Skip to main content

The New Social Contract?

This is an interesting look at left thinking:
.. the Left of today represents an amalgam of the worst of capitalism and socialism: a purely corporate vision of social existence without any valuational unification. Hannah Arendt (the Human Condition) saw clearly that Hobbes had been wrong in his chronology: the social contract is not the beginning of social organization, it is the end. For the Left of today, the social contract, a purely pragmatic agreement of individuals driven only by self-interest, is the only rational understanding of the state. Arendt argues that when this is reached, we no longer have a polis, a political social organization with citizens, we have rather a corporate entity whose participants are producers and consumers. A polis is unified by a common ideology, its citizens do believe that there are things worth fighting and dying for; a corporation has no ideology, its members are participants of convenience. There is no loyalty to a corporation, there is to a polis. The Democrats are working in a country that began as a polis, has had the history of a polis, and more than half of which still understands itself as a polis. The citizens of that polis will not be easily swung by small plank changes in the party formula. Thus, the Democrats cling desperately to each element in their formula, abortion, pacifism, and homosexual marriage included, in the fear that abandoning it would lose a cluster of buyers, while gaining absolutely none that are new.
This makes me think about how we think about marriage. If marriage is only a contract of convenience to you, you probably have no problem with SSM. If you think marriage is something more, and prior to, a contract, then you will likely be opposed. Scott Hahn in First Comes Love makes a distinction that a contract is a business relationship and it can be withdrawn under the terms given when it was entered into. A covenant is a much older idea. A covenant can only be entered into; it cannot be broken, although it can be abandoned. The covenant idea is not as crazy as it sounds. It says that children are the marriage made flesh. They cannot be undone, and neither can the marriage. Interestingly, people who would balk at this description of marriage might willingly apply it to a nation. In the past that may have made some sense as the nation had much more unity than it has today. Today we are beginning to see "nations" made up of like minded people all over the world who share similar interests, whether it be cats, politics, or suicide voyuerism. I doubt that these new webs of relations can approach that kind of union. They do somewhat undermine the nation, though. The bigger question is if they can undermine the family. There does seem to be an international class of Rationalist jurists who think that they can. My money would be on religion, however. It can cut across space like an ideology, but it has physical basis that net groups or jet setters can't match. It also has a depth of human self understanding beyond that of rationalist creeds. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the nature of the religion in question. ***** Finally - I got a big chuckle out of this one. Obviously these folks have never heard of the Argument from Reason. If genes cause us to believe in God, then why do we trust anything that passes through our heads, like, I don't know, how about the idea that genes cause us to believe in God? This is a sophisticated newspaper? Yeah, and Katie Couric is a genius.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi