I think that the idea put into fundamental law by the constitution isn’t the idea to foster a nation where people of differing views can get along it is to foster a nation of self-governing people. Those differing views can never be those that would destroy our individual agency to be able to govern own lives - which is what I mean by self-government. Democracy does not trump self-governance.
Bravo, Linda on an excellent and cogent explanation of the Declaration of Independence and its one phrase, “all men are created equal” as the foundation of our Constitution. Libertarianism has gone out of favor on the conservative side of the aisle but, to my mind, Murray Rothbard has built a very strong theoretical logical body of work showing the Natural Rights foundation as the only logical basis for harmonious coexistence among human beings on this earth.
This stuff burns my brain, nevertheless I enjoy reading it. Especially when the one I trust most in such matters makes the argument. For now I'll go with this:
"A Constitution made for people of fundamentally differing views should certainly not impose limitations on our understanding of what human beings are and/or should be."
Seems only a progressive could blow that up, and the world along with it.
I disagree with Linda Denno on probably damn near everything, but I appreciate this piece. I think it's the clearest statement of the position so far. I keep trying to convince people who don't seem to see it that the entire positivism vs natural law arguments is fundamentally a *metaethical* dispute. This goes back to Kelsen and Austin. People who still tout any of their views don't try to defend their affirmative political philosophies nearly as much as their form of arguably modest normative antirealism. Yes, Kelsen had weird ideas of sovereignty, but a lot of it was an attack on the very notion of free floating objective norms distinguishable from sociologically patterned subjective preferences.
And the Hayekian/Leoni strains of thought that try to "naturalize" natural law are even disputed as to whether or not they're really natural law positions at all, precisely because they don't necessarily endorse an objective, inherently apprehensible set of motivating norms. They are arguments fundamentally reconcilable with legal realism and a weaker form of positivism, in a way that natural law isn't.
Its confusing to me that Linda sees that and Steve doesn't. I don't know what Steve sees differently here. He takes the "argument from common law" approach, and it just seems a lot less tenable than defending the metaethical plank on its own terms. Hayekian views of common law aren't exactly natural law positions, somewhat infamously.
However, there is one clanging line here that I'd like to argue against: "It is the belief in the ultimate perfectibility of humans and human institutions that defines the progressive project." This is a common certainty, but wrong.
To correct that, one word needs to be changed - viz: the statement: "It is the belief in the ultimate perfectibility of humans and human institutions that <EM>sells</em> the progressive project" , is correct.
The belief in the perfectability of man motivates a big part of Christianity and American democracy - both near opposites to the progressive project which defines itself, as all processes and ideologies do, by what it tries to do - not by its motivation, not by what the proponents claim they want to do, but by what they actually do when given the power to act.
In power progressives establish feudalist heirarchies: thus Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, and Stalin's Russia are merely unpleasant examples of what happens when the progressive project is not harshly limited by external forces - but note that the Trudeau, Starmer, and Obama visions for their respective electorates differ from these only in their limits and application, not in intent or values.
For more on this - there's an essay (peeling the onion of progressive delusion) on my paul530.substack.com that you may want to look at.
Paul, I disagree with the statement “The belief in the perfectability of man motivates a big part of Christianity and American democracy.” I don’t think Christian doctrine posits “perfectability” as one of its basic tenets is that all humans are sinners. To believe otherwise would negate the need for Jesus and his crucifixion. James Madison said in Federalist 51 “If men were angels we wouldn’t no government would be necessary…”. The founders understood the imperfectability of humans by their nature. I agree completely with you when you point out that Progressives wish to be judged by their “intentions” and not the real world effects of their hideous beliefs and policies.
The notions of forgiveness and repentance incorporate the possibility of positive change --> in the limit, (unachievable) perfectability as process rather than end pont.
IMO, the argument comes down to “Trust Us” from both sides. If you want to know what a Constitution really says/means, there has to be a dictionary in the Constitution that defines nearly every word used. Then, judges have something to go on. But Brutus pointed out that judges rule on intent anyway so…. At least with a dictionary the Citizens can change it if they want.
Well done! Looking forward to seeing how John responds to this.
You've delivered the most cogent and compelling column in this debate, Linda.
A masterful presentation by Linda. When Steve organizes this material into a book, this is Chapter 1. Maybe even the Preface.
I think that the idea put into fundamental law by the constitution isn’t the idea to foster a nation where people of differing views can get along it is to foster a nation of self-governing people. Those differing views can never be those that would destroy our individual agency to be able to govern own lives - which is what I mean by self-government. Democracy does not trump self-governance.
Bravo, Linda on an excellent and cogent explanation of the Declaration of Independence and its one phrase, “all men are created equal” as the foundation of our Constitution. Libertarianism has gone out of favor on the conservative side of the aisle but, to my mind, Murray Rothbard has built a very strong theoretical logical body of work showing the Natural Rights foundation as the only logical basis for harmonious coexistence among human beings on this earth.
This stuff burns my brain, nevertheless I enjoy reading it. Especially when the one I trust most in such matters makes the argument. For now I'll go with this:
"A Constitution made for people of fundamentally differing views should certainly not impose limitations on our understanding of what human beings are and/or should be."
Seems only a progressive could blow that up, and the world along with it.
Jim
I disagree with Linda Denno on probably damn near everything, but I appreciate this piece. I think it's the clearest statement of the position so far. I keep trying to convince people who don't seem to see it that the entire positivism vs natural law arguments is fundamentally a *metaethical* dispute. This goes back to Kelsen and Austin. People who still tout any of their views don't try to defend their affirmative political philosophies nearly as much as their form of arguably modest normative antirealism. Yes, Kelsen had weird ideas of sovereignty, but a lot of it was an attack on the very notion of free floating objective norms distinguishable from sociologically patterned subjective preferences.
And the Hayekian/Leoni strains of thought that try to "naturalize" natural law are even disputed as to whether or not they're really natural law positions at all, precisely because they don't necessarily endorse an objective, inherently apprehensible set of motivating norms. They are arguments fundamentally reconcilable with legal realism and a weaker form of positivism, in a way that natural law isn't.
Its confusing to me that Linda sees that and Steve doesn't. I don't know what Steve sees differently here. He takes the "argument from common law" approach, and it just seems a lot less tenable than defending the metaethical plank on its own terms. Hayekian views of common law aren't exactly natural law positions, somewhat infamously.
Yes. Absolutely.
However, there is one clanging line here that I'd like to argue against: "It is the belief in the ultimate perfectibility of humans and human institutions that defines the progressive project." This is a common certainty, but wrong.
To correct that, one word needs to be changed - viz: the statement: "It is the belief in the ultimate perfectibility of humans and human institutions that <EM>sells</em> the progressive project" , is correct.
The belief in the perfectability of man motivates a big part of Christianity and American democracy - both near opposites to the progressive project which defines itself, as all processes and ideologies do, by what it tries to do - not by its motivation, not by what the proponents claim they want to do, but by what they actually do when given the power to act.
In power progressives establish feudalist heirarchies: thus Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, and Stalin's Russia are merely unpleasant examples of what happens when the progressive project is not harshly limited by external forces - but note that the Trudeau, Starmer, and Obama visions for their respective electorates differ from these only in their limits and application, not in intent or values.
For more on this - there's an essay (peeling the onion of progressive delusion) on my paul530.substack.com that you may want to look at.
Paul, I disagree with the statement “The belief in the perfectability of man motivates a big part of Christianity and American democracy.” I don’t think Christian doctrine posits “perfectability” as one of its basic tenets is that all humans are sinners. To believe otherwise would negate the need for Jesus and his crucifixion. James Madison said in Federalist 51 “If men were angels we wouldn’t no government would be necessary…”. The founders understood the imperfectability of humans by their nature. I agree completely with you when you point out that Progressives wish to be judged by their “intentions” and not the real world effects of their hideous beliefs and policies.
The notions of forgiveness and repentance incorporate the possibility of positive change --> in the limit, (unachievable) perfectability as process rather than end pont.
A necessary fog cutting, but the definition of natural vs positive law still requires more work. How did we get here from Bentham vs. Jefferson?
Perhaps this time John Yoo won't sleep through your response.
IMO, the argument comes down to “Trust Us” from both sides. If you want to know what a Constitution really says/means, there has to be a dictionary in the Constitution that defines nearly every word used. Then, judges have something to go on. But Brutus pointed out that judges rule on intent anyway so…. At least with a dictionary the Citizens can change it if they want.