Hello, all. This is my first diary at Daily Kos, so I believe a little introduction is in order.
First of all, just so you know my own bias up front, I am very much a Jeffersonian republican, which, in more modern categories, places me within the broadly libertarian-conservative philosophy. (In truth, it's a little more complex than that [but isn't it always?], since my philosophy is sort of a rather strange witches' brew of Jefferson, Burke, F. A. Hayek, and philosophical anarchism derived from Murray Rothbard and John Howard Yoder.)
Second, to answer the rather obvious question raised by the above, let me explain why I am here, on one of the most progressive sites that I know of: I'm here because, despite my philosophical differences with progressivism, I do have a great deal of respect for the progressive philosophy and for progressives as people. Arguably, some of the greatest contributions to our constitutional order and to society in general (e.g., the granting of the franchise to traditionally-marginalized and -oppressed groups) have been made by people inspired by progressive ideals. (I see no reason not to give credit where credit is due.) Further, it is all too easy to shut ourselves up in our comfortable little bubbles, reading only what we already agree with, talking to people we already agree with, believing what "our side" tells us about "them" (which is almost always inaccurate to begin with); I don't want that for myself (or for my kids, when they're old enough to begin questioning and conversing on matters of substance). I like being stretched intellectually, and I'm sure that there are others of good-will here who agree. Therefore, I'd like to provide, for those who are interested, a viewpoint that's probably not too common around here. (If I am intruding into your tightly-knit community, I will take the hint and go ply my wares elsewhere.)
Third, I like a debate, but I despise an argument. So, if you want to engage with what I have to say, I welcome it. But can we agree to keep all exchanges civil? After all, we're all adults here, right? It's unfortunate that political discourse in our society is so rancorous, and that we demonize those with whom we find ourselves in disagreement. I know we can't always get along; I know that there are some issues where a satisfactory harmony of views may be out of the question; nevertheless, I happen to think it's possible to air our disagreements respectfully and with charity of spirit. A principled, intelligent disagreement is not utopian. (And, you know, I've focused so much on disagreement, I almost forgot to mention this: There's probably a whole range of issues where we agree far more than we disagree. But that's for later, I believe.) To make a short story long, this is what I'm saying: Keep the comments respectful; I'll hold myself to that same standard, and if I slip up, feel free to call me out. Let's remember that people are much, much more than their opinions on politics and economics. If we do that, I really think this can be fun.
A couple more things: First, I will not respond to comments that are rude, undignified, i.e., everything I hate about current political discourse. Now, for those of you who are willing to carry on a civil conversation, please note that I will read all of your comments. If I don't respond to you specifically, that doesn't mean your comment wasn't valuable; it's probably just that life outside the Daily Kos has prevented me from taking the time to answer you.
Last: I plan to provide commentary on specific issues of the day at some point, but I'm going to open this adventure by providing you with a more specific look at my philosophical foundation(s).
Enjoy!
1. Contrary to those who place supreme confidence in the rational and observational powers of humankind, I hold (with Burke and Hayek) that even in the wisest and brightest of individuals those powers are limited and given to error, so that "the individual is foolish, but the species is wise." Therefore, three things follow: First, that "grown institutions" and "ancient ways" ought to be given a presumption of wisdom and utility (though, as Willmoore Kendall noted, "only a presumption") over the rationally-planned; second, that all tinkering with those grown institutions and ancient ways produces unintended consequences, sometimes good and sometimes bad; and third, that the wise individual is the one who possesses "a disposition to preserve and an ability to improve," as Burke also noted.
2. Contrary to those who say that liberty is the opportunity to act howsoever one desires, free from hindrance or inhibition, I hold that liberty is instead the opportunity to pursue courses of action in accordance with human nature. From this it follows that if this natural liberty is to be in any way meaningful, it must be jealously guarded against incursion by the powers of state and society--indeed, must be protected by state and society; to do otherwise is injustice. Understood in this way, then, Lord Acton's dictum that liberty is the "highest political end of mankind" is true; that is, the most important, the most virtuous, the most socially-responsible thing a person can do is to remove from not only one's own but one's neighbor's path anything that would prevent him from pursuing his natural liberty to the uttermost.
3. Contrary to those who would deny that individuals have any rights apart from government, I hold one does indeed possess natural rights to "life, liberty, and property" (to borrow the Lockean formula), and contrary to those who would divorce rights from responsibilities, I hold that the only way one can affirm that these rights exist at all is by first affirming duties. Further, one can only claim that others respect one's own rights in proportion as one is first mindful of his or her duties to others; thus, "as...liberties and...restrictions vary with times and circumstances, and admit of infinite modifications, they cannot be settled upon any abstract rule; and nothing is so foolish as to discuss them upon that principle," as Burke wrote.
4. Contrary to those who maintain that all governments everywhere are created to protect the rights of individuals and that that is their sole purpose, I hold (again with Burke) that government is created simply to meet the given needs of a given community, whatever those needs might be. Good government, it is true, will safeguard rights and enforce duties, but that is by no means necessarily government's sole purpose.
5. Contrary to those who maintain that the "American tradition" is one of Lockean liberalism--and thus one obsessed with rights and equality--I hold (following Kendall) that it is rather that of "self-government by a virtuous people deliberating under God"--a very Burkean notion itself, one might add.
6. Contrary to those who would leap up eagerly to assign responsibilities in abundance to government, I hold that the opposite disposition is the wiser; that is, I believe that a presumption against delegating (even limited) powers to government is more fitting and conducive to justice. Such powers should be delegated only begrudgingly and where a need for such delegation has been clearly demonstrated. I hold this for six reasons: First, there is a tendency on the part of government to corruption and abuse of even otherwise legitimate powers, and thus to injustice; second, it is very unlikely that, once given power in a matter, government will ever voluntarily renounce that power, when/if no longer necessary; third, the delegation of power to government in a matter often becomes a disincentive for the people to exercise personal responsibility in that matter; fourth, government, once given power in a matter, tends to seek power in other areas, even when unrelated and unnecessary to the original power delegated; fifth, government is almost universally inept in its administration, even where well-intentioned and free from the stain of corruption; sixth, the policies of government have unintended consequences that are often worse than the original problem the policy was designed to correct.
7. Contrary to those who remain indifferent toward--or even encourage--concentrations of power (or the potential for concentrations of power), I hold that such consolidation nearly always leads to injustice; thus, as wide a dispersal of power as is possible is to be preferred. From this follow: First, a preference for the exercise of power at the state rather than federal level; second, a preference for the exercise of power at the local rather than state level; third, the belief that the mediating institutions of civil society are better entrusted with the socialization of individuals (i.e., the task of teaching them "how things are done"), rather than the state (and it follows from this, in turn, that those mediating institutions are the primary--if not the only--bulwarks against social atomism on the one hand and totalitarianism on the other and, consequently, the state, where it acts in the realm of civil society, should largely do so only in deference to and reinforcement of existing institutions, not with a view toward redefinition and reconstruction); fourth, the belief that a system of private property and free market exchange is preferable to government planning (at any level) because it is likely to be both more ethical and more efficient than government planning; fifth, the belief that a system of separation of powers and checks and balances (even if not that explicitly outlined in the US Constitution) is preferable to consolidation of the powers of government into the hands of one or a few individuals; sixth, the belief that civil rights and liberties and legal equality for all must be safeguarded against all attempts to subvert them or turn them to improper uses; and seventh, the belief that the influence of money on politics is almost universally detrimental, and should be circumscribed.