Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A VirtuCon Manifesto
That’s a VirtuCon manifesto, not the VirtuCon manifesto. I suspect there are more visions of how virtue theory and conservatism could interact than there are actual VirtuCons. This rough first draft is a contribution to the conversation Rachel Lu rekindled last week — see Tom Meyer’s response and the conversation that followed it as well — about what an emphasis on virtue means for other parts of the conservative worldview.
Please note: The word “virtue” has recently (in the last century or so) undergone something of a change in meaning. The “virtue” in virtue theory harks back to the older meaning. Do not be misled by this choice of vocabulary, imposed by some 2,000 years of philosophical reflection.
- There is such a thing as human nature.
- There is such a thing as a form of life that promotes human flourishing. In the past this was also referred to as “happiness.”
- Virtues are those habits of character that tend to human flourishing. In the past, the development of these habits was also referred to as “the pursuit of happiness.”
- Virtues are not general understandings, but the application of general understandings to particular cases. This is known as practical wisdom.
- The virtues are inculcated in childhood through the enforcement of rules, in adulthood through deliberative practice, and in both stages of life through example. Enforcement by — and examples found in — family, local church, and one’s immediate community are better (more effective) than those enforced by or demonstrated in more distant institutions.
- Politics is an important area of human flourishing. Real participation in the life of a community requires that the rules and norms of that community are decided by its members, not imposed from afar.
- For these reasons, virtue requires a “hard” subsidiarity, where power is (sparingly) delegated upwards from the local to the general polity. (This contrasts with ‘soft’ subsidiarity, where the higher power delegates downwards, but always maintains real control, usually disguised as “support”).
- In the past, this was also referred to as “liberty.”
- Poverty, ignorance, and dishonour are the enemies of virtue. All three are opposed by the voluntary institution of the free market. Free markets create wealth, spread knowledge, and do not require social position to succeed. A free market requires the exercise of virtues, and assists in promoting them.
- In the past, this was also referred to as “life.”
- The realization of a continent-spanning republic amenable to human flourishing is a daunting task, but it requires an exquisite modesty. Fortunately, that modesty is the sure route to success, eschewing all temptation to tyranny. We need only have regard to three things:
- Life – adequate means of existence, provided by the voluntary interactions of persons making choices in a condition of freedom.
- Liberty – the room to learn and grow in practical wisdom.
- The pursuit of happiness – the exercise of wisdom and the road to human flourishing.
But this can be couched in the clear language of protecting individual rights, so is not an example of state control that goes against libertarian principles.
You were quite specifically unspecific:
Unless I’m reading this wrong, “[p]olicing the accuracy of factual advertising claims” is a permissible government activity in Larrytarianism.
You will be aware that there are libertarians who would reject the role of government in enforcing contracts. It is not necessary to go that far to prefer that false claims be governed by the private law of contract, with no need for the state to get involved at all. Once caveat emptor goes, and the government – rather than your irate customers – tell you what you can and can’t say, where is the bright line limit? Free markets become fair markets, and hello Elisabeth Warren.
That would be fraud would it not? Are you claiming policing fraud is not a government activity?
The private law of contract? Contracts have no meaning unless they are enforceable by courts, which are a branch of the government. What about defamation law? Again, it involves government courts, which decide whether a statement is true or false. If you are willing to accept a law that makes it an offense to make a false statement about a person, why do you object to a law that makes it an offense to make a false statement about a product? I don’t see this as a particularly dangerous step on the road to tyranny, and by making markets more effective I believe such a law increases freedom.
I understand that there are brands of so-called libertarians who believe that anything less than complete anarchy is just another step on the slippery slope, but that’s not me.
Not surprisingly, none of my libertarian principles go against libertarian principles – or at least it seems that way to me.
Umm. Yes. Private as in between private individuals: contract, tort, property, succession etc. As opposed to Public law, between the state and the citizen: administrative, criminal, constitutional, international.
The distinction between private and public – in this sense – is historical and important.
Defamation is (historically) a tort. Not a crime. (It is not a crime to breach a contract.)
But I am not accepting that it is an offense – a crime – to make a false statement about a person (which is only one component of the tort of defamation, as it happens). So I am entitled to object to a law that criminalizes the making of a false statement about a product.
If I buy something from you and I find that it is not as you have warranted – promised – it to be, I can sue you for a breach of contract, perhaps in an entirely private arbitral tribunal we have agreed upon. The government need not get involved until much later in the process, and only if I have difficulty enforcing an award. Do you really want to have the police involved earlier?
How does one have a tort without government?
If someone already breached a contract with you why would they hold to a contract for arbitral tribunal without government force being the last resort.
This seems reductio ad absurdum to me.
Repeat players. If you screw someone over they won’t work with you again. If you are known to screw people over, no one will work with you.
I am not denying government being a last resort (although some would). I am concerned that there seems to be no distinction between last and first resort.
(And there are many reasons to a party might wish to comply with an arbitration clause beyond fear of policemen taking their property as a last resort, including commercial reputation.)
Of course, but that doesn’t satisfy the remedy for the initial breach of contract which could be devastating.
Of course, but what you haven’t demonstrated is why having a court system to enforce contracts infringes upon liberty in any way.
No, even worse. For that invites confusion with “national greatness conservatives” who seem to fall for anything that claims to make America “great”.
Also, though anyone can Google, not everyone here is going to just paste “ἀρετή” into a search engine and see what happens. I happen to have seen its transliteration, “arete” before, and to recall that it means something like “excellence”, “greatness”, or “fulfilling one’s potential for the excellent”, but including a link for fellow members who haven’t run across the term before is probably helpful.
Genferei, I never said anything about making false advertising a crime. I’m not sure it even needs to be a tort. The government may be able to fulfill its legitimate role simply by announcing that a product is not as advertised, and letting consumers make their choices accordingly. Which is akin to what the health inspectors do when they post a grade in a restaurant’s window. You can walk into a restaurant with a “C” in the window if you want. There’s no coercion there. But I personally stay away from “C” restaurants, and I appreciate the additional information.
Yeah, no system solves all problems, but you can only be that devastating once. If you are an early adopter of dealing with a new entity you should expect to be taking on a boatload of risk.
Oh. I wasn’t trying to.
You did mention ‘offense’ at one point, but OK.
So Larrytarianism allows for government health inspections? Are these allowed to be compulsory?
I would be fine either way. I see no particular diminution of freedom if restaurants had to permit inspections, but if the inspections were voluntary I suspect that everyone would do it anyway because who in the world would patronize a restaurant that wouldn’t let anyone see their kitchen?
Again, I do not claim that there are no legitimate functions for government. I only claim that those functions are limited, and that they do not include deciding what behavior is virtuous, or imposing that behavior.
A key point from Owen here. I believe Larry has the protection of those individual rights (not to be a victim of fraud, e.g.) as the bright line: the sand on the icy slippery slope. (Or more like the brick wall on the slippery slope.)
Indeed. The free market system allows customers maximal power to punish wrongdoing. (When Verizon mistreated me I punished them by telling the truth on social media and to the Better Business Bureau.)
Larry3435 and I have now added A VirtuCon Manifesto to our long-running list of epic conversations. Several pages back, I identified what I took to be three disagreements we had: (1) big epistemological differences, (2) the bigger number of fundamental moral principles I accept, and (3) my willingness to follow through on the implications of one fundamental moral principle we both accept.
The epistemological differences appear to be irreconcilable. (Fortunately, irreconcilable differences are not grounds for the cessation of Rico-friend-nemesis-ships.) So much for number 1.
Now about number 3: That shared principle was that human happiness is good. I spent some time trying to make the point that, if this principle is at the root of libertarian political principles, those who accept libertarianism must accept any other implications of this principle. These other implications might require us to not accept a plain vanilla libertarianism.
It turns out Larry agrees. Hooray! Disagreement number 3, if I’m not mistaken, evaporates.
Some concern of late that Larry’s views pave the way for big government is, accordingly, unnecessary. Larry accepts that government involvement in economics and education for a fundamental reason which leads him to accept even stronger limitations on government.
(Continued)
Continued:
Number 2: Another fundamental moral principle I accept is the value of each human being. I don’t think Larry and I have analyzed that one. Another (which we’ve discussed briefly) is the existence of such a thing as human nature (as described in # 349). This principle, when coupled with the principle that human happiness is good and the principle that each human life has value, leads to a bit more government involvement in interests of promoting the flourishing of those humans–or staving off disaster for them.
It may be that the only reason I’m a VirtueCon rather than a libertarian is that I accept three rather than one of these principles. This requires a government that defends human life and recognizes and guards a few aspects of human nature (such as, perhaps, marriage and family).
Properly understood and carried out, governmental protection or recognition of one of those things it has the business of protecting is an expression of government humility: It is government bowing to a greater reality. (As recently explained on National Review with respect to marriage and family, and on Ricochet by Barkha Herman with respect to freedoms.)
Free markets and small (preferably de-centralized) government are still the best ways of following all three of these moral principles. The government, given these principles, must be quite, quite small, not much bigger than Larry’s libertarianism would have it.
On which side of the brick wall is the ‘right not to be offended’ or the ‘right to a minimum income’ or the ‘right to healthcare’ or the ‘right not to be exposed to second-hand smoke, trans-fats and excessively large sugary drinks’?
While rights talk is notoriously used to end a debate it is really just the beginning of the inquiry – from where does this individual right come?
I think you make a leap there: why does it require a government to do these thing?
Larry’s government-inspection libertarianism would seem to require a substantially larger government.
Larry, if you’re listening, I got your back! (Did I really just say that?)
I think the rights you mention are on the other side of the brick wall. And the brick wall has some rebar in it, which goes down about fifty feet underground!
That individual right comes from the intrinsic value of human happiness. And it’s a negative right–not a right to be happy, but a right not to be violated by others. And the rebar in the wall is the testimony of experience which tells us how much freedom is necessary for making the pursuit of happiness worthwhile.
(I’d put the wall just a bit further down the slope because of the reality of more extensive knowledge from experience: about love and marriage and families, maybe drugs and gambling.)
There might be lots of other answers here, but what comes to my mind (sticking with the philosophy and ethics) is simply that a fundamental moral principle requires it (in the same way some other fundamental moral principle might require laws against murder).
Maybe you think that doesn’t answer the question, and maybe you’d be right! It was awfully general, wasn’t it? Let’s see if I can be more specific with one likely example.
From the fundamental moral principles of human nature, the value of human life, and the value of human happiness, it follows that what helps humans flourish is good and what destroys them and their families is bad. One thing that helps them flourish, experience testifies, is strong marriages. Experience might further testify that, for example, marriages are generally stronger when no-fault divorce laws are not in place and porn use is rare.
In #411-12, Auggie stakes out far too much territory for me to address in detail. So let me start with “human nature.”
First, I do not deny the existence of certain characteristics common to most humans, including the characteristics of empathy, compassion, and a inherent sense of justice. On this subject, I highly recommend Russ Roberts’s recent EconTalk podcast with Paul Robinson. An interesting point made on that podcast, which also comports with something Auggie has said, is that this inherent sense of justice (which seems to be quite uniform among all humans, even among those from varying cultures and political convictions) only manifests itself when applied to small communities. It does not seem to apply once the size of institutions becomes so large as to be abstract.
Second, I think we also cannot deny that there are certain common characteristics among humans that are quite undesirable and distasteful. I’m sure I don’t have to list them.
I think we could fairly apply the term “human nature” to any of these common characteristics, good and bad, provided that we have due regard for the immense variability of human emotions, beliefs, goals, and behaviors. I think there could and would be endless disagreements about whether a particular characteristic is a part of “human nature,” or merely an individual prediliction or peculiarity.
Because it invites these endless disagreements, I consider “human nature” to be a poor foundation for building a reasoned argument about anything. (Continued.)
(Response to Auggie, continued) So my essential problem with talking about human nature is that it generates more heat than light. In analyzing any problem of philosophy or morality, what do I learn by virtue of acknowledging the existence of (but not the precise dimensions of) “human nature”? What does such an acknowledgement tell me, for example, about the legitimate scope of government? How is this premise useful to me in thinking more clearly about the world?
If it is not useful, then we have a premise that is certain to generate much disagreement but not much useful information. Why, then, should I focus my attention on this premise? I’m not necessarily saying the premise is “wrong”; just that it is not helpful.
That’s what I was trying to get at with my example oh so many pages ago: that even bright lines have some element of arbitrariness settled by being imposed at some point and an honest “trust me, I won’t descend into tyranny” from the imposers.
I think I probably left several lines of discussion open, and I’m sorry because I hate to do that to people. I simply lost the thread over the weekend (admittedly, I was losing track of the various discussion points even before the weekend). However, I think you’ve all benefited by discussing this with Augustine, apparently grounded in the study of the great philosophers, and Genferei rather than my stumbling and grasping in the dark of ignorance.