Comments on: Communitarianism’s Fatal Misconception

By: Aaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:05:32 +0000

1) Generally speaking, I'm a minimal state libertarian (though the margins can become complicated as I am, for example, in favor of some sort of limited social safety net). But in the context of organic versus coerced growth/society, what I mean is that I see the role of the state as providing a legal framework in which society can function. This means the rule of law, rights, and respect for private property. The state's role, then, is to make sure that each of us is free from violence by others. Outside of that, the state shouldn't decide what the good life is. I'm not allowed to beat you up, and I'm not allowed to take your stuff, but I'm also not allow to force you to join a particular church or support the arts or attend a certain school. So long as you are not directly harming me or my property, why are my choices about how you should live better (in the sense that the should be forced upon you by the state) than your own? So by "organic growth," I mean whatever sort of society emerges in a system of human rights, property rights (though I see those as the same thing), the rule of law, and the institutions to support them.

2) The Hayek/Oakeshott reference was in response to a comment about planning to produce greater utility, so you're right that I was speaking only about their critiques of planning. As to other thinkers, my position is informed by much of the classical liberal/libertarian tradition. I came to my libertarianism by way of studying economics first, which lead to Hayek and similar critiques of socialism and, more broadly, centralized knowledge. I also draw on public choice, rights theory, Nozick, Smith, Hume, etc. The argument in this blog post isn't based on any of them in particular but, rather, a general view that communitarianism, as I understand it, often boils down to some elite or some majority forcing everyone else to be a member of or support whatever that elite or majority thinks is "community." And I see that move as ignoring problems of knowledge, violations of rights, economic constraints, and human dignity. In short, each of us has the right to live the kind of life we want, provided we don't aggress against others in their person or property. That life will (almost always) involve participation in a multitude of communities, but that participation must be voluntary if it is to be meaningful and just. Communitarians, so far as their political philosophy goes, seem to want to use the coercive power of the state to restrict freedom -- to force others to be subject to the arbitrary will of whoever is deciding what the "community" is and wants.

By: Aaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:05:32 +0000

By: Getty Lustila

Getty Lustila — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:46:03 +0000

Aaron, I would like to first applaud your project.

I do have a couple of points/questions regarding your position:

1. You mentioned the notion of "organic growth" (as opposed to "state coercion"). Could you clarify your position on this further? I fear that in accepting a notion of "organic growth", you are either being nihilistic or overly optimistic in terms of the development of social institutions. It seems to me that, in the care of the former, you are unconcerned with how the community develops, only that it develops in a natural manner. In the case of the latter, it seems the notion of "organic growth" becomes teleological. You would then be committed to the thesis that things are unequivocally getting "better and better". Clarification of this notion may help me to interpret your position in a more sympathetic manner.

2. You mentioned Hayek and Oakeshott as influences of yours I believe. This seems an odd pairing to me in many ways (unless you simply draw on their critiques of planning). What are some of the other thinkers you are drawing in the development of your position?

By: antihero.goodkind

antihero.goodkind — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:12:03 +0000

The tyranny of the majority argument is fundamentally impotent because it's one or the other, isn't it? It's either tyranny of the 49% or tyranny of the 51%. Except it's not tyranny. Not every majority decision is a violation of fundamental human rights, and I believe that the higher the number of people the less likely it is to support the violation of fundamental human rights. certainly you can't say the opposite is true. Pick a human off the street and you're bound to find someone with any number of prejudices and biases that a majority of people don't have.

My statement that people have fundamental human rights was in no way superficially considered. I support a court system to protect these rights. To be selected by lot from a group of qualified individuals is probably the best way to appoint them, much like a jury is selected from the general populace. But ultimately, the people making all the decisions in society has to be the majority.

Private property is violent because it allows people to use violence to prevent other people from using things that they're not using and that others desperately need. Ownership is dominion over things and over people. There's nothing organic about a market. It's forced onto people and maintained through violence. It's just individual acts of violence, and not community-authorized acts of violence.

There has to be co-operation and true communication between the majority and the minority, but ultimately the right to choose is with the majority. If your system depends on hierarchy, your system depends on subjugation, and that's unjustifiable.

Go to about 4:04 on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JlxHAOPIdI

What he's saying of secularism is similar to what we're saying of communitarianism. Special (i.e. minority) interests have every right to exist and every right to have their say (business owner interests, for example), but no greater right than other special interests and certainly no more a right to public policy than the majority interest. Majority rule is organic, to me. Anything less is minority rule, and that is inorganic, to me. The role of minority interests is existence, but not rule, and, quite frankly, private property rights are nothing more than a set of biases and even discriminations. They are not natural law. To assert such is a logical fallacy.

It's asking too much of me to ask me what peoples' fundamental human rights are. People have a right to a good quality of life and to be free from harm. I'm not going to list all the things I think they have a right to. Situations change. Nothing is absolute except that human and non-human life has immense worth and should be treated as such. I think you're asking what gives people the right to have the consequences of their votes apply to you. To that, I would say contracts. But in the absence of an agreement/contract, what we're dealing with is anomie, and community rule is based on a monopoly on violence in a certain region.

By: Mock Severity. Philosopher’s Carnival: bring out yer dead!

Mock Severity. Philosopher’s Carnival: bring out yer dead! — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:04:46 +0000

[...] the thread from the previous section, in “Communitarianism’s Fatal Misconception”, Aaron Powell writes on political meta-philosophy. What are we to do with fundamental [...]

By: Aaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:57:40 +0000

Thank you for taking the time to read my critique of communitarianism and respond. I fear, however, that your response only highlights the deep confusion at the heart of (your brand of) communitarianism. On the one hand, I applaud you for actually giving a definition of "the community." Very few communitarians seem to have any idea what they mean by that term except that the community is something wonderful that we should support. If I read you correctly, however, you define "the community" as, simply, "the majority." We should let the community decide what it wants to do and what it wants to be -- and the community is 51% of the people in the political unit.

Normally, I'd point out that the tyranny of the majority is just that and bring up examples such as slavery or Islamic honor killings. But you temper your majoritarianism with the tossed off -- and probably superficially considered -- "of course people have fundamental rights." So instead of giving a standard critique of absolute majority power, let me ask, what are those rights? Let's say the Swiss people, instead of banning minarets, had banned Muslims. A slight majority (as was the case with the minarets) vote that it is illegal to be Muslim in Switzerland, with violation punishable by death. It's the will of the community by your definition, but I'd wager it violates those fundamental rights. Yet, in this case, the majority rejects at least one of those rights (the right of Muslims not to be murdered). The majority's will is thwarted. Who's doing the thwarting? By what right do they override the will of the majority?

The community has every right to decide what it wants to be. But deciding can be an organic process, like the development of a language, or it can be a state driven system of violently compelling compliance with the desires of some (even if that some is the majority). I embrace the former. You embrace the latter. I fail to see how your version is one of cooperation, though. It seems more like some people getting their way at the expense of others.

Which brings me back to the definition of community. Maybe I was too charitable in granting you clarity in your conception of that concept. For you, community is the majority, which can do whatever it wants, except when it can't.

Let me close, then, with some questions. What are the fundamental rights that you admit exist? Can they be overridden by majority rule? If so, why are they rights? If not, then why do you focus so much on communities and not the constituent rights that give those communities power and legitimacy?

By: antihero.goodkind

antihero.goodkind — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:31:24 +0000

You don't even seem to know what a straw man is. Nor do you understand the difference between the state and the community.

Communitarianism is just democracy in action. It says that the many are sovereign and not the few. Take notice of Switzerland's recent decision to ban minarets. The liberal position would be that the Swiss people don't have the authority, in their own community, to say that minarets can't be built. They are a slave to a philosophy of law they don't agree with. They have to let Islam change their entire society. Nevermind if they disagree with the violent, misogynist teachings of Islam. They have to accept it. Well... why?

Communities should have the power to be what they want to be. Of course people have fundamental rights. Of course. But we're just saying that ultimately the few can't deny the many, because it is the many's society. Minority rule was ultimately decided against when we overthrew monarchs and said that legitimate government is dependent on the consent of the governed.

Community and state are not synonymous. State is often co-opted by special interests. Special interests being minority interests. If libertarianism is the pre-eminence of the individual, and majoritarianism is the pre-eminence of the majority, communitarianism is the pre-eminence of both. It's the co-operation of the two.

Ultimately, you support dictatorship, because you deny the community's right to choose. And you likely support using state power to enforce this minority power. Which is just glorified hierarchist subjugation.

Liberalism has a fatal misconception, not communitarianism. Try to catch up.

By: Justa Numerican

Justa Numerican — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:44:23 +0000

Communitarianism – like all ~isms, beliefs… and belief systems – is either a simple tyranny of the majority, oppression, or conditioned enslavement. I can't think of a single example today… where I have the “right” to choose a contrarian course… without being subjected… to the communitarian state. Even if I mean no harm to other life-forms whatsoever, I'm forever “forced” to seek some faceless someone's [more enlightened than myself] permission before I'm able to go my own way.

The recently-released book, “They Own It All (Including You!): By Means of Toxic Currency”, conclusively illustrates just how low we've all been forced to bow down before a cabal… of liars, thieves, murderers, and counterfeiters. It's almost as if we should be grateful to their plantation slave-state apparatus [communitarian] for even the number of breaths we're permitted to take per minute.

It's also very sad the level of indoctrination today's American university students will accept. Very sad indeed.

By: Aaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:52:51 +0000

There was a time when the majority thought blacks should be slaves. There
was a time when the majority thought interracial marriage should be banned.
The majority today would probably vote to close America's borders to trade.
The majority can often do terrible things and be terribly wrong.

Furthermore, not letting the majority force its will upon the minority is
not the same as not trying new things. New things are tried all the time,
voluntarily, and without state involvement. Nearly every groundbreaking
technological achievement that has improved your life was done voluntarily
by people taking risks upon themselves to try new things. There are New
Urbanist neighborhoods now that you're free to move to and try out. If you
like it, you can stay. If you find that it doesn't meet your needs, you can
try something else. Voluntarily.

I do not argue against all coordination and regulation. I am not an
anarchist. I am a classical liberal. I believe the state should protect our
rights and provide a safety net. What we do with ourselves once those things
are taken care of should be up to each of us, however.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:40:01 +0000

I won't pretend to be an expert on the effects of New Urbanism. However, like you say above, utility is decidedly difficult to measure. That paper may or may not be correct in what is effectively a prediction of the future - what will happen if New Urbanism is embraced on a grand scale.

I guess we're essentially discussing the tyranny of the majority, and personally I feel that when the majority is certain enough of the potential synergies of coordination / regulation, then it's reasonable to regulate. To never try new things implies stagnation.

Arguing against all "communitarian" coordination/regulation might be an ethically consistent stance for the rights of the supreme individual, but it seems inflexible to me. I guess I'm arguing for a more utilitarian ethics.