I just have a couple questions for Mr. Soros. When did the United States ever have "untrammelled laissez-faire capitalism" in the past, say, 100 years? What exactly does Mr. Soros mean by "market values?" Markets don't have "values"; only market participants have "values." Based on such squishy allegations, Mr. Soros avers that it is capitalism that puts our "open and democratic society" at risk. Yet how does Mr. Soros define an "open" society? Indeed, how does he define democracy?
I didn't realize the United States was an "open society." Indeed, on Mr. Soros' definition, it is not one, and has never been one:
IT is easier to identify the enemies of the open society than to give the concept a positive meaning. Yet without such a positive meaning the open society is bound to fall prey to its enemies. There has to be a common interest to hold a community together, but the open society is not a community in the traditional sense of the word. It is an abstract idea, a universal concept.... Moreover, the open society as a universal concept transcends all boundaries. Societies derive their cohesion from shared values. These values are rooted in culture, religion, history, and tradition. When a society does not have boundaries, where are the shared values to be found? I believe there is only one possible source: the concept of the open society itself.I still don't see a definition here. But it seems clear to me that what Soros is arguing for is the delegitimation and ultimate extinction of culture, religion, history, and tradition in the American consciousness, so to clear the decks for the implementation of the as-yet undefined values of the open society.
To fulfill this role, the concept of the open society needs to be redefined. Instead of there being a dichotomy between open and closed, I see the open society as occupying a middle ground, where the rights of the individual are safeguarded but where there are some shared values that hold society together. This middle ground is threatened from all sides. At one extreme, communist and nationalist doctrines would lead to state domination. At the other extreme, laissez-faire capitalism would lead to great instability and eventual breakdown....Okay. Now I get it! The shared moral values of the "open society" are matters to be determined by "debate and choice": That is, by the political process itself....I envisage the open society as a society open to improvement. We start with the recognition of our own fallibility, which extends not only to our mental constructs but also to our institutions. What is imperfect can be improved, by a process of trial and error. The open society not only allows this process but actually encourages it, by insisting on freedom of expression and protecting dissent. The open society offers a vista of limitless progress. In this respect it has an affinity with the scientific method. But science has at its disposal objective criteria — namely the facts by which the process may be judged. Unfortunately, in human affairs the facts do not provide reliable criteria of truth, yet we need some generally agreed-upon standards by which the process of trial and error can be judged. All cultures and religions offer such standards; the open society cannot do without them. The innovation in an open society is that whereas most cultures and religions regard their own values as absolute, an open society, which is aware of many cultures and religions, must regard its own shared values as a matter of debate and choice. To make the debate possible, there must be general agreement on at least one point: that the open society is a desirable form of social organization. People must be free to think and act, subject only to limits imposed by the common interests. Where the limits are must also be determined by trial and error.
Soros dismisses communism, capitalism, and a raft of other things he doesn't like as "dogmas" — and because they are dogmas is the reason he gives for his dislike. But what could his own rant about the "open society" be but a dogma?
At least he doesn't pull his punches. I wonder how many people will notice this stunning self-revelation of a leading behind-the-scenes Democrat operative and deep-pocket. I do believe that Soros' article in The Atlantic Monthly is "chapter and verse" of the New Doctrine that the progressive Left hopes to implement under the Obama presidency.
We have been well warned.
And I focus on this:
Where the limits are must also be determined by trial and error.
I think we are launched on the way regarding Trial and Error...with the Porkulus Bill!
Seems to me that those who choose to reject absolute truth are in fact rejecting God. It will not end well for them.
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. – Psalms 2:1-5
"...The open society offers a vista of limitless progress. In this respect it has an affinity with the scientific method. But science has at its disposal objective criteria — namely the facts by which the process may be judged. Unfortunately, in human affairs the facts do not provide reliable criteria of truth, yet we need some generally agreed-upon standards by which the process of trial and error can be judged. All cultures and religions offer such standards; the open society cannot do without them. The innovation in an open society is that whereas most cultures and religions regard their own values as absolute, an open society, which is aware of many cultures and religions, must regard its own shared values as a matter of debate and choice.
As C.S. Lewis observed in "The Abolition of Man", the human mind can no more invent a new value than create a new primary color. Underneath the Mr Soros' subterfuge of replacing "absolute values" with "debate and choice" lies the contradiction that that "debate and choice" are just a different set of "absolute values", which just so happen to be so much more conveniently malleable to the ambitions of self-annointed moral 'innovators' like Mr. Soros for the propagation of the society of his choice.
Cordially,