Hi all,
I just read From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics by Charles Blattberg. I'm wondering if anybody else has read it or is familiar with Blattberg? He claims to be advocating a new conception of "patriotism" but it seems like to me to be nothing more than the communitarianism of Walzer, slightly modified. It's definitely anti-liberal in both the classical and modern liberal sense, and it is anti-individualist. He argues against individual rights which impede popular sovereignty.
Just looking to compare notes and perhaps get a better understanding of the guy.
Individualism
I agree that the term "Anarcho-Capitalism" is a really tough one. I wish it had never been invented, because so many anarchists oppose any kind of social organization or hierarchy, or they support some kind of syndicalism. It sends the wrong message.
On the other hand, the literal meaning of anarchist is “without ruler”. I guess it depends on how you define ruler, it could be consistent with our philosophy. And even if we change the name, most people hate us for our philosophy and not the name.
Since the term is already made up, and seems to be etymologically consistent with our philosophy, I say we stick with it.
sorry dude, replied to the wrong thread. I am on my lunch break...
I'm pretty familiar with him. No, I wouldn't say that the approach is anti-individualist; on the contrary, it's able to affirm the liberty of the individual in a way far more powerful than can be done within the confines of rights-talk.
How?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
I am sincerely trying to understand how this theory can affirm any individual rights. It seems to me that the guarantee of rights is being thrown to the side and we then *trust* the community to not violate our freedoms.
If that isn't the case, where can I locate a *guarantee* that I will not be abused by the community?
There are no guarantees in politics and if you search for one you'll only weaken your cause. On why rights talk is counterproductive for defending the liberty of the individual, check out http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1330693.
Sounds like the work of an utterly irrelevant, obscurantist professional philosopher to me.
Considering some of his criticisms, I find his work very relevant. I don't agree with his conclusions, and he does seem to read more like a Continental philosopher than an analytical, if that's what you're referring to. And insofar as he was considerate enough to join and respond to my questions, I am grateful; not a whole lot of academic philosophers take time out for us little guys. :)
Is that him? He's taken the name but just says he is familiar with him.
He argues against individual rights which impede popular sovereignty.
That would be intriguing if he can actually make a case for this. I don't see it though.
If you get a chance, read the book. He's got some very powerful criticisms of pluralism. :)
We need a book-group on this here forum. You know, where we all read the same book and share insights.
There is a book club. None of this is making me interested in this guy though.
There is a book club.
Just did a search and found it. Thanks for the heads up!
None of this is making me interested in this guy though.
He provides a different way of looking at things, and that's always interesting to me. :)
Thanks for your comments, John Scott. I also appreciated your Amazon.com review.
Cheers,
Charles
I haven't read the book, but it seems like he's saying: "if we focused on common ground and reconciling our differences, we could achieve our political goals more effectively, thereby furthering liberty."
I disagree. I believe that right's talk is fundamental to understanding and furthering liberty. To an individualist, rights are intrinsic to each individual and exist no matter what. The proper role of government is to protect the individual rights to liffe, liberty, and property - nothing more. To a collectivist, rights are granted by the state, and may be denied at the whim of our leaders. This ideology is incompatible with personal liberty, and always leads to government intervention and legalized plunder.
I agree with Blattberg that the UN's Declaration of Human Rights deserves criticism, but because they are a reflection of collectivism, as demonstrated by this excerpt from Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:
"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law."
If government has the power to provide for us everything we want, it also has the power to take away from us everything we have. This is what leads to the destruction of liberty, and mass murder in the name of "the common good."