Posted on 03/21/2013 8:23:53 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In "An introduction to political economy", Richard T. Ely writes the following: (page 92)
Public and Private Responsibilities.- It is seen in general that there is no limit to the right of the State, the sovereign power, save its ability to do good. Duty, function, is co-extensive with power. The State is a moral person. It may be further said in general that the fundamental principle, the basis of the economic life of modern nations, is individual responsibility. It is designed that each grown person should feel that the welfare of himself and of his family, if he has one, rests upon himself. The State enters where his powers are insufficient, or we may express it better in this way : for the attainment of certain ends he finds it advantageous to co-operate with his fellows through town, city. State, federal government, and the performance of public duties as well as private duties is helpful in the development of the individual and of the race.
"Introduction" was written in 1889, at a time when the progressive movement had not become what it became by the early 1900's. So some of this is not necessarily all that threatening. It requires more reading of Ely to fully understand the mindset. In "Evolution of industrial society", Ely writes the following: (page 402)
Another stage in the development of thought is clearly reached in the writings of the English philosopher, Thomas Hill Green, who breaks away altogether from the conception of liberty as something to be achieved by negative, political action, holding that true liberty means the expression of positive powers of the individual, and that it can be reached only as a result of a long and arduous constructive process. Green tells us in these words what he means by liberty or freedom:
Richard Ely's influence upon early progressive thought probably cannot be under estimated, and it is likely that this is how and where progressives got the ideas that we have heard coming from Obama, the concepts of negative and positive liberty. It was imported from Britain. Keeping in mind that as Obama states it, you're hearing a philosophy that's had a whole century to "mature" and find its way, whereas Ely's writing is early and has not had the time to come to full fruition. Here is what he quotes from Green:
We do not mean merely freedom from restraint or compulsion. We do not mean merely freedom to do as we like irrespectively of what it is that we like. We do not mean a freedom that can be enjoyed by one man, or one set of men, at the cost of a loss of freedom to others. When we speak of freedom as something to be highly prized, we mean a positive power or capacity of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying, and that, too, something that we do or enjoy in common with others. We mean by it a power which each man exercises through the help or security given him by his fellow men, and which he in turn helps to secure for them. When we measure the progress of a society by the growth in freedom, we measure it by the increasing development and exercise on the whole of those powers of contributing to social good with which we believe the members of the society to be endowed; in short, by the greater power on the part of the citizens as a body to make the most and best of themselves."
To sum: Green is talking about the collective. Not the individual.
In the short bit that I have quoted, and in the even larger context of the few pages around it, it is unclear if Ely is quoting Green in agreement. If he is, I might have missed it. But elsewhere, we know that Ely was profoundly impacted by the things he read in European writings and was in agreement with them. Elsewhere in the very same book, "Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society", Ely writes this: (page 62)
For a long time in this country, under the influence of eighteenth century philosophy, we were inclined to regard men as substantially equal, and to suppose that all could live under the same economic and political institutions. It now becomes plain that this is a theory which works disaster, and is, indeed, cruel to those who are in the lower stages, resulting in their exploitation and degradation.
Of all the instances of rejection of the so called "eighteenth century ideas", this might be the most pointed. Above this quote and on page 61, he's talking about individualism and private property. Even before his quoting of Thomas Hill Green in 1889, Ely wrote this, in 86: (after quoting from Adam Smith)
This view, however, does not imply a conflict between the development of the individual and the development of society. Self-development for the sake of others is the aim of social ethics. Self and others, the individual and society, are thus united in one purpose.
This again, could be read ambiguously. Two paragraphs down, we see this:
The older ethical systems may, I think, be called individual. The perfection of the individual, or the worthiness of the individual, to use another expression, was the end proposed. Moral excellence of a single person was considered as something which might exist by itself, and need not bear any relation to one's fellows. Men were treated as units, and not as members of a body. The new tendency of which I speak, however, proceeds from the assumption that society is an organism, and that the individual is a part of a larger whole. Rudolph von Ihering develops this idea in the second volume of his "Zweck im recht." The source of ethics he finds in society: the end of ethics likewise is discovered in society and from society according to this theory is derived the ethical motive power which resides in the human will. Social ethics thus replaces individual ethics.
A few observations about this: Unlike his quoting of Green above, he is quoting in agreement here. He says "The older ethical systems may, I think, be called individual". There again, we see a nod to disagreement with the eighteenth century ideas and a push back against the Founding. "The perfection of the individual" is still something we hear about coming from progressives of today. "Men were treated as units" - This offends me to no end. I am not a "unit". The larger observation here is obvious. Old individualism is replaced by collectivism, even his characterization of individuals as "units", that's wording that gets right toward the core belief of the writer. Ely just can't help himself but look at us as parts of a whole, much like a beehive.
So here we have the answer to our query. Why is there no limit to the right of the state? Because that old eighteenth century philosophy "works disaster". The Founders were wrong. We progressives are right. Social replaces individual, and the state is our savior which will correct all of these ills.
Progressives want to blame the excesses of Progressivism on the right. That is how they dismiss their history.
Bump for another educational article. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!
The manual labor doctrine of Adam Smith and later Marx stated that only manual labor is productive activity, and so, the earnings of capitalists, businessmen, and the rich are unearned income. This justifies the freedom of the state to appropriate their private property and redistribute it to the rightful owners, the manual labor workers.
The anarchic concept of freedom, which states that the concept of freedom be wide enough to include the freedom to violate natural rights is an idea of Hobbes. In essence, Hobbes claims, a government comes into existence only with the appointment or institution of a ruler with absolute power — a power that effectively transcends all others, and over which there is no appeal.
The speech of Hell. There it is, in black and white.
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’
Bill Clinton
“The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people.’’
Bill Clinton
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”.
George Washington
So is the following conservative or 'progressive' thought?
'The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals".'
I don’t argue with lunatics, just as I don’t step in dog poop.
My final reply to you, as long as we are both on FR:
I never argue with lunatics. And that includes people who are duplicitous.
It’s progressive thought. This article should help, it addresses many of the same words from Ely that I do.
You’re right that the state is to protect both individuals and communities, but that’s not what Ely is getting at. He’s talking about the transition from individualism - and groups of individuals, to a collective - like a behive, where you and I are not individuals anymore. We are units.
So is the following conservative or 'progressive' thought?
'The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals".'
It’s progressive thought.
Thanks, PA! That was my take as well. Sad to say, it was recently offered up on FR as a conservative argument.
Your failure to comprehend the First Amendment is highly disturbing, and your response is right out of the Book of Useless Progressive Nonsense.
Second amendment ~ refers to the need for militias, and also refers to 'the people'. Third amendment .... keeps the Army from setting up camp in your family's home ~ the family being a fundamental group, or community, that undergirds all of society ~ BTW, this one is directed at Louis XIV. He sent the military to occupy private homes, eat their food, wear their clothes, sleep with their women ~ and all because those people refused to go to the same church as the king. It's about religious freedom.
You want me to go through the entire Bill of Rights and instruct you in the source of Conservative belief? You sure need it.
bump
I'm against anarchy and for government protecting individual liberties - anything more is statism.
The old class system is not the worst thing that can happen to people ~ it's a step up from anarchy and barbarism, but we don't do that. The Second Amendment, in fact, by referring to the right to keep and bear arms literally enobles 100% of 'the people' ~ so all of us have all the rights and privileges that any nobleman ever had, and that's not bad.
Your problem is you're balled up in this false conflict between 'individualism' and 'community' ~ they are not in conflict. In fact the Bill of Rights tells me I can associate with whoever wants to associate with me and there's nothing you and your kind can do about it ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.