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.
Augustine #83 “In particular, I think “pursuit of happiness” referred to private property (though that was not necessarily its only meaning). In Locke, Property = Pursuit of Happiness.”
I had the impression that the “pursuit of happiness” involved trying to get to the truth. There was certainly a competition of ideas involved in the founding of our country. Included among that competition of ideas was the idea of a king with his power juxtaposed with the idea of a free people electing those responsible for governing. Inside of the free people idea were competing considerations of what should and what should not be left to the individual.
The pursuit of happiness was much wider than the individual, if I understood it correctly.
You write as if you have in fact missed my point, which is that the whole point of VirtueConservatism is a lot of virtue some of which involves politics and some of which (intentionally) doesn’t.
Did you not understand this, or do you suspect VirtueCons of concealing their true intentions (to eventually use political means to impose the rest of virtue), or do you perhaps think they don’t even know their own intentions?
If so, so what? Sounds like evangelism and Veggie Tales and (the nobler varieties of) country music to me–which a libertarian like yourself should have no objection to (beyond, perhaps, the aesthetic).
I think you meant this as an objection, but if it is then it is either useless or else it relies on the unstated (and false) premise that Rachel Lu is really a theocrat.
You mean in Locke specifically, or in a lot of people around that time, or at the time of the founding?
In any of these senses, I’m not going to object.
What I said was from the themes of the Second Treatise of Government; the equation Property = Pursuit of Happiness is a fitting summary of about half the book’s content.
That’s all I’m saying. It’s a good phrase. It can mean other things, and no doubt does.
I think the manifesto is an excellent summary of what has been named “virtue conservatism.”
My first impression was that item #9 needed some minor rework on the causal logic, especially on “dishonor” but also on “poverty”. My reaction went something like ‘Honor is a virtue, so dishonor is a vice, rather than a cause of vice’. And the causal connection between poverty and the lack of virtue seemed too weak or complex for inclusion in a short manifesto. Jesus was poor but virtuous.
I certainly hope so. Perhaps it would help if the self-identified VirtuCons would be a little more clear about their objectives, and the means they intend to employ to reach those objectives.
Either way, I think the OP is a pretty good basis from which to correct erroneous claims about a war on women or imposition of a particular religion’s rules. Not only does it establish a foundation of hard truths that I suspect have wider agreement than we’re led to believe by the talk of the millions of people afraid of our religious extremism (I’ve always been surprised by the notion that Christians would crack the top ten list of things to be afraid of), it uses that foundation to justify the kind of limited and legitimate government to which the left is so opposed.
I’m sorry but this just doesn’t track with the discussion we have here. We constantly hear how the libertarian way of governance just isn’t sufficient to foster virtuous citizens. The libertarian way of governance is to leave people alone to tend to their own virtue. The converse is to use government (ie: force) to make people virtuous.
So which is it? Are you all suddenly libertarians?
If so, welcome! Now leave me alone.
“The libertarian way of governance just isn’t sufficient to foster virtuous citizens” is how you’re interpreting things. I don’t think anyone is saying that. Perhaps one could say that the libertarian way is insufficient to foster the civic goods or protect against real (though not direct and determinate) harm, but that’s a different matter.
The choices you lay out here aren’t the only ones. They sound like a good summary of libertarianism and progressivism, respectively, but conservatism lies inbetween.
Yes. That quote of yours is exactly the spirit of the VCon claim. They say, “usually”, because they are honest and truthful, not about wanting to use the state to enforce virtue, but about wanting to be able to use the state to do so. Since I expect they will find a reason to do so, the two are functionally the same.
Hopefully, here is the source of the misunderstanding:
Libertarians interpret “leave people alone” as the government should leave people alone. Non-libertarians worry that “leave people alone” means free people should also leave each other alone – that is, not band together into institutions like families and churches and mutual-help groups and charities. Non-libertarians worry that libertarians think people should be islands.
One would hope that the libertarian enthusiasm for economics would allay this fear somewhat. After all, what is an economy but people banding together in a bunch of associations in order to cooperate? In practice, though, non-libertarians have a tendency to stay worried: so libertarians only care about economic cooperation, then? This worry is compounded by the fact that ordinary people tend to have a much narrower conception of what counts as “economic cooperation” than, say, Gary Becker does. So libertarians think people should only interact with each other when money changes hands?
Of course we don’t, and most of us (especially those who regularly comment on Ricochet) don’t live as if we do. But I think that’s the worry non-libertarians have about what libertarians mean when we use the phrase “leave people alone”.
Midge,
As Tom, and I, have pointed out repeatedly: this has always been the source of the misunderstanding. Libertarianism is a political movement – we care solely about the use of government power on the citizenry. SoCons (I refuse to use the smug term VirtuCon anymore) believe that because we don’t want to deal with these issues politically we must not care about them at all. This just isn’t true. We’ve said this over and over and over again. We are continually ignored on this point.
We are libertines because we won’t use government to enforce our morality. That is just ass backwards.
And I’m joining you in pointing it out yet again.
It is possible that SoCons have a similar problem explaining themselves to us as we do to them. Because they care so much – and indeed, do believe the SoCon way is the way everybody should live – non-SoCons worry that SoCons intend to use government to force their way of life on the rest of the populace.
Just as non-libertarians worry that libertarian avoidance of government entails avoidance of persuading the populace at all, non-SoCons worry that SoCon embrasure of persuading the populace entails embrasure of using government force to do the persuading.
It seems that lurking in the corner of most human minds is the perhaps-forgotten – and certainly indecent – worry that anyone unwilling to resort to force in order to persuade isn’t really that interested in persuasion to begin with.
So in reality libertarians very often approve of a bundle of morality that is cultivated by voluntary association. And the error of some SoCons is to think that libertarians recognize no morality save that which the government must enforce; ok, fair enough.
But libertarians should avoid the same error, which lurks behind any charge that SoCons are equivalent to progressives for the sole reason that they believe in more moral rules than do some libertarians. See Midge, # 132.
To be fair, I can only recall seeing this error once on Ricochet. The false dichotomy that either all morality must be governmentally enforced, or none (save the prevention of direct bodily harm of another) is a (subtly) different but more common error–mentioned by Ed G. in # 128.
The difference is that Libertarians put a wall between the state action and legislating virtue. SoCons don’t do this. It is much easier for “mission creep” to happen where SoCons are concerned.
The argument is basically: Well we don’t want to use government power for this but we may have to in case the citizenry don’t comply. Trust us, we’ll know when to stop.
Ugh.
Can you show me an example of a SoCon using that sort of argument? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it.
If we could ever pin you guys down on more than “Virtue is good we should encourage it” maybe I could.
But I’ll out two policy positions from SoCons in the past:
Drug Laws
Anti-sodomy laws
From Rachel:
That sounds like a great big “trust me” to me.
This back and forth could be resolved if SoCons were willing to come out and say exactly what they would be willing to use the government to do (beyond restoring traditional marriage). The reason Libertarians get so suspicious is when we express our fears of what SoCons may really want to do if they are in power the response isn’t “Well, we won’t use the government to reinforce our morality except for specific cases X, Y and Z” We get something like, “When did SoCons ever say we want to use the government to enforce morality.”
The problem is you may be careful never to say things that like, but you never really deny it either. If you would just come out and say how exactly you want to accomplish restoring correct morality libertarians wouldn’t get this creepy vibe that you think you can trick us.
So, according to you, the SoCon position is ambiguous. Yet you are pretty confident that the argument above correctly captures their position?
I don’t get that.
So supporting that sort of a law amounts to the argument described above? Again, I don’t get that.
Then you are as poor a reader of Rachel Lu as you are of me! It is nothing of the sort.
She says VirtueCons believe in the value of these communities. In fact there is no virtue apart from one’s role in these communities, for the reason that the human nature by which virtue is defined is itself defined in very large part by our communities.
That’s the Aristotle-Aquinas-MacIntyre tradition talking. (As well it should be! Lu teaches philosophy at a Catholic university, references “natural law,” and is an avowed “VirtuCon”!)
This is in fact a stellar answer to Jamie L.’s question: as uncrossable a line as the “no direct harm” rule, although not one quite so clear to those who have little grounding in the natural law tradition.
Isn’t clarity an important requirement in law? Doesn’t it have to be clear what the people are buying or else it is a big ol’ “Trust me, don’t worry that you aren’t smart enough to understand it.”
Mike is hitting on the issue here: Libertarians are constantly on watch for what comes next. Its one thing for you and Rachel to talk about the wonders of virtuous communities, but what’s next? Are you content to live your lives in your own mediating institutions under your own ideas of virtue? Because if you are you’re a libertarian. But the impression SoCons leave is that they aren’t content with this, that they want to spread their idea of virtue using government power. Nothing you write dissuades us from this notion and the continued refusal to specify only makes us more and more wary.
I am less sure that SoCons don’t – or don’t want to – do this. Less sure about them taking sufficient precautions to ensure that it won’t happen, hence the risk of “mission creep”:
Yes, we are worried that that is their argument. I think most people who worry about SoCons worry about that.
Maybe SoCons do know when to stop. In fact, I have seen evidence that they (or at least most of the SoCons on Ricochet) do have many ideas of where to stop that aren’t terrribly different from my own. But sometimes, I also see evidence that SoCons don’t know when to stop. The result is not a confident belief that they won’t know when to stop, but it’s not a confident belief that they will know where to stop, either. I feel like I get conflicting evidence, and that has me doubting – not confident either way.
Midge, the problem is SoCons won’t always be in power. It doesn’t matter if they know when to “stop” 1) their idea of when to stop doesn’t comport with those of other free people in our society 2) the next guy might not be so “generous”.
Either way – liberty dies a little.
The way I was looking at it, knowing when to stop also incorporates the knowledge of what happens if and when your faction is no longer in power. If you have failed to incorporate that contingency into your thinking, then you’ve failed to fully figure out when to stop.
A good example is marriage. When marriage is the province of the government, you open yourself up to marriage being defined in ways you don’t like.
Here’s some examples of what would be too far:
If you are taxing people to give refundable credits to married families with children, you’ve gone too far.
If you are not decriminalizing drugs and stopping the ineffectual and deadly drug war, you starting from too far.
If you think some kind of government war on pornography or outlawing possession would be beneficial, may God have mercy on you.
I’m not saying SoCon’s want to do any of these things, but these are the type of examples we want to hear from them so we know more than vague allusions to their goals.
Irony alert:
No wonder the Left has such an easy time characterizing our side as heartless and cold. This is why we’re losing. We need to couch our public discussions in more compassionate terms.
How about, I’m sorry life so rough for you but that doesn’t mean you get to use the government to steal money for you? ;)
I agree, actually.
As I said in a later comment, suddenly withdrawing all support that people have become acclimated to (for whatever reason) without offering to help them adjust to the change strikes me as unfair. I could not find it in my heart to do things that way, and even if I could, I have no warrant for supposing the populace at large would ever let it happen.
Nonetheless, there is considerable evidence (such as declining welfare usage from first-, second-, to third-generation Hmong refugees) that even people facing unimaginably painful circumstances do adapt to those circumstances and can, if they are not outright rewarded for destructive behavior, eventually get their act together. Heck, what does “people respond to incentives” even mean if it doesn’t entail that?