Goodbye Justice, Hello Happiness

Given that personal well-being flows less from economic factors than from psychological factors such as a sense of personal control over ones life, Bagaric and McConvill contend that most restrictive laws which do not directly harm others should be repealed. For example, laws restricting property rights and pornography should be relaxed.

Does happiness research mandate such libertarianism? I think not. Indeed, the growing evidence of our human need to belong -- to connect in close, intimate, supportive, enduring relationships suggests that what modern western cultures need is not more individualism but less.

The mantras of me-thinking individualism are familiar: Do your own thing. Question authority. If it feels good, do it. Follow your bliss. Don't conform. Think for yourself. Be true to yourself. You owe it to yourself.

Amitai Etzioni, a recent president of the American Sociological Association, urges us toward an alternative to libertarian individualism - a communitarian ethos that balances individualism with a spirit of community. Fellow sociologist Robert Bellah concurs.

Communitarianism is based on the value of the sacredness of the individual, he explains. But it also affirms the central value of solidarity . . . that we become who we are through our relationships. In Bowling Alone, political scientist Robert Putnam documents the decline of social capital that attends growing individualism.

What I have called The American Paradox describes the irony of post-1960 America, which was a time of surging liberty and affluence (the good news) and declining civility and social health (the bad news). As our rights become more secure and our disposable incomes rose, social connections frayed and depression, teen suicide, and crime became more severe. More than ever, we at the end of the last century were finding ourselves with big houses and broken homes, high incomes and low morale, secured rights and diminished civility. We were excelling at making a living but too often failing at making a life. We celebrated our prosperity but yearned for purpose. We cherished our freedoms but longed for connection. In an age of plenty, we were feeling spiritual hunger.

Communitarians, who proclaim a third way alternative to individualism and collectivism, believe that individual rights must be balanced with social responsibilities, that libertarian individualism must be restrained by concern for our communal well-being. We humans like to feel unique and in control of our lives, but we also are social creatures having a basic need to belong. Communitarian 'we-thinking' is leading to greater protections of communal well-being, as in smoking restraints on aeroplanes and in restaurants, environmental legislation that protects the commons, and restraints on individuals rights to sell and own weapons. The communitarian bottom line: we need to balance our needs for independence and attachment, privacy and community, liberty and fraternity.

Thus, if pornography can be shown (as I believe it has been) to contribute to an impulsive sexuality that undermines one of the biggest predictors of happiness a stable and close marriage and the co-parenting of children then Bagaric and McConvill would, I presume, want to make a case for restraints on pornography, or at least for a public education program that will increase awareness of the dividends of covenant relationships.

Listen to communitarians talk about European-style child benefits, extended parental leaves, flexible working hours, campaign finance reform, and ideas for fostering the commons and you'd swear they are liberals. Listen to them talk about covenant marriages, divorce reform, father care, and character education and you'd swear they are conservatives. In fact, communitarians see themselves not as a midpoint but as a third alternative to the individualism-authoritarian and liberal-conservative polarities.

This 'Third Way', as people first called it in Tony Blair's Britain, aims to synthesize some of the best ideas from both camps.

Communitarians welcome incentives for individual initiative and appreciate why Marxist economies have crumbled. If I were, let's say, in Albania at this moment, said Communitarian Network co-founder Etzioni, I probably would argue that there's too much community and not enough individual rights. Even in communal Japan (where the nail that sticks out gets pounded down), Etzioni says he would sing a song of individuality. In the individualistic American context, he sings a song of social order. Where there is chaos in a neighborhood, people may feel like prisoners in their homes.

Opposition to communitarians comes from civil libertarians of the left, economic libertarians of the right, and special interest libertarians (such as the U.S. National Rifle Association). Much as these organizations differ, they are branches of the same tree - all valuing individual rights in the contest with the common good. Communitarians take on all such varieties of libertarians. Unrestrained personal freedom, they say, destroys a cultures social fabric; unrestrained commercial freedom exploits workers and plunders the commons. Etzioni sums up the communitarian ideal in his New Golden Rule:

"-- Respect and uphold societys moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy. --"

To reflect on your own libertarian versus communitarian leanings, consider what restraints on liberty you support: luggage scanning at airports smoking bans in public places speed limits on highways? sobriety checkpoints? drug testing of pilots and rail engineers? prohibitions on leaf burning? restrictions on TV cigarette ads? regulations on stereo or muffler noise? pollution controls? requiring seat belts and motorcycle helmets? disclosure of sexual contacts for HIV carriers? outlawing child pornography? banning AK-47s and other non-hunting weapons of destruction? required school uniforms? wire taps on suspected terrorists? fingerprinting checks to protect welfare, unemployment, and Social Security funds from fraud?

All such restraints on individual rights, most opposed by libertarians of one sort or another, aim to enhance the public good.

Libertarians often object to restraints on guns, panhandlers, pornography, drugs, or business by warning that such may plunge us down a slippery slope leading to the loss of more important liberties. If today we let them search our luggage, tomorrow they'll be invading our houses. If today we censor cigarette ads on television, tomorrow the thought police will be removing books from our libraries. If today we ban handguns, tomorrow's Big Brother government will take our hunting rifles.

Communitarians reply that if we don't balance concern for individual rights with concern for the commons, we risk chaos and a new fascism.

Finally, if you can't see that liberty is not the same as license, then there is no point in arguing with you. You are beyond any logic or reason.

You insisted that I confuse liberty with license. -- I don't.

And you claimed that, "-- unfortunately, license undermines liberty --"
Yep, thats the line, - if you want to license liberty. -- I don't. Do you?

I am using "license" in the sense of "lack of due restraint, excessive freedom," which is one of its dictionary defitions.

So am I. You think some of our freedoms are "excessive", and need to be licensed, -- I don't. - Nor does our Constitution enumerate those that can be restrained.

You are playing a little game of semantics. You know what I mean, but you are distorting my meaning.

I know all to well what majority rule statism means.. We see it all about us, replacing our Constitutional freedoms with restraints & prohibitions unauthorized by the document.

The existence of red light districts was, in fact, an admission that such establishments did not belong within the community proper.

A point not at issue. Zoning is an agreed upon method of controlling the public aspects of 'vice'. Its Constitutional.

It is not proof that Americans who lived 100 years ago approved of what went on inside those establishments.

Constitutionally speaking, you & society have no 'approval power' over what goes on inside private establishments. - The police powers of States do not extend to prohibiting the non-violent 'vices' of private acts between consenting adults.

I find it telling that you think rights can be "granted" by society.
Apparently you disagree with our founding principle that we are all equally endowed with inalienable rights to life liberty & property, rights we cannot be deprived of without due process of law. Can you say it isn't so?

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I am not saying that rights are granted by society. I am not denying that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God given rights (not Constitution-given rights).
But I am saying that when individual rights are exalted over every other consideration, when the needs and wants of the individual become paramount even over the public good, then any number of demands can be categorized as "rights."

Ah yes, the "public good". Communitarianism/socialism.

And there is no way for us as a society to determine which of these rights, which, in the opinion of their supporters, all fall under the category of "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness," are really rights and which are not.
If you can't understand this, there is no point in continuing this debate.

I understand your position all too well, and have been fighting it my entire adult life.. Thanks for letting me make that clear.

"We were excelling at making a living but too often failing at making a life. We celebrated our prosperity but yearned for purpose. We cherished our freedoms but longed for connection. In an age of plenty, we were feeling spiritual hunger."

Mighty powerful words, all true & beyond debate.

Another powerful thought: "...100 years ago, individuals in the USA were significantly more 'free', - and more responsible."

And more: "When the individual's right to pursue happiness becomes more important than his duty to the community, then justice suffers."

Amen.

"Rattle them chains."

Yea.

This piece has really provoked some serious & profound thoughts with me. Actually validated many oddities I've witnessed happening in our beloved Republic, but, couldn't quite describe.

Thanks for directing me over here, tp.
Glad to hell I didn't blow it off, it was exactly what I needed to read at the right time. ;^)

...
-BTTT-

steadfastconservative wrote: -- "When the individual's right to pursue happiness becomes more important than his duty to the community, then justice suffers."

Landru:
This piece has really provoked some serious & profound thoughts with me. Actually validated many oddities I've witnessed happening in our beloved Republic, but, couldn't quite describe.

Yep, the "odd" insidious aspects of the communitarian philosophy have taken root in our Republic, -- as we see in the above idea that our 'duty' to community/society should trump our rights to life, liberty, happiness or property.

Thanks for directing me over here, tp. Glad to hell I didn't blow it off, it was exactly what I needed to read at the right time. ;^) ...
-BTTT-

Thanks for the bump.
The election results clearly show the need to know our enemy, and a failure to define the issues.

"Yep, the "odd" insidious aspects of the communitarian philosophy have taken root in our Republic, -- as we see in the above idea that our 'duty' to community/society should trump our rights to life, liberty, happiness or property...The election results clearly show the need to know our enemy, and a failure to define the issues."

They'll never *get it*, ever.

Right now the Libertarians are being attacked -- blamed for the GOP loss, no less :o) -- on another thread (I pinged you to), tp.
Surreal.

Nope, they just won't and don't get it and as long as they continue they'll be at the root of their own misery.

...-BTTT-

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.