This weeks interview:  Ben, from The Independent Bloghorn

Ω

the Liberty Pen: If you would be so kind as to describe your political affiliations and philosophy for our readers.

The Independent Bloghorn: I am not one to get too carried away with the actual labels for political affiliations.  I probably like the word conservative the best, although I usually vote for Republicans.  I live in Utah, so the Republicans here tend to be pretty conservative.  I have a Masters degree in English, so I have explored liberalism extensively, or in other words, I am a liberal brainwashing experiment gone awry.  Ultimately, my family upbringing and becoming an entrepreneur have ended up informing my political philosophy more than my education probably ever will.

the Liberty Pen: Regarding your exploration of liberalism, could you tell us what you have learned?

The Independent Bloghorn: Above all, I have learned that liberalism, in its most secular and progressive incarnations, is a basket case of competing theories and paradigms.  Ultimately, the only narrative that unites the various "brands" of liberalism is the narrative of relativism.  While this creates an environment where academics can come up with some interesting, but ultimately, useless academic studies for the next interesting, but ultimately, useless academic conference, you eventually end up in a place where there are no standards for determining which parts of this project are rubbish, which parts are garbage, and which parts are just trash.  When you combine this complete lack of purpose or direction with a rather militant secularist bias, any attempt to create meaning in the world becomes an act of arbitrary capriciousness.  This is why when you examine any piece of legislation or policy that is heavily informed by liberalism, you will find arbitrary capriciousness as the foundation.  For example, which cultural signifiers should entitle someone to the benefits of Affirmative Action?  Answer: we will pick an ever-expanding list of ethnicities, which when studied in any depth within the cultural paradigms of our invention are completely meaningless.  Where is the poverty line?  Answer:  we will pick a number.  How many degrees does the earth's climate have to change for us to be worked into a mindless frenzy?  Answer: we will pick a number.  I got to the point where it seems like anyone with half a brain would see through this.  However, if you can replace common sense with the ignorant elitism that comes from an advanced degree, then I guess you can get away with creating whatever truth it is you want to believe in.

the Liberty Pen:  What aspects, if any, are missing from a liberal education?

The Independent Bloghorn: One word: Reality.  I mean this in the most profound philosophical sense.  The concept of reality has been so thoroughly deconstructed, that it has no bearing whatsoever on what is being learned from your typical liberal education.

the Liberty Pen: A large part of liberals and progressives see conservatives as heartless and unsympathetic to the needs of the less fortunate. It is because of this that redistribution and social justice must be implemented to bridge the equality gap. What is your opinion of this? 

The Independent Bloghorn: I have already mentioned the fierce secularism that informs progressive liberalism.  It seems odd to me that an ideology that has been vicious in its attacks on religion, spirituality, and the idea of right and wrong should be so concerned with being sympathetic to the less fortunate.  Because of this, I don't consider the liberal-progressive's concern for the less fortunate to be very authentic.  Arbitrarily creating a group that we are going to call "less fortunate" is a great way to create a narrative of victimization for that group, so that you can ultimately convince them to give you political power to undo the damage.  If this sensitivity to the less fortunate wasn't always, and I mean always, associated with a political power grab and severe violations of the rights of those who don't fall into their arbitrary group, then I would take the progressive liberal's attempt to be moral more seriously.

the Liberty Pen: What would your ideal construct be of a limited government?

The Independent Bloghorn: One of the luxuries of being an American is that I shouldn't have to create the ideal construct of a limited government.  A group of divinely gifted men created our Constitution, and since the late 1700s it seems like the ideal construct of a limited government is a settled matter.  To be more specific, I disagree strongly with Barack Obama's statement that the problem with the Constitution is that it is merely a charter of negative rights.  I sympathize with whatever political philosophy informs the 10th Amendment, and I loathe whatever political philosophy informed the Supreme Court decision that established the Commerce Clause that pretty much wiped out the 10th Amendment.  However, and this is a big however, I don't believe that a limited government can ever be a result of a Constitutional charter or legislative will.  A leader of the Mormon church recently said the following:

The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. . . . 

“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

The biggest limitation of the Constitution isn't that it fails to say what a Government can and must do for its citizens, the biggest limitation of the Constitution is that it assumes that individuals will know what they can and must do for themselves and for others.  A citizenry that harbors no internal moral discipline will never harbor a limited government, unfortunately.

the Liberty Pen: Describe what liberty means to you. Are liberty and social justice contrary elements, or can they mutually co-exist?

The Independent Bloghorn: Freud once said something to the effect that those who claim to be the most free are truly the most enslaved.  Liberty, like hope and change, can run the risk of becoming a vacuous buzzword.  I have read enough beatnik literature to be aware of the ideal that true freedom would be to exist in the wilderness in a state of humble subsistence, subservient to only myself.  The problem with this illusory vision of Cartesian excess is that we are social beings.  I am happily married, but my individual liberty is constrained because of this.  Our social relationships put severe constraints on our liberty, which leads me to conclude that true liberty is the ability for me to choose the constraints that will be placed on my liberty.

"For better or for worse, I identify pretty strongly with most of Rand's heros.  The individualists in Rand's novels usually end up destroying their own contributions rather than see their contributions become collectively allocated against their will."

The problem I have with the idea of social justice is that democracy is the best tool we have for determining who gets to be the arbiter of social justice.  Social justice thus becomes subject to political whim and is likely to become an institutionalized tool for suppressing the liberty of others.  To use the ideal of social justice to promote a narrative of victimization to encourage someone to give power to another who promises to rectify the situation sounds like Tyranny 101 to me.  So to answer your question: are liberty and social justice contrary elements?  I don't know.  But, are social justice and tyranny close allies?  Yeah, I think so.

the Liberty Pen: Interindividual relationships are a necessary mechanism of a societal construct, therefore freedom can be difficult to define in absolute terms. For example, an individualist and a progressivist are distinctly different - one advocates negative liberties while the other is a proponent of social justice. Do you think that such an ideological antithesis will eventually lead to the dissolution of one of them?

The Independent Bloghorn: The exploration of this ideological antithesis pretty much makes up the plot line of your basic Ayn Rand novel.  For better or for worse, I identify pretty strongly with most of Rand's heros.  The individualists in Rand's novels usually end up destroying their own contributions rather than see their contributions become collectively allocated against their will.  As opposed to the conclusion that Rand comes to, I generally believe that these two factions, can and will work together.  However, I think the point that Rand likes to make is that the progressivist essentially can't "self-actuate" without the individualist, so in essence the individualist always has the upper hand.  If the individualist chooses to no longer pursue self-interest, then the project of the progressivist falls apart.  If the progressivist tries to force the individualist to participate in the project of progressivism, then you have a recipe for tyranny.

the Liberty Pen: Do you think the GOP embodies the principles and values of conservatism? If not, where have they deviated, and when did the shift begin?

The Independent Bloghorn: I mentioned earlier that I typically vote Republican in Utah, because in Utah, yes, the GOP is pretty conservative.  You look at the GOP from a national level, and I think you get a mixed bag.  The problem here isn't that the GOP isn't conservative enough, it is that this should even matter on a national level.  That you are even asking me this is evidence that we have strayed quite far from the federalist foundation of our country.  I have been reading Martin Gross' book, National Suicide, and the conclusion I take away from the book is that most politicians can't possibly comprehend the magnitude of our federal government.  It is so large, so disparately organized, and so historically entrenched, that I have a hard time envisioning how a politician from any party can go to Washington and embody the values of conservatism.

the Liberty Pen: If the Republicans recover some seats in the 2010 election, do you think they will listen to the people? Or will it be business as usual?

The Independent Bloghorn: Listening to the people isn't as important to me as doing what needs to be done.  If they could put a halt to what Obama is trying to do, that would be a good start.  There is a line in the Simpsons where Mayor Quimby asks an adviser, "Are these people getting dumber, or just louder?" To which the adviser replies, "dumber, sir."  Ultimately, barring some nationally transformative event, I expect business as usual.

the Liberty Pen: Do you think judicial activism, which has been ideologically infused, will do more harm and create misinterpretations of the Constitution?

The Independent Bloghorn: Judicial and activism are two words that don't really go well together - it's like saying you can have objective bias.  However, given that we have decades of precedents where judicial activism has solidified misinterpretations of the Constitution into our legal system, I am not sure how you go back to where you started if not through counteractive judicial activism.  I read a book about this called Disrobed by Mark Smith.  I agree with his claim that judicial activism is politically neutral.  The problem is liberal judicial activism.  Conservatives are showing up to this gunfight with a knife.  If I am ever extremely wealthy, I will use my wealth to advance conservative causes in the courts.

the Liberty Pen: Regarding, "....the biggest limitation of the  Constitution is that it assumes that individuals will know what they can and must do for themselves and for others," it leads me to the following question. Entitlements are an essential element of the social justice theory, but when they are excessively replied upon, they tend to produce a narcotic type affect. Will personal responsibility, self-actuation, and creativity, be permanently stifled if the people do not reject this governmental addiction?    

The Independent Bloghorn: My wife taught second grade, and halfway through the year the school moved a student into her class that could no longer stay in his previous class because he had sexually assaulted another student.  These kids were seven.  The deviant's parents were in prison, and the boy was being raised by the grandmother, who apparently was no expert in parenting given the fact that her kid was in jail.  This kid, a huge liability to have in any classroom, was entitled to an education.  On top of that, he was entitled to free therapy.  He would get to leave class when he got in trouble, go meet with his therapist, then come back with treats to show off to all of the other kids.  Given the location of the school, it is likely that this student lived in subsidized housing, received food stamps, free lunches at school, and this list will go on until he is subsisting entirely on government largesse in prison.

Obviously, the story above, though true, is a loaded if not hyperbolic example.  However, it illustrates my belief that entitlements and the existence of social justice theory are probably symptoms rather than causes of deeper problems.  If you can answer the question of how we have come to a point as a culture where it is nominally acceptable for 7 year olds to be sexually assaulting other 7 year olds in school, then do you really need to ask what will happen to personal responsibility if our culture becomes too dependent on the government?

Also, I tend to agree with the thesis of Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, where one of his central claims is that the European nanny states are largely responsible for the suicidal demographic death spiral that is now certainly the future of Western Europe.  He argues that when the government provides the basic needs of survival such as housing, food, health care, education, defense etc. you end up with a population that no longer actively participates in the project of survival.  People stop reproducing, populations contract, which will eventually lead economies to contract, which lead tax collections to contract, which lead entitlements to shrink, while at the same time creating an environment where importing more fecund populations (in Europe's case, Muslims) is a quick fix, and when these more virile populations move in with their survival instincts still intact...  It isn't far-fetched to conclude that Europe as we have known it for the last 500 years, will cease to exist.  The question here is what role will the entitlements of progressive liberalism have played in this decline, and it isn't far-fetched to conclude that they have played a substantial role.

The Independent Bloghorn's Latest Post

Regulate, Baby, Regulate

Another Post From The Independent Bloghorn

Cash For Flunkers