The Measure of a Life Well Lived
Pop some corn and pull up a chair. It's always entertaining when Trey Garrison of Frontburner and Rod Dreher of The Dallas Morning News square off. It's the battle between the Pavlovian libertarian and the Old Testament scold.
In this corner, Rod Dreher decries the modern attitude that "the autonomous self is its own judge and personal satisfaction is the measure of a life well lived." In other words, better that we all wallow in the guilt of not living by the timeless commandments dictated by God to Moses.
In the other corner, Trey Garrison wonders when "the pursuit of happiness became morally suspect." In other words, if it feels good, do it.
Most people reject both extremes, not wanting Rod Dreher imposing his puritanical morality on others and not wanting to be part of Trey Garrison's spoiled, dissolute leisure class, driven only by self satisfaction. Most people want to see a society that values life and liberty as well as the pursuit of happiness, a society that can't achieve happiness without also achieving equality and justice.
But sometimes, the escapist entertainment value of watching the likes of Dreher and Garrison butt heads together is too much to resist. Utopia can wait.
18 comments:
The pursuit of happiness demands liberty and life. Asking why one is morally suspect has no bearing on one's value of the other two.
And equality -- except for equality before the law -- is incompatible with liberty. And equality is incompatible with life when you think of it, since the only time we're truly equal except before the court is when we're in the grave.
So, I'm munching on popcorn and watching wrestling on TV, when one of the wrestlers jumps out of the TV and into my living room and starts trash talking about equality. Is that cool or what?!?
Jefferson said we're all created equal. Madison praised our equal rights. The US Constitution enshrines equal protection under the law. But Mr. Garrison insists that "equality is incompatible with liberty."
It's best just to watch wrestlers' veins pop and spittle fly and not listen too closely to what they say when they are trash talking. It's definitely not wise to make them angry. Thanks for commenting, Mr Garrison. Seriously.
P.S. The pursuit of happiness is not morally suspect. You're arguing against a straw man. But I'd rather you take that up with Mr Dreher. He doesn't need anyone to explain for him, least of all me.
Jefferson said we're all created equal. Madison praised our equal rights. The US Constitution enshrines equal protection under the law. But Mr. Garrison insists that "equality is incompatible with liberty."
"And equality -- except for equality before the law -- is incompatible with liberty."
Full quote, Ed. No cheating.
You're right. I cheated without even realizing it. Let me rephrase.
Jefferson said we're all created equal. Madison praised our equal rights. The US Constitution enshrines equal protection under the law. But Mr. Garrison insists that "equality -- except for equality before the law -- is incompatible with liberty."
There, that so smacks down equality.
Equal rights and equality before the law are synonymous.
The notion people are created equal is romantic nonsense belied by objective evidence. Every person is born unique, with his own challenges and gifts.
Now you're cheating. The full quote is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Nothing about equal height, weight, looks, skills, gifts or challenges. The emphasis is on rights. Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equality has a long and esteemed history in American political thinking. It was considered "self-evident."
To denigrate equality because not everyone is equal in all human gifts and challenges is, frankly, silly, and is one reason why libertarians aren't taken seriously.
"Nothing about equal height, weight, looks, skills, gifts or challenges. The emphasis is on rights. Equal rights.Equal protection. "
Which, again, is synonymous with equality before the law. Which I emphasized as the only worthy kind of equality.
"Equal pay for equal work."
What two other people choose as remuneration for service is none of my business. Or yours.
"Equality has a long and esteemed history in American political thinking. It was considered "self-evident."
Whether an idea is held in esteem by one person or all people has no bearing on its virtue, nor does it change the fact that equality -- outside of equality before the law -- is incompatible with liberty.
We agree that equality before the law is worthy. We disagree that it's the _only_ kind of equality that's worthy. Americans have traditionally valued not only political equality, but also economic and social equality. Thanks for reminding us that not everyone agrees. Not only is there disagreement over how to promote such equality, some don't even think such equality is a worthy goal at all.
"Americans have traditionally valued not only political equality, but also economic and social equality."
What planet have you been on? For almost 200 years inequality before the law was enshrined in law itself.
Economic equality was never highly valued except by a small group of socialist dinks.
Social equality? Never heard of it.
Also, you can't achieve economic equality without violating liberty. That's why the two are incompatible. You're either strapping weights on one runner's legs or giving another a head start at the expense of the other runners, ala Harrison Bergeron. "Economic equality" is a chimera leftover from the pre-Enlightenment days when wealth was considered finite and granted by government or crown, rather than earned through one's own efforts.
Social equality too, is chimerical and a remnant of antiquity, since social (not legal) standing is measured by the judgments and choices individuals make which in no way violate the liberty or rights of others. To try to force social equality, you're trampling on everyone's rights and their own right to their own judgment.
Time to stop living in the imagined past, Ed.
The Founding Fathers deliberately designed American government to prevent the rise of an aristocracy. That's an example of Americans valuing social equality. The estate tax is another. The development of a progressive income tax and government programs like Social Security, Medicare and the minimum wage are examples of Americans valuing economic equality. That Americans often failed to live up to the ideals they claim is a sad fact of history. The last twenty or so years of conservative rule is an example of that.
"The Founding Fathers deliberately designed American government to prevent the rise of an aristocracy. "
Aristocracy is where everyone is not equal under the law, so all of that is covered.
"That's an example of Americans valuing social equality. The estate tax is another. The development of a progressive income tax and government programs like Social Security, Medicare and the minimum wage are examples of Americans valuing economic equality."
Most of those things are products of the New Deal era when a minority of socialists forced a bunch of stealth programs down everyone's throat and then grew them ala Hegel. Creeping socialism from ever expanding government programs is not evidence of "Americans valuing economic equality."
I'm glad that you agree that the Founding Fathers' valued social equality so much that they enshrined a ban on titles of nobility in the Constitution.
I'm surprised that you believe that Social Security, Medicare, etc., are unpopular, favored only by a "minority of socialists." If you really believe that, then maybe we are living on different planets, as you say. I doubt we can bridge that gap, but it's an accomplishment just to have identified where the gap is.
Oh, they are favored now by a majority of people who like getting "free" stuff. But they were pushed on us by a minority of socialists, and sold as minor and temporary and limited, ie. income taxes only for the top 10 percent, social security for widows and orphans, and so on.
I am, however, grateful you've apparently conceded that "social equality" and "economic equality" can only be had at the cost of violating the liberty of others.
Very gracious to concede that. :)
Indeed, laws promoting social equality and economic equality can infringe on personal liberties. For example, the Constitutional prohibition against US officeholders accepting titles of nobility from foreign governments infringes on Americans' personal liberty to accept titles of nobility. I concede the obvious. Are we cool, now?
The Founding Fathers knew well how to reconcile these conflicts, balancing social and economic equality against individual liberties. Generations of Americans have, too, for the most part. Only libertarians seem stuck on holding one value, individual liberty, exclusive of all others, in fact, even denigrating other values and resorting to conspiracy theories ("forced a bunch of stealth programs down everyone's throat") to explain away what are clearly popular programs to promote economic equality. Which is why libertarians have never had any electoral success. Go figure.
Neither had abolitionists. Until they did.
I wasn't predicting the future, only explaining the past. As long as the future is still in the future, all our predictions are still conceivably true. Keep voting Libertarian. America needs idealists. Just not in power.
Post a Comment