Xenophon left a comment on this post that I think is worth pulling up for discussion. He writes (with his typical absolutist flair and reductionist approach to all historical figures named in a post):
"It is not true that individuals possess a prescriptive ‘natural liberty’ in their economic activities."
This sort of thinking is exactly what is wrong with modern liberalism/progressivism/socialism (they are largely the same thing). No wonder Dewey was such an early fan of Stalin.
The notion that one does not have a right to make a living is so stupid that it is difficult to muster the words to describe its stupidity, yet Dewey stands there and writes such. Worse is of course that Dewey's idea invites the sort rent seeking that harm the folks he presumably wishes to aid the most."
Anyone have any thoughts? My thought is that Xenophon makes the mistake of confusing "no natural rights" with "no rights" as if natural rights were the only rights that could ever exist. Your mistake, Xenophon, is in assuming that your foundation for rights is the only foundation that has been put forward. Neither Keynes nor Dewey nor I have said that the concept of rights is vacuous - only that the concept of natural rights is. There's quite a big difference. If you advocate natural rights I would be wrong to claim you don't believe rights exist - I would have to recognize that you simply understand their origin differently than I do.
I was actually reading James H. Nichols Jr.'s essay on "Pragmatism and the Constitution" in Allan Bloom's edited volume Confronting the Constitution: The Challenge to Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, and the Federalists from Utilitarianism, Historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Pragmatism, Existensialism... (that was too good a sub-title not to write out in full), and with Xenophon's comment this passage from that essay seems worth citing:
"In contrast with this early liberal conception of the natural individual apart from society, Dewey argues that - apart from certain biological structures - the individual does not have much that charcterizes him: "the actual 'laws' of human nature are laws of individuals in association, not of mythical beings apart from association." Accordingly, the idea of opposition between individuals and society is "wholly unjustified". The older idea of the individual as something given is a misleading abstraction; in fact, "social arrangements, laws, insitutions... are means of creating individuals". (emphasis mine)
I'm not finished with the essay yet - it's interesting so far. Needless to say this stark opposition the author and editor want to pose between the founders and pragmatism is a little contrived (I imagine the Marxism chapter is a lot less contrived... and I have no idea how "Freudians" are related to the Constitution). I'm by no means well read when it comes to Dewewy - I just like what I have read. If anyone has good reading suggestions on that, let me know.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is actually making me want to reread The End of Laissez Faire... I remember it as essentially setting out to identify the mixed individualist and communitarian strains of classical liberalism, note how both have degenerated over the years (communitarianism into Marxism and individualism into "laissez faire"), and how true liberalism needs to acknowledge both facets.
ReplyDeleteThat's how I remember it... I wonder now whether questions of natural rights featured more prominently than I had thought.
My thought is that Xenophon makes the mistake of confusing "no natural rights" with "no rights" as if natural rights were the only rights that could ever exist."
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not make that confusion. Without natural rights there are indeed, no rights, there are merely grants and grudging acceptance.
"Needless to say this stark opposition the author and editor want to pose between the founders and pragmatism is a little contrived..."
No, it isn't in the least bit contrived. Progressivism (which pragmatism is a form of) is based on large part on a rejection of the founders after all.
I've read the book in question.
Keynes was merely parroting what in the wind - his ideas on the nature of society were nothing new and were merely a copy of what socialists had been discussing back when they disfavored the end of slavery and attacked the notion of free labor. Socialists are always on the wrong side of history that way; just like Keynes was on the wrong side of history regarding economics, eugenics, segregation, etc.
What Dewey, etc. is want to use the language of rights while emptying of its earlier meaning.
Xenophon, regarding your first quote from Daniel and your response to it... this is another example of where you make a distinction between your thoughts and Daniel's characterization of them, but I just don't see where his characterization is so inaccurate. Daniel phrases it in terms of natural rights being the only rights, and you phrase it in terms of any non-natural rights being merely "grant and grudging acceptances", but not real rights. What on earth could be the difference between those two?
ReplyDeleteEvan,
ReplyDeleteBecause - unless he has recently changed his mind - Daniel clearly wants to use the language of rights, but rejects the notion of natural rights. No natural rights means no rights.
Right. Didn't he say that's exactly what you thought... that no natural rights means no rights? I'm still not clear on what was so inaccurate about what he said concerning your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteNo, Daniel made that claim that one can have rights outside the framework of natural rights. My contention that is those aren't really rights; they are something else entirely.
ReplyDeleteWell, right, we all know you two disagree.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that Daniel described your contention quite accurately... that you don't think non-natural rights are really rights. I don't understand why you constantly do this- act as if Daniel's misinterpreted you and then say exactly the same thing as Daniel just said in description of you.
And now we've gone back and forth with no productive end. Again. I suppose I should just stop registering my frustration with your need to contradict for contradiction's sake.
Contradicting for contradiction's sake and getting flustered when you and I agree on what your position is is one thing that comes up a lot.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that comes up a lot is when you say "what Keynes said wasn't new".
Did anyone claim it was? What is really the central point here you're trying to get at? I'm citing a book where Keynes reviews several centuries of the liberal tradition and stakes his relative position in it. Don't you think it goes without saying that what Keynes says here isn't new?
I'd be interested in better understanding your position on natural rights, Xenophon. You provide almost no detail on it here, except to insist that it is the only correct position (which is an odd way to try to convince someone it is the only correct position... you'd think if that was your goal you would provide more detail).
ReplyDeleteI find it especially interesting that such a strident atheist adopts a natural rights perspective. How do you square that? What is it about natural rights that passes muster with you where God fails? I would have thought that most atheists would be skeptical of natural rights.
If you want to write up a guest post detailing exactly what you think about the nature of natural rights, your proof that there is such a thing, etc., we can definitely accomodate a guest post. I'm going to be incognito for several days at the end of the week, and blogging will be lighter all week. If you want to elaborate, rather than continue to give us snippets, you're welcome to.
Another thing that comes up a lot is when you say "what Keynes said wasn't new".
ReplyDeleteThe flip side of this is "What so-&-so said was going against the current of thought at the time", as if this settles anything either. It's as if Xenophon has an odd sort of fundamental commitment to novelty.
"I don't understand why you constantly do this- act as if Daniel's misinterpreted you and then say exactly the same thing as Daniel just said in description of you."
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I didn't act like that. All I did was contradict Daniel's claim.
"I find it especially interesting that such a strident atheist adopts a natural rights perspective. How do you square that?"
Easily. Natural rights theory does not depend on a deity. There are any number of 20th century libertarian authors who discussed natural rights from a materialist perspective.
Yes, I could write up something this weekend if you are interested; much of what I would have to say is fairly derivative though.
"I would have thought that most atheists would be skeptical of natural rights."
Some atheists are utilitarians, some are into utilitarianism and natural rights, and some are full on natural rights advocates. Much of it depends on what one thinks of the Enlightenment claim of natural human sociability and how thick one thinks that is.
"What is really the central point here you're trying to get at?"
That Keynes wasn't a terribly original thinker.
Easily. Natural rights theory does not depend on a deity. There are any number of 20th century libertarian authors who discussed natural rights from a materialist perspective.
ReplyDeleteCould you explain? Now I'm wondering if you're closer to my perspective, you just call it "natural rights". The fact that you're contrasting natural rights and utilitarianism so sharply makes me suspect all the more that this is the case. Now I'm definitely interested in having a guest post from you on this.
That Keynes wasn't a terribly original thinker.
And you're not being a very rational thinker. You don't demonstrate that someone isn't an original thinker because they have some ideas that others have had before.
*Oh and I meant to say - nobody ever said it depends on a deity. That wasn't my point at all. My point was that it seems like you'd have to make a lot of the same sort of metaphysical assumptions that a theist would. I'd be interested in understanding why that's not true, and based on your response I think your view of rights may be closer to mine after all. I have no idea why you couch it in "natural rights" langauge, though. I'll just have to hear more.
ReplyDelete