Posted on 01/20/2002 2:12:45 PM PST by annalex
Somebody has to do it. I suppose, were we on some other historical trajectory, a private entity would do the sorting-out. My point is not that we need a government in order to have culture, but that we need to extend the notion of individual rights into the cultural sphere in order to have culture.
I have very little faith in the usefullness of democracy, but I would agree that it is about the best role a democracy may have: defining the leading culture.
The problem with liberalism is that it doesn't mind tyranny of the majority where it does all of its harm, in the area of economic life, and it decries it where it actually does something good, -- in cultural life.
I ommitted from the article my comments about military chaplains, that would also apply to prison chaplains. Here they are:
The military is not the public square, because its men contractually relinquished their rights of free expression. The cultural policy of the military is therefore procedurally determined top-down by its commanders with the single goal of military effectiveness. This goal would dictate to avoid the following two extremes. A harsh and cold to the cultural (and in particular, religious, given the proximity of death) needs of the soldiers would diminish the military's ability to recruit and the soldier's dedication. Thus, a complete absence of chaplains (or Bob Hope's) would be contrary to the military's charter. On the other hand, an attempt to accommodate every minority would be a burden, so the military is better off in losing the support of adherents of rare religions rather than having Wiccan chaplains.Similarly, cultural policy in prison needs to balance the prison's goal of combining punishment, isolation from society and rehabilitation, against the legitimate spiritual needs of prisoners. I would recommend wiccans stay out of crime since a witch chaplain may not be available for them.
"Essentially, those who consider the rights of the minority paramount will have victories until they have purged the culture of any real substance."
I have seen no such decadence, no 'purging of substance' taking place, yet the majority is very busy 'restoring order', and on the road to dictatorship, imo.
Our republic is set up, supposedly, to defend everyones rights against all tyranny, -- even a so-called benign tyranny of the majority. This constitutional principle is being ignored. - 12 posted by tpaine
There are two kinds of libertarians: liberals who rejected socialism and conservatives who rejected Republicans. I'm guessing you're of the former variety.
-- Hmmmm. Should I be flattered that you want to type me? -- Why? - Your 'guess' is right, but snide in itself. Do you fancy yourself a superior being?
There is an alarming amount of homogeneity in American culture today. Regional differences are minor. America is tied together by the common blanket of faux rights given to us by the EPA, the ADA, etc. People think they share a common culture because they both watched Law and Order the previous night. You may, however, be correct that the restoration of "order" is now in its beginning stages.
Well thats a relief, -- that you think I may be right about something.
Tell me, why did you bother to reply? -- Essentially, you made no response to my points.
I donno. Suppose my neighbor likes to watch old Flintstones reruns, and he keeps the volume up loud. He has his culture and I have mine. This is really a property rights situation. The best answer for us sensitive types is probably to have a lot of property surrounding our homes. If we want to save money on such things as large gated estates, we accept the tradeoff of obnoxious neighbors.
That's a great line.
If he disrupts your Bach with his Flintstones then it's an offense regardless of property. You can mitigate it with property, but the offense is there.
Ah, but if I blast my "culture" out the window, and he blasts his "culture" in my direction, which is the offense? I say it's the volume, not the quality of the culture. Hence the solution is either a "volume control constabulary" or a large country estate.
--- The 14th amendment, in effect, says that states/communities cannot ban, they can 'regulate' public behaviors & uses of property, but they must use due process, - not prohibitive decrees.
Next, a minority that is uncomfortable with that should sue to repeal or correctly interpret these laws. A jury will then decide if the offensiveness is objectively there or if the majority simply doesn't like the minority cultural expression, but cannot be offended. At this point the standard is objectified through the tests in court and rules.
The present system stands all this on its head. The jury,. for most part, is out of the picture, supplanted by the executive branch. Instead of proposing a standard, looking for a court challenge, then seeking to adapt the standard, the government simply assumes that all expressions are rightful as long as they are minority, because they bring diversity. The government doesn't go to bat for extreme offensiveness, such as public pornography, not because it understands that pornography is offensive, but because it knows it can't win, not yet.
-- Not yet? Good grief. - Sorry, but I'm outa here, on that note.
Or become good neighbors, or have neighborhood associations and property covenents. In the absence of laws requiring people to behave themselves, people are more likely to voluntarily seek harmony with their neighbors than not.
I need never get to know you right now if you move in next door. If you put up something tacky on your lawn or play your music too loud, I can just call the police and have them hassle you for breaking noise or zoning laws.
Absent that option, it becomes incumbent on me to seek harmony and good relations between us.
It's one more way in which the state erodes the quality of human life and human interaction.
Hmm. I think I need to clarify your position. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that a purely private property society may be desirable but that until then, we still need to define the proper use of our remaining public space.
This is a fine idea, but problematic in practice. To be a commons (public in the sense of unowned) a property must either be unused or freely used by all. The first is a waste, the second a potential disaster. Once use restrictions are imposed, the government (state, town, whatever) has claimed that property and is now its owner. The question now is whether the management of a resource is most efficient in the realm of politics or the realm of the private market. We all know the answer to that -- the market will deliver the better outcome.
It might be better to say that the assault on public morality by multiculturalism is facilitated by the attempt to treat public property as a commons when in reality it is state-owned property. To say that a governing body should manage a public space wisely is no different from saying that a private owner should do so. The question is which owner (the transitory members of a town council or a private landholder) has the proper incentives.
No, in the quoted by you statement I am saying that regardless of whether we have a purely private property society we need to define the proper use of the space that welcomes unsolicited cultural messages; and that such space will become available from either a government or a private party.
tpaine, I should have known you'd take that the wrong way. My intention was not to be snide, merely to point out that your tendency to ignore the "purging of substance" is due to your cultural background. Just as libertarians of the right sometimes come across as militaristic or theocratic.
Essentially, you made no response to my points.
On the contrary, I pointed out the lack of regional diversity in the U.S. (now replaced with ceremonial diversity, in which the people are of different races or ethnic backgrounds but the cultural messages are all the same). This goes directly to your comment that you have "seen no such . . . purging of substance."
The federalism of the Constitution, as written, would definitely help these matters. But the Constitution, although a noble attempt, is flawed. It is a document intended to restrain a State -- an impossible task. We know that today, as we see tyranny congeal around us. The Founders tried and failed. We could restore the Constitution, but I'm certain that within 150 years we'd be back to Fed-approved church burnings and bombing aspirin factories.
Okay, no volume. My neighbor has a hemomgous porn collection. He's told me about it. He's a creep. Now are we still concerned with the substance of his "violation"?
This only becomes an issue of individual rights if we assume that public spaces must be treated as a commons (something I think we both reject). In any other circumstance, there is a landowner (either the govt. or a private individual) and that person or people has control over use of the public space.
Now it may be more civil to conform to the greater community when managing a public space -- but it is not a rights violation to do otherwise.
Yours truly, Bible thumping imperialist.
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.