The rule of the virtuous person is displaced by the explicit control of the centralized state.While there are interesting disputes available here, I think it's worthwhile to note that the overwhelming consensus from libertarianism in general is in agreement:
The state displaces civil institutions that are important. That's bad.Life gets interesting though, with the economic growth focus. Basically, the difference between our lives and the lives of our ancient ancestors can be summarized in ONE idea: economic growth. Economic growth is enabled, again, by one basic activity: people trading and innovating for mutual profit, AKA the market.
Here's the problem...all human progress (the way our lives are day-to-day better, less painful, prettier, longer) comes from the market, and the market is inherently destabilizing of civil institutions, particularly non-individualistic ones that Mr. Deneen opposes . What do you do?
Posts
2 comments:
The idea that economic growth is the only difference between our lives and the lives of our ancestors is incorrect.
If you could resurrect someone from 100 years ago, I think he would be: 1) amazed by our technological progress; and 2) amazed at the decline in morality.
It's by no means clear to me that he would prefer the technological progress at the expense of the destruction of civility.
How much good would his iPhone do while he was walking through Detroit at night?
Is it really clear that the morality of a culture that accepted entrenched racial oppression, antisemitism, and the death tolls of World War 1 is so superior to the morality of a culture that would not?
Post a Comment