A latter-day Fusion … or a war in the soul

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 23:03.

My thanks go to Michael R for a link to a Lew Rockwell article written last month by Ira Katz.  Michael wanted in particular to point out a quote in the article by Ortega y Gasset from his classic of 1930, The Revolt of the Masses.

It is not that one ought not to do just what one pleases; it is simply that one cannot do other than what each of us has to do, has to be.  The only way out is to refuse to do what has to be done, but this does not set us free to do something else just because it pleases us.  In this matter we only posses a negative freedom of will.

Without commandments, obliging us to live after a certain fashion, our existence is that of the “unemployed”.  This is the terrible spiritual situation in which the best youth of the world finds itself today.  By dint of feeling itself free, exempt from restrictions, it feels itself empty.  An “unemployed” existence is a worse negation of life than death itself.  Because to live means to have something definite to do – a mission to fulfill – and in the measure in which we avoid setting our life to something, we make it empty.

This was Katz’s opening shot in a bid to reconcile libertarianism and Conservatism, somewhat akin to Frank Meyer’s Fusionism of the 1950’s and 60’s.

 

Katz’s thesis is perfectly straightforward.  The libertarian in him has to accept that freedom must have limits or life is bestial.  The Conservative has to accept that the State – basically, Federal Government welfare in Katz’s terms - is productive of nothing but ill.  Thus limits to freedom would be conserved by giving autonomy under constitutional law to “smaller jurisdictions”, meaning families, voluntary organizations, towns and states.  He might mean individuals, too but he does not specifically say so.  Anyway, that’s the deal.

In fact, beyond laying out the respective arguments for limits on freedom and local autonomy he doesn’t go into any particulars at all.  And it’s in the first bit of detail that the devil lies.

In Katzworld, that which is given (one’s kin, ethnicity and ethnic ties, for example) and that which is consciously selected (the modus operandum of local and personal autonomy) remain unresolved

and fatally contradictory

.  Contradiction it is which kills the Katz.  For example, in recognition of the need to limit freedom Katz quotes Edmund Burke who famously said:-

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, – in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, – in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption …”  Etc, etc - I’m sure you know the rest.

But in fact, Burke’s abiding interest and his goal for government was the rule of law and the preservation of a stable social order.  Nothing mattered more to him.  Yet Katz goes on to claim, “Instability of society, in fact of civilization itself, is due to the pernicious nature of the power of central government that increases as knowledge of the individual decreases.”  And he quotes the redoubtable Hans-Hermann Hoppe: “… what should be clear by now is that most if not all of the moral degeneration and cultural decline – the signs of de-civilization – all around us are the inescapable and unavoidable results of the welfare state and its core institutions …”

Now, Katz is in trouble.  He is rowing full on the crest of the second-wave of libertarian anti-statism, citing force and authority, even claiming that “the limits on personal freedom imposed by society have been under constant attack by government since at least the Lincoln administration …”

So he opposes the state for attacking the limits on freedom that, presumeably, must also be protected against too much libertarianism.  Which is interesting.  Whatever may be said against Too Much Libertarianism it isn’t that it replicates the worst effects of the state.  Furthermore, Katz supports his case for non-governmentally imposed limits to freedom with Burke, a conviction politician with regard to government force in the service of social stability. 

And this is supposed to be a fusion.

Well, it’s a mess.  And it’s a mess because libertarianism is right-liberalism … full stop.  We have ample proof in the sad declension of British Conservatism since 1832 that Conservatism absolutely cannot co-habit with liberalism.  The attempt is bound to fail because Conservatism is NOT a limit on freedom.  Freedom is a limit of a certain kind on Conservatism, and has always been so.  Therefore Conservatives like Burke treat freedom with caution.  They seek to embed it within social stability, which is that natural personal, familial and communal bond of right behaviour which all Conservatives instinctively admire and all liberals instinctively despise.

Let’s return to that quote from Ortega y Gasset.  He is speaking of the limit of human will.  He is speaking of the mechanicity of human consciousness: “… it is simply that one cannot do other than what each of us has to do, has to be.”  He is telling us that we are not strong candidates for autonomy, as liberals of all stripes imagine themselves to be.  A direct attempt at living free, being anti-natural, leads only to emptiness, he says.  And we see enough of that about us today to know him to be right.

Ira Katz will never solve the riddle he has set himself.  Of course, he could give it up and try to better understand the only alternative to liberalism that there is.  He is half-way there already.



Comments:


1

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:05 | #

Whatever may be said against Too Much Libertarianism it isn’t that it replicates the worst effects of the state.

The atomization that a certain school of libertarianism preaches doesn’t replicate the worst effects of the state; it facilitates them.  Atomized individualism and the totalitarian state go hand in hand.


2

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:04 | #

ben,

I’ve never come across a serious libertarian-thinking “individual” who did not grant some role, at least, to a strictly controlled collective apparatus.  Invariably, the term “atomised” sends libbos scurrying into the capacious embrace of Miss Reasonable quicker than a sailer goes to the ship’s surgeon after a night in a strange port.  In its theory and, should it ever be realised, in its practise an atomised “spray” of individuals is literally indefensible.

But really the thing to remember is that libertarian atomisation is all theory.  The atomisation of which you speak is real and, therefore, something else. Freedom of the individual is not the exclusive goal of libbos.  It is common to all liberals.

The social dystopia of the modern West is the product of social liberalism, and is entirely consistent with a welfare-armed state interventionism.  Libbos support social liberalism per se, naturally, but wish its costs to redound upon the individual, so as to encourage responsible behaviour.  That’s not an unhealthy theory but it is only a theory.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: The eugenically-challenged, future cognitive elite of Nigeria
Previous entry: Echoes in the MSM

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

affection-tone