[lit-ideas] The Welfare State vs the Individual
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:20:38 -0700
Mike wrote, " . . . you read them with the mind that believes that order
should trump liberty. Those are (as I read you) fundamentals with you. My
fundamentals are almost opposite. . ."
Marcel Gauchet in his The Disenchantment of the World, A Political History
of Religion describes the move away from religious hierarchy during the
Reformation as one of the necessary steps toward Western Liberal Democracy.
The higher up the Roman Catholic hierarchy the closer you got to God, but
Luther and more especially Calvin changed that for Protestants. Inasmuch as
all Christians are saved by grace through Jesus Christ, not through an
intermediary, there is none closer to God than any other. We can see the
birth of the Liberal-Democratic idea of equality in this. Prior to Luther
and Calvin you were not equal to a priest or a bishop. They were higher up
the Catholic hierarchy than you were.
Gauchet argued that Christianity, primarily Protestant Christianity, gave
rise to Liberal Democracy. It also gave rise to the idea of autonomy. The
modern idea of autonomy probably isn't one that Calvin would approve of, but
Arminius might: We are the source of our acts and representations; thus it
is entirely up to us as to whether we choose to follow Jesus Christ or not.
Our will is free; we can exercise it to choose whatever we like. Gauchet
has observed that over time, a majority in Europe has chosen to reject
Christianity.
The idea of the individual also grew from Protestant Christianity. Alain
Renaut draws a distinction between an Autonomous person, one who is the
source of his acts and representations, and an Individual, one who rejects
restraints upon his liberties. Renaut describes a hypothetically consistent
individual who denies any restriction upon his liberties whatsoever. No
such person exists any more than an utterly consistent autonomous person can
exist. But consider Mike's statement above. He believes that I would have
order trump liberty whereas he would almost hold to an opposite view. Thus
if we set up a spectrum and put order at one end and liberty at the other,
Mike suggests that he would be far closer to the liberty end than I would;
which may be true. I don't know, but I thought about this in relation to
something else, the Welfare State.
The Welfare State is far closer to a Catholic Hierarchy than the Liberal
Democracy we have in the U.S. is. It is closer to the knowledge of what
you need to help and comfort you from the cradle to the grave. It has the
power and the money to take care of you. I would assume, although I can't
recall a specific discussion with Mike on this subject that he favors the
Welfare State over the form of government we have here in the U.S., but a
Welfare State is more intrusive than the U.S. Liberal Democracy. It needs
to gather more statistics, check more things, have you fill out more forms,
have you meet more requirements. And of course there are more penalties
because when you don't meet the requirements you are in violation; so there
are more agencies overseeing the people benefiting from the welfare state.
In short, the Welfare state is closer to the "Order" end of the spectrum
than the U.S. form of government which would be much closer to the "Liberty"
end.
Mike could shoot my speculation down by saying he is not an advocate of the
Welfare State and far prefers the U.S. form of Liberal Democracy, but is
that true? And if he does favor the Welfare State, how does he reconcile
that with his great interest in the preservation of his liberties?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
