips are down and the central government decides it would rather spy on them, put them out of business, or worse.

Real, crunchy, liberty means what Robert Nisbet referred to as a multiplicity of authorities — a variety of possible protectors (and possible oppressors, too), and with them real, substantive choices concerning ways of life and protections against the state.