Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Separation of Religion and Government; Liberty of Conscience and Toleration
Mod
"It is true that politicians and other public officials often act to maximize their own personal political or economic interests. This doe..."
Ron, I think you intended your post to be in the "Public Choice" topic, and I am responding there. Alan
Mod
Mod
In her book Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality (New York: Basic Books, 2008), Martha C. Nussbaum opposed the concept of separation of church and state, arguing, for example, that "the bare concept of 'separation'" implies that a government fire department could not put out a fire at a church. Liberty of Conscience, 10-12, 221, 231. Nussbaum even went so far as to assert, without citing any historical evidence, that the "separationist norm" requires the state to deny religious schools ordinary police and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public highways and side-walks. Ibid., 284. I am not aware of any present or past advocate of separation of church and state (and Nussbaum cites none) who has taken any such position. Certainly this is not the position of AU, as evidenced by its letter and press release issued today.
Mod
Mod
The seventeenth-century Puritan colonies in America, led by the Massachusetts Bay theocracy, did attempt to impose biblical law on American colonists. However, Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83), a devout Christian minister, opposed the Puritan attempt to impose religious uniformity. See the topic Roger Williams (ca. 1603-1683) and Seventeenth-Century Rhode Island Government in this Goodreads group for additional details. By the late eighteenth century, the leading US Founders realized that the New England experiment in theocracy was a miserable failure. They established a US Constitution and Bill of Rights that contained no reference to a deity or to religion except for prohibitions on the national government's imposing any religious test for governmental office or religious/ecclesiastical beliefs or practices on any person. Although James Madison also proposed a constitutional amendment that "[n]o state shall violate the equal rights of conscience," that development did not occur until the US Supreme Court recognized, in the twentieth century, that the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses applied to state and local governments by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868).
Mod
Alan - I strongly support separation faith x government. But austrian school is not a matter of faith, it express freedom in pure state as everybody came to this world. I think you´re overestimating honour gave to Gary North - which ideas I applaud and quote in some of my texts. Values supported by austrian school was mainstrem economics up to wwI and made occident rich and flourish. Try to rethink about. Tcherrrsss. Ron
Mod
In determining how to allocate the limited time remaining to me for study, I do not consider it necessary to examine further a doctrine that officially gives a "Medal of Freedom" to a person who advocates theocratic practices that are indistinguishable from those of ISIS. "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Alan; I had never heard of the Prof North before; and just a quick review of his Wikipedia write up suggests that you are spot on . I have no problem with a biblical reference point for anyone's personal beliefs and morality. It's as good as any and better than most. North however has clearly lost any connection with reality and should be medicated. That the Mises Institute honored him is emblematic of institutional blindness and arrogance.
Mod
Thanks for your comment, Charles. I agree.
Alan wrote: " I do not consider it necessary to examine further a doctrine that officially gives a "Medal of Freedom" to a person who advocates theocratic practices that are indistinguishable from those of ISIS..."Alan,
I have always wondered how libertarians like Ron Paul and his son could embrace in the same breath Christian religion and the libertarian views of famous atheists like Ayn Rand ("rhimes with swine" - a quote from Ms. Rand according to a source to her biographer, but the biographer doubts the source.)
I wasn't aware of Dr. North until reading your links. He seems to be emblematic of these contradictions. From one side of his mouth he declaims the Keynesian State and proclaims liberty for the people. From the other he advocates "Biblical Law," including stoning of homosexuals and children who slap their parents.
Was it just lack of awareness on the Mises Institute's part for them to award North their Murray N. Rothbard Medal of Freedom? Are they unaware of the breadth of his views? I think not. North actually has 12 pages of articles published on the Mises site going back to 2003 and up to the present. In one I looked at he praises Mises for his thesis of "what is wrong with all socialist planning". He then addresses Oscar Lange, who in my view, very effectively refuted Mises. Scary Gary just calls Lange "not a major economist but was simply a Polish Communist" and "a hack", combining ad hominem invective with racism. He ends the piece by saying “In the very long run, the good guys are going to win, but in the interim, there is going to be a lot of competition to see which group gets to dance on the grave of the Keynesian system. Get out your dancing shoes. Keep them polished. Our day is coming.” But predicting the future was not one of Scary Gary’s most successful pursuits. He was was apparently one of the more wildly lunatic fringe predictors of Y2K disaster.
No, I don't think this convergence of theocracy and praise for liberty is an accident. I think it has a lot to do with the need for the modern Republican Party to keep evangelical Christians in the same tent with libertarians like the Pauls and Paul Ryan. The key, I think, is that this is the path that they have used to gain power. By maintaining support from these disparate elements (not to mention white racists, but you see the connection here in the quote from North that I gave above) they have secured power to support the interests of their "base" (as W once called it), the 150 families of oil oligarchs and financial titans. But, of course, this is "just a theory"!
Some contradictions are real. And some are convenient obfuscations. I think the Mises Institute relationship with theocrats like North is one of the latter. You can be as crazy as you want as long as you "believe" in the gold standard.
Thanks for posting this, but I am with you, I would just as much read about these crazies as to read Suetonius's tales of the murders engineered by Caligula. But, I suppose, if one person is dissuaded from following this path, the effort would have been worthwhile.
Cheers,
Randal
Mod
Thanks, Randal. Although it may be "just a theory" (like gravity or evolution or that the earth is not the center of the universe), I tend to agree with you that the Mises Institute is engaging in cold, calculating, cynical politics.
Alan wrote: ..., I tend to agree with you that the Mises Institute is engaging in cold, calculating, cynical politics.Randal wrote: “In the very long run, the good guys are going to win, but in the interim, there is going to be a lot of competition to see which group gets to dance on the grave of the Keynesian system. Get out your dancing shoes. Keep them polished. Our day is coming.”
Alan, could you explain better your Mises concept, I´m really interested in get to know how Mises/Hayek philosophy - the one that used to be mainstream up to WWI and main responsible for occident progress has been feeling among academics.
Randal - let me bring to light text below:
Keynesianism keeps dominating the political scene by default, for lack of an alternative.
“Without hope of deliverance, the voters lose confidence in politics as a means of healing. This is the central religion of our era. This trust is waning. The Keynesian system holds on power by default. There is no widely shared faith in what can be substituted and how”. Gary North
What´s your vision of keynesian theory?
Cordially. Ron Carneiro
Mod
Randal wrote: “In the very long run, the good guys are going to win, but in th..."
I haven't read Mises and Hayek for several decades, and I haven't been in academia (other than law school) since 1971. I am pretty sure, however, that Mises and Hayek (certainly Murray Rothbard) would disagree with Gary North (and apparently the Mises Institute) that freedom somehow means absolute theocracy (including stoning of heretics, gays, and disobedient children) combined with some version of a free market. Although I am not at all an expert on economics, I think that the basic Keynesian theory is probably correct: that in times of recession and depression, government needs to use fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate the economy and that in economic boom times government needs to do the opposite. I think that the 2008 stock market crash and ensuing recession would have resulted in another Great Depression like that in the 1930s had government not implemented some version of Keynesian policies. Randal is much more knowledgeable about economics than I, and he may be interested in making a further contribution to what he has already stated in numerous posts in this group.
Thanks Alan - my conviction is that politicians and bureaucrats as decision makers in economic matter is a disaster - free market appropriate resources better than human will, and organize all productive process - supply and demand is a magical law to human coexistence. You´re right, Randal will give his contribution - I hope, and I´m anxious to hear him, specially on Keynes and Hayek/Mises. Regards. Ron
Ronaldo wrote: "Randal will give his contribution - I hope, and I´m anxious to hear him, specially on Keynes and Hayek/Mises. Regards. Ron..."Ron,
Just a few minutes before I go to bed! Mises is famous for his critique of Marx. I have considered Walras's similar critique here. Polanyi took on Mises full frontal in the 20s. I have discussed that here. I referenced Lange's critique of Mises (and Hayek) above. I read just today a very interesting reflection on Hayek by the philosopher John Gray who wrote a generally sympathetic book about him in 1984. His current thinking seems to me a pretty devastating critique. In his recent article he discusses the interactions of Hayek and Keynes. I have a half-shelf full of Hayek and Popper. I generally find Hayek a total bore. But Keynes was more generous, as Gray relates. Bruce Caldwell gives a pretty even-handed (for an Austrian School guy) account of the catfight that took place in the pages of Economica between Hayek and Keynes (and Piero Sraffa) in the introduction to the book Contra Keynes and Cambridge. That’s enough reading to keep you (but not me!) up late. More later.
But this doesn't really have much to do with theocracy.
Cheers,
Randal
Mod
Your use of the word "magical" is exactly what I am talking about. The belief in laissez-faire capitalism is essentially a theological doctrine—a religious "belief" in a "magical" force or, as Adam Smith called it, "an invisible hand." As Randal demonstrates in his excellent linked essays, history does not bear out laissez-faire capitalism's pretensions. Yes, capitalism, rightly regulated, provides a powerful engine of economic growth and employment. But unfettered, unmitigated, unregulated capitalism leads to disaster, especially for those not in the upper one per cent, not to mention the physical environment. We have now returned to the excesses and inequality of the Gilded Age, which Mark Twain so well lampooned more than a century ago.
It is precisely the theological nature of free-market dogma that makes it so attractive to absolute fundamentalist theocrats like Gary North. They want something in the economic sphere to match their blind belief in Old Testament theocracy. That "something" is Spencerian free-market capitalism—the "survival of the fittest" in the economic realm.
This is ironic, because John Locke and Adam Smith invented capitalism precisely to substitute acquisitive economic competition for the religious warfare that had plagued Europe for many centuries. Smith's "invisible hand" was probably not, in his mind, a religious notion, but it became so in the hands of his epigones. What Locke, Smith et al. underestimated was the hold of religious dogma on the European and American psyche. Instead of providing a substitute for religious warfare, free-market economics became part of the new religious "Gospel," especially in the hands of the Calvinist theory that economic success was evidence of a person being "predestined" by God for salvation in the hereafter. See Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
See also the many posts by Randal, me, and others in the Government and the Economy; Property Rights and Classical Liberalism; Libertarianism and Anarchocapitalism; Objectivism topics of this group.
Randal and Alan - you both are an economic and general culture enciclopedia. Thanks a lot. It will took some weeks to go over your texts and books. Alan, magical that I used was not in religious approach - my belief is that supply and demand economic law is similar of philosophical cause and effect law governing all human actions - is something like as natural as gravitacional law - nobody can manage it.It is important register: I´m not supporting austrian school - set free market for everything - I´m proposing a new social pact based on nutrition, health and education - after setting this new pact, austrian economic is the better system available, without government intervention. Cherrrssss. Many thanks. Ron
Mod
Ron, you may not be aware how much free-market economics has been deified in the United States, especially since World War II. See, for example, Kevin M. Kruse's One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America, which I have reviewed here, and Benjamin T. Lynerd's Republican Theology: The Civil Religion of American Evangelicals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). When I grew up in the 1950s, people were not just opposed to Communism but to "godless, atheistic Communism." Many business, political, and religious leaders preached the identity of Christianity and free-market economics. Although I have always myself been opposed to Communism, I believe it is unfortunate how much free-market economics has been religionized in this country. Commitment to free-market ideology has become virtually a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy. It was not always so. Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple and taught that it is virtually impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. FDR used such traditionally Christian ideas to mobilize support for his New Deal. In response, corporate leaders launched a propaganda campaign to equate Christianity with free-market ideology. Jesus and FDR lost this battle for American minds; the corporate and religious propagandists won.
Alan wrote - But unfettered, unmitigated, unregulated capitalism leads to disaster, especially for those not in the upper one per cent, not to mention the physical environment...I strongly agreed with you Alan, but think about a new pact and reduction drastically causes of inequalities. invisible hand as defined by Smith or free market will act in full power. We´ll return back to industrial revolution and all values that make western countries progressive, rich and flourishing. Salute, Skol, Campai or Cherrss as Randal. Ron
Alan wrote: "It is precisely the theological nature of free-market dogma that makes it so attractive to absolute fundamentalist theocrats like Gary North...."Alan,
I think you may be onto something here: The common thread between Christian theocrats like North and the Austrians may be what Zizek called The Sublime Object of Ideology. Or maybe just the ideologically driven illusion of self-interest. Mises and Hayek seem to have not been particularly religious, just hearkening back to the more secure world (for their upper middle class) of the Hapsburg dynasty. Or maybe just, as I suggest above, toleration of contradiction as long as MY horn of the dilemma is not sacrificed.
As for magic, what Ron may be getting at is that neoclassical economics tells you just what the price should be: it is the intersection of the supply and demand curves. The Marxians have no demand curve, so they can't determine prices unless the demand curve is for a case of constant returns (see my discussion of the labor theory of value referenced above.) But actually, neither the capitalist nor the socialist planner have access to real data on the demand curve. They are both guessing. They find the demand by trial and error. Keynes had the deepest insight on this, when he said, "Da_ned if I know" why capitalists invest. Neither the capitalist nor the socialist planner can get rid of this uncertainty. It's magic. But Keynes showed us that it's worse than that: the magician is an illusionist, we are faced here with real uncertainty.
Cheers,
Randal
Mod
Ron: I don't think that your social pact would work in the United States. It would be the equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. Such privatization as we have experienced here is not encouraging. Since I am not very familiar with social and economic situations outside of the United States, I will not opine on whether it could work in your country or elsewhere.
Alan - I´m sure that Social Pact is difficult anywhere, cause fox is happy taking care of chicken. But, imagine results reducing government - downsizing - bureaucracy, corruption, freedom to produce and consume. Everything depends on benefits and cost. Full employment will guarantee the pact. Peace to the world - people don´t make war, government do (Reagan). Regards. Ron
Mod
I think you are being way too optimistic about human nature. We have had many episodes in US history where the people have been motivated by war hysteria to persuade their political representatives to go to war. I'm sorry, but I think your cure would be worse than the disease. The big corporations would like nothing better than to be in total control. The rest of us, as well as the environment, would be their victims. Much of the environment of the State of North Dakota has been destroyed by corporate fracking. People have been motivated by short-term self-interest (jobs) to go along with this. The only thing standing between such destruction on a national level and the fracking corporations is the government, though federal and state politicians and bureaucrats are often paid off by the big corporations. Still, some limited governmental regulation has prevented the disaster on a national scale that has occurred in North Dakota.
Granted, a planned economy as such does not work (witness the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.). But the solution is not to go to the other extreme of unlimited corporate power. It is true that politicians are often motivated by something other than the common good. But, in the last analysis, government is the only power capable of counterbalancing relentless corporate greed. The "natural" order is not a total laissez-faire economic system. Rather, the political art is necessary to provide a counterweight between the short-term profit motive and the people's ultimate common good. The classical political philosophers always understood this, though their particular political solutions (Plato's Republic or Laws, for example) are not acceptable.
Alan - never forget that corporations will be responsible for human health - impact of this Pact is tremendous - profit link to human health - competition - more health people more profits, less environment destruction and so on. Think about the consequences of Social Pact. Ron
Mod
Ron - I will have to read the material you sent me earlier in PDF. I've been preoccupied with other research interests, and I'm not sure when I will get to it. But I should not comment further about your plan until I have read it.
Ronaldo wrote: "The Keynesian system holds on power by default. There is no widely shared faith in what can be substituted and how”. Gary NorthWhat´s your vision of keynesian theory?..."
Ron,
Just a quick note in response here: one thing that is a good bet about "Keynesian theory" is that Maynard would not have subscribed to it. I think that the economics of Samuelson et al. in Cambridge on the Charles was quite different from that of Keynes from Cambridge on the Cam. A good book on this is The Keynes Solution by Paul Davidson. Or read Skidlesky's books. The book that he wrote with his philosopher son, How Much is Enough, is quite good, and short.
Maynard did subscribe to the marginal theory of Walras/Menger/Jevons as he learned it from his teacher Marshall. But Marshall was not one of those mathematical whizzes, like Walras. He looked to history and analysis of social relations. Keynes shared that cultural bias. His chief concern was to save capitalism from its great crises. He couldn't sit by like Hayek while the errors of the few dragged the lives of the many into the ditch. He was a fox, not a hedgehog. I have said that I think his greatest gift to us was his appreciation for uncertainty. We are always dealing with something new. Ideologues like North don't know what they are talking about. To deal with the future we need our wits, not our Bibles.
Cheers,
Randal
Randal - pragmatic approach - I like it!!! Let´s go straight to the point: Keynes legitimize government in the economy - emotional circunstances - crisis of 30 - WW II - but cruel mixture between economy and politic doesn´t work. This mixture is responsible for big gvnmt deficit, corruption, inequalities and so on. How to fix it? Keynes do not show answers. Mises is more closed to solution. Have you watch a simulation of fighting Keynes x Hayek? I sent before? Cherrrss. Ron
Randal wrote: "Alan wrote: "It is precisely the theological nature of free-market dogma that makes it so attractive to absolute fundamentalist theocrats like Gary North...."Alan,
I think you may be onto someth..."
Thanks Alan, as always your depth of knowledge and understanding keeps our conversations on economics grounded. I can't wait to have some time to invest in my own deep level study of economics. Have started with Keynes and Hayek and moving on, as a result of these discussions , to Walras. But like Alan, my wish list is long and varied. But I digress.
My own experience of economics and theology has always played out on the small micro field of small business as opposed to large, bureaucratic organizations. I have observed the "magic" described by Ron up close for 30 years, and unlike Keynes, may I be so bold to say that I think I know why capitalists invest. I don't think its any great secret.
Alan's description and reference to laissez-faire/unfettered capitalism's defects are true for the most part, though I would argue that capitalism has not been unfettered in this country at least, for many decades. Laissez-faire as a concept is, at least for the western world a very 19c notion, though one can make a strong argument for the 21c equivalent in China. The reality of capitalism is "the struggle". While not an admirer of Ayn Rand, her distorted and inelegant description of capitalists deserves at least a little recognition for its truth. The capitalistic theology that my friends and colleagues have ascribed to these past 40 years has nothing to do with dogmatic Christian fundamentalism or pillaging. It has everything to do with creating a new reality for themselves and their loved ones. A positive by product being the employment and support of employees and their families. It is a virtuous cycle. Its getting late now and I am rambling so I will hold off and try to continue my thought with a clearer head later.
Mod
Charles,
I think there is a big difference between large multinational corporations and small businesses. My parents owned a small business for about 25 years, and I worked at it during summers in high school and college, so I have some familiarity with the nature of that kind of enterprise. Unfortunately, small business owners (including my parents) often tend to identify with large multinational corporations and tend to follow their lead in voting behavior. But Main Street is not Wall Street, and the shenanigans on Wall Street often harm Main Street, as in the 2008 stock market crash and ensuing recession.
Charles,There is an interesting talk on BBC4 by John Gray that is pertinent to your experience in small business here. I would be interested in your reaction.
Regards,
Randal
Thanks Randall; Mr Gray's comments were intelligent and provoking to be sure. As I carefully listened, I had to start taking notes, as I realized that his central thesis is grounded in a very specific worldview, which was confirmed by a quick glance at his Wiki entry. I won't address all his points here as I don't want to bore you all and it would take some time. He reminds me of the late Victorians he describes in his talk, one of those British and Americans who pine for an earlier , less complicated existence, where the path from A to Z was clear , direct and easily understood. As a reader and devotee of The Economist for over 40 years I have been exposed to that kind of European, old world thinking for decades. My life as an American businessman and professional would not have been possible on the Continent or the UK. He makes a statement that, paraphrasing him, suggests that in today's environment, the rewards go to those who are flexible, able to change and adapt and are able to deal with the new, while those who only want to stay in place and continue with their accustomed life are swept away. He further argues that the free market undermines the so called bourgeois life, whatever that means in the 21c US.
Ultimately I was disappointed in his analysis, a commonly held position among many who feel that mankind is digging its own grave. There is a large argument and discussion to be held on that topic for sure, but Mr Gray's positions and argument has no fertile ground for me or any connection to my earlier post on small business. Any entrepreneur I know, and I do not mean Mom and Pop small businesses, would find his world view and comments almost irrelevant to their existence.
Charles wrote: "Thanks Randall; Mr Gray's comments were intelligent and provoking to be sure . . . Any entrepreneur I know, and I do not mean Mom and Pop small businesses, would find his world view and comments almost irrelevant to their existence."Charles,
Sorry to put you through that! Professor Gray was completely new to me. Now with some experience of him, he does remind me of, if not a Victorian gentleman, another character from my past, Paul Ehrlich. I had forgotten your animosity to Dr. Paul. The life experience of an Oxford and LSE don is certainly worlds away from that of an American entrepreneur. Again, sorry to have suggested this.
Regards,
Randal
Not at all; one of the merits of Goodreads in general and this group in particular is the uncovering and discovery of new thoughts and agendas that may or not agree with my own . Isn't that what is missing in today's culture? Everyone looking to be vindicated by some "expert". That's why I enjoy and truly value both extremes ; it tests my own set of beliefs. Good old Dr Paul; a long ago college memory. But; without reading him, my appreciation for Julian Simon would be diminished.
My ability to connect with you and Alan and to be challenged by your serious and accomplished study is one of the enjoyments of my Goodreads experience.
CG
Mod
You're right Alan; the middle way is always the hardest. The easiest solutions are usually the least well understood and thought out; though the easiest to spout on air or on a post. Accepting the fact that we maybe DON'T know all the answers is the start of listening and learning. I am grateful for a place where I can listen hard about things that I know less than others.
Alan - words of wisdom:"Perhaps a fault of the Left is not always being sufficiently aware of the practicalities of running a business or the unintended consequences of governmental action. Perhaps a fault of the Right is not always being sufficiently aware of the historical fact that unmitigated laissez faire sometimes leads to injustice or that the profit motive may not be the supreme principle of the universe. We need to learn from each other, and I hope that this forum facilitates such learning"
Mod
I used the following two quotations as the epigraph at the beginning of my book on Roger Williams:
"Worthy friends, that ourselves & all Men are apt & prone to differ it is no New Thing, in all former Ages, in all parts of this World, in these parts, and in our deare native Countrey & mournfull state of England.
"That either part or partie is most right in his owne eyes, his Cause Right, his Cariage Right, his Arguments Right, his Answeres Right is as wofully & constantly true as the former. And experience tells us that when the God of peace hath taken peace from the Earth, one sparke of Action, Word, or Cariage is too too powrefull to kindle such a fire as burnes up Families, Townes, Cities, Armies, Navies, Nations, & Kingdomes."
Roger Williams, "An humble Motion to the Towne of Providence," August 31, 1648
"Dogma, brought into hourly relation with life, led men beyond dogma. Especially is this true of the group who separated most sharply the two orders of nature and grace."
A. S. P. Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty
Professor Woodhouse made it clear that he was referring especially to Roger Williams. The first quote, from Williams, is just as applicable today as when he wrote it in August of 1648. Williams was a profound thinker who understood the interrelationship of intellectual and ethical matters.
My other favorite quote along this line was attributed by Plato to Socrates in the Apology of Socrates 21d: "what I do not know, I do not think I know" (my translation).
All of this would perhaps today be called "critical thinking." Socrates called it "philosophy" (literally, "love of wisdom"). No matter what it is called, we need more of it today and less of argumentative dogmatism.
I just shared Plato's quote with my wife as I was reading your comment Alan. We immediately thought of many people in our family and beyond who might find it either insightful or unintelligible. Anyway thanks, I just ordered your book via your website and expect it soon. I am looking forward to enlarging my knowledge and understanding of Mr Williams.
Mod
Thanks, Charles.
Alan
Alan wrote: "My other favorite quote along this line was attributed by Plato to Socrates in the Apology of Socrates 21d: "what I do not know,I do not think I know" (my translation). ..."Alan,
Fowler's translation (Loeb and Perseus) of this whole passage is: "I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either." The last bit in Greek is "ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι."
Gregory Vlastos’s translation in his book on Socrates is “It looks as though, while neither of us know anything worthwhile, he thinks he does; but as or me, while, as in point of fact, I have no knowledge, neither do I think I have any.”
I have argued that Socrates is here stating a contradiction, but one of the "real" contradictions that occur at the limits of knowledge: he says that he has no knowledge (knows nothing), but in saying that he IS saying that he knows something, namely that he doesn’t know. Vlastos calls it a “misreading” to say that Socrates is saying here that he has no knowledge. My argument that this is a real contradiction is here.
Not that this diminishes Socrates in my mind. Rather raises him to the level of Nagarjuna who said, “By their nature, the things are not a determinate entity. Their nature is a non-nature; it is their no-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature; no nature . . ..” I have discussed this more here.
Cheers,
Randal
Mod
This is getting a bit ahead of myself, since I have planned to restudy the Apology of Socrates and Leo Strauss's lectures and essay on it after I finish my paper "Thomas More, Roger Williams, and John Locke on Freedom of Conscience, Land Ownership, and Slavery" (see my post 1 in the Thomas More (1478-1535) topic and my posts 3-4 in the John Locke (1632-1704) topic). I am making very slow progress on the paper, having just finished Richard Marius's monumental biography of Thomas More and having reread More's Utopia and much of his Dialogue Concerning Heresies within the last few weeks. But the Apology of Socrates has always been one of my favorite writings of Plato, and I should be able to address at least some of your inquiries before I have time to restudy it and scholarly commentary on it more thoroughly. Suffice it to say for right now that Socrates, as usual, was speaking both ironically and philosophically when he made the entire statement that you quote and which I quoted in part. More tomorrow.
12/26/2015 Addendum: See my post 12 in the John Locke (1632-1704) topic of this Goodreads group.
Mod
Mod
In a way, all these constitutional issues miss the point. As long as American public opinion is divided on this question, the constitutional debates will continue. Before my retirement as a lawyer, I myself was involved in representing municipalities in Establishment Clause and other constitutional litigation. It is important that public opinion someday (it won't happen soon) arrive at a consensus that separation of church and state is a good idea, even apart from constitutional and legal issues. This is one of the reasons I wrote my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. Roger Williams was a Christian minister who, more than 150 years before the adoption of the First Amendment, strongly supported separation of church and state and liberty of conscience against the persecutory policies of the New England theocracies of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, New Haven, and Plymouth. He adduced both secular and religious arguments for these principles. Moreover, his secular arguments are still valid today—and not only for the United States but for all countries around the globe. The Religious Right in this country recognizes the dangers of various Middle Eastern theocracies and of the nongovernmental theocratic movements that intend to eliminate Christianity and other nonfavored religions. Unfortunately, the Religious Right might as well be looking into a mirror, for they often support governmental policies that favor their own religion to the detriment of others.
I read today an excellent, brief essay on these issues. This is one of the best statements of the question that I have seen, and I commend it to your perusal.
Mod
Alan wrote:the Religious Right might as well be looking into a mirror, for they often support governmental policies that favor their own religion to the detriment of others
I know of a local, relatively trivial, example. Around 1980 the so-called Moral Majority succeeded in establishing a bar-closing time in Anchorage (about which the State has no legitimate interest).
It may be this was no more than an early domino in the infantilizing of laws regulating peaceful adult behavior.
Some consider educational vouchers to be a detriment to others, since church schools might be more readily financed thereby.
I'm sure there are many instances of government policy favoring particular sects - perhaps Alan can cite a few.
Mod
Thanks, Jim. There are many examples, though my focus has been mainly on the historical background before the present century. For contemporary examples, you can check out the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) site (www.au.org). Their monthly magazine Church and State summarizes the various Establishment Clause violations for the previous month, many of which don't make it into the news. They recently had an interesting article about vouchers.
As for closing times for bars, there is a very long history in this country, going back to the seventeenth century, of governmental regulation of alcoholic establishments. Before I retired from law practice, I sometimes represented municipalities who were sued by restaurants, bars, etc. for denials of liquor permits or other liquor regulations. (My wife always told me that I represented the wrong side in many case, and, alas, that is one reason I decided to retire permanently from law practice.) In law school, we learned of a special carve-out for such establishments as well as certain other entities as inns, common carriers (transportation), etc. These laws originate in the English common (or statutory) law, and many of them have a nonreligious rationale. So such laws are neither new or uncomplicated. In contrast, there are many uncomplicated, manifest violations of separation of church and state that occur on a daily basis and are reported on the AU website and publications.
Thanks for the link, Alan - I'll check that out. Later, I'll comment at some length about how Alaska once respected adult autonomy and disrespects it now
(sort of a small chapter in a memoir I'm composing at considerable leisure)
(it occurs to me, that as a former litigator your own memoir might be well leavened by legal "war stories")
Mod
Later, I'll comment at some length about how Alaska once respected adult autonomy and disrespects it now
(sort of a small chapter in a memoir I'..."
Alaska is unusual in that it still has (or at least recently had) a libertarian frontier mentality--the total opposite of, for example, the former Puritan states of the Northeast. Ask Sarah Palin (on second thought, don't ask her).
I won't be writing my memoir, legal or otherwise. Among other things, client confidentiality would prevent me from discussing particular cases (F. Lee Baily got into trouble with state bars for his bestsellers--all of which I have read). I spoke generically in my earlier email but will never discuss particular cases.
"It is true that politicians and other public officials often act to maximize their own personal political or economic interests. This does not mean, however, that they always do so or that government is totally ineffectual in achieving its legitimate ends".
I also have always been guided by James Madison's analysis inThe Federalist number 51:
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
Solution is reduce resources managed by bureaucrats and politicians (human will) - tax system - and increase those flowing by free market - nobody control it!!!
Regards. Ron Carneiro