[anticlimacus]

I fail to understand what power in society (other than the State) can force unwanted individualization.

I've already pointed out employment and the market economy--that's a huge factor (albeit the state has often been a large thrust in instituting capitalism). But wanted or unwanted individualization is not really the right word. This is not a conscious effort. It's institutional and a largely a product of the rise of capitalism and liberalism. Other factors have also included the Protestant Reformation, technology, modern education, the rise of modern science, and bureaucratization--but these, I believe, are largely auxiliary to what the market economy does in terms of producing individualism.

Economic factors may cause people to prefer some more individualistic choices. Perhaps an Indian farmer is leaving his close-knit village community for a much more individualistic existence in the city. But that would be his choice - preferring higher standard of living to the advantages of a living within a particular community.

Capitalism does not just produce choices for individuals. It disrupts communal systems of organization and standardizes norms as much as possible for the free flow of capital and for mass consumerism, and individualizes in work life in the following ways: in terms of separating individuals from the home coupled with new distinctions between public and private (where public life necessitates being a part of the political economy), and creating the employer-employee relation that systematically isolates individuals in their work life. In connection to this modern capitalism has created the welfare state that is also, as you have noted, geared towards individuals and often presupposes employment. And let's be clear, these are not "choices"--these are fundamental institutional trasnformations that essentially transform the way in which choices can be made. One does not choose to be an individual in modern society, any more than one chose to live a communal existence in Feudal society. One is, as I said before, "thrown" into it.

And let's also be clear about another thing. I'm not arguing it is all bad or all unambigiously bad. There have been many positive progressive transformations. But I do want to stress that capitalism does do these things, i.e. individualize society in a systematic manner. And I also want to stress that the choices which you seem to feel are so easy and happy, like the Indian farmer leaving his close-knit village, are relatively historically new and unprecidented; and we would be naive to think that just because there is a "choice" (even if it is a choice between two bad options), that doesn't make it a good transformation. This latter point seems to be something that you take, or rather assume, to be unambiguously good. There are some things that are better left predecided, or "preordained"; we should not be so naive as to assume that the introduction of new choices is something always to create a positive social world just because they are choices.

You seem to be making my point for me. My analogy is very accurate for making a very specific point - that people can express any degree of communalism they are interested in, regardless of the State.

300 years ago, people could argue that without central enforcement of religious laws (including church attendance and Sabbath laws), members of society would abandon God. The American experience clearly shows the exact opposite - religion flourishes in the absence of State intervention.

My point was that, contrary to some people's claims, a anarchic society can be just as "communal" (probably much more so) than one in which mutual aid is forced at the point of a gun. People go to church without being forced to. People will donate to charity and help their neighbours without being forced to.

Anarchic society might indeed be just as much communal than a state run society--of course anarchism need not be laissez-faire capitalism. You seem to want to continually reduce this to a discussion about the state. Why is that? I have, all along, been arguing that it is not the state which has been fundamental in creating individualism. It has, fundamentally, been the rise of capitalism, to which I find methodological individualism to be a mere ideological offshoot. Another interesting thing is how much you stress the "voluntary" in terms of individual choice. I am indeed talking about communalism in a deterministic manner, but not deterministic in terms of state enforcement. Rather it's in terms of being born into given social norms with basic expectations that are simply taken for granted as "the way things are". I will again stress that the disruption of this is not unambiguously bad. It has chipped away at many oppressive standards and assumptions, and stagnating ones as well. But it has also created political and economic fragmentation coupled with stratification, social isolation, and a sense of meaninglessness--this also answers your question about what I feel is a negative to breaking up individual roles.

Maybe you have, but I have never been talking about that distinction. I don't believe in anything like a "free-floating self, entirely undetermined by social ascription". That doesn't sound like any human I know or would like to know. I thought I made it very clear that I too recognize that all (normal) humans are "socially ascribed". I merely fail to see any contradiction between that observation and Methodological Individualism as I understand it.

I think you're failing to see that the "free-floating self" is a social phenomenon. I'm not talking about a change in the structure of human beings. I'm talking about a change in the structure of society which has fundamentally loosened the tribal and communal conditions of existence for a more abstract self that is "doomed to freedom", as Sartre would say. Modern western agents are increasingly finding themselves in an individualized world. That is what we are talking about. Methodological individualism is merely a product of this world and often serves as an ideological justification of it.

[Eran]

You are (reasonably) asking why I keep reducing the discussion to be about the State.

The reason is that I broadly divide human action into the voluntary and the forced. The former, the basis for the free society I advocate, is a force for good. Individuals pursuing their own self-interest (which may but need not be selfish) cooperating peacefully will, I believe, under realistic assumptions, always result in superior outcome than if the (initiation of the) use of force is prevalent, either by the State or by common criminals. The latter are, of course, much easier to deal with.

This general assertion applies in the specific case of individualisation of society. If that individualisation proceeds as an outcome of the free choices made by individuals (as in my previous example of the Indian farmer), I see it as a positive process overall (even if it may have some negative consequences). If, on the other hand, individualisation is the result of a systematic right violation, it could well be a negative development.

It's institutional and a largely a product of the rise of capitalism and liberalism.

At the macro level, it may well be. But at the micro level, the trend is the result of the free choices made by the directly-affected men and women. They might be responding the society-wide economic and technological developments, but they are still freely making choices that they believe benefit them.

If individuals prefer life away from a community (or with weaker ties to it) as part of a package deal that they feel improves their lives, who are we to object?

Capitalism does not just produce choices for individuals. It disrupts communal systems of organization and standardizes norms as much as possible for the free flow of capital and for mass consumerism, and individualizes in work life in the following ways: in terms of separating individuals from the home coupled with new distinctions between public and private (where public life necessitates being a part of the political economy), and creating the employer-employee relation that systematically isolates individuals in their work life. In connection to this modern capitalism has created the welfare state that is also, as you have noted, geared towards individuals and often presupposes employment. And let's be clear, these are not "choices"--these are fundamental institutional trasnformations that essentially transform the way in which choices can be made. One does not choose to be an individual in modern society, any more than one chose to live a communal existence in Feudal society. One is, as I said before, "thrown" into it.

I agree in part. Those societal transformations are comprised of millions of individual choices. Changes in production methods, for example, are the outcome of individual choices regarding how to produce. Now in a free society, each person can make choices with respect to her property, but has very limited powers to avert choices made by others.

Let's look at a specific example - our Indian farmer. One scenario is that the farmer used to engage in subsistence agriculture. The only change in circumstance is that an opportunity to make much more money in the city has opened up. The farmer could choose to stay in his old village, and his standard of living unchanged. He prefers the greater opportunities of the city, even given the cost in terms of loss of community life. It is purely his choice.

A second scenario is that the farmer used to sell his product in a local market. Economic changes cause his manual production methods to be uncompetitive relative to more automated production. He can no longer feed his family by selling his produce in the local market. He is "forced" to move to the city.

The move to the city doesn't reflect a choice by the farmer, but rather is a consequence of choices made by the farmer's former customers, namely to substitute lower cost alternatives to the merchandise they previously purchased from the farmer. This may be unfortunate for the farmer, but is part of the creative destruction whereby capitalism dramatically enhances standards of living through ongoing substitution of better, more efficient means of using resources to satisfy consumer wants.

While this change doesn't reflect a choice made by the farmer, it does result from free choices made by individuals - preferring the cheaper products sold by our farmer's competitors.

But I do want to stress that capitalism does do these things, i.e. individualize society in a systematic manner.

If anything systematically individualises society, it is the combination of technological advances and free choices of it members. However, I dispute even that assertion.
True, people are no longer bound to their ancestral village. But recent technological advances point away from large anonymous factory production and towards dispersed cooperation of small groups.
The community is not going away - it is transforming. The tremendous success of social network applications life facebook illustrate how persistent people are in choosing to interact with a moderately small group of friends and relatives. That the group no longer needs to live in geographic proximity is neither here nor there.

And I also want to stress that the choices which you seem to feel are so easy and happy, like the Indian farmer leaving his close-knit village, are relatively historically new and unprecedented

Agreed - the pace of changes we experience is unprecedented. I see it as overall positive, and am very happy about the rapid pace at which traditional societies like those of India and China are changing to the great benefit of their members.

But it has also created political and economic fragmentation coupled with stratification, social isolation, and a sense of meaninglessness--this also answers your question about what I feel is a negative to breaking up individual roles.

I agree - there are negative side-effects to progress. I still see progress as an unmitigated overall good, but in some cases, the good comes with a bit of bad.

Methodological individualism is merely a product of this world and often serves as an ideological justification of it.

I agree - and that has precisely been my point - Methodological Individualism is not the meaningful cause of any changes - it merely reflects an evolution in our moral understanding away from old oppressive and inflexible social structures into a world of individual choice.

[anticlimacus]

You are (reasonably) asking why I keep reducing the discussion to be about the State.

The reason is that I broadly divide human action into the voluntary and the forced. The former, the basis for the free society I advocate, is a force for good. Individuals pursuing their own self-interest (which may but need not be selfish) cooperating peacefully will, I believe, under realistic assumptions, always result in superior outcome than if the (initiation of the) use of force is prevalent, either by the State or by common criminals. The latter are, of course, much easier to deal with.

This general assertion applies in the specific case of individualisation of society. If that individualisation proceeds as an outcome of the free choices made by individuals (as in my previous example of the Indian farmer), I see it as a positive process overall (even if it may have some negative consequences). If, on the other hand, individualisation is the result of a systematic right violation, it could well be a negative development.

Two things here that I want to pick up on: 1) your distinction between the voluntary and the forced, is precisely your distinction, conducive to your bias towards the individual as "determiner of last resort". It refers to the moral outlook of classical liberalism, which, ultimately, lays stress on conscious decision making without regard to background context as a powerful force. Thus "force" in your description only refers to the direct power over another's immediate decision making. In other words, the socio-economic forces that undergird the conditions of those immediate decisions (economic transformations, stratification in ownership, the legal system, educational differences, etc.) and that often go unrecognized are entirely ignored, by you and classical liberalism, as non-forces (as natural, or written off as simply "progressive") so long as, under your view, they produce the very individualism within which you define what is and isn't "force".

2) Individualized society, as I have tried to argue, does not develop out of the production of conscious individual choices. It is a result of institutional trasnformations which fundamentally alter the way in which choices can be made. Individuals, even within individualized society, do not make choices in the absence of institutional forces. Rather those institutional forces are always structuring the way in which choices are made and oriented. In the case of individualized society, modern institutions, primarily with the dominant force of the ever changing capitalist economy, create more and more abstract individuals forced (not necessarily with the direct oppressive force of the state, to which your view of force will only permit) to act as abstract individuals continually carving out their own personalized lives on ever more ad hoc bases.

These two points touch on a number of comments you have made about "choice" and the production of individualized society--so, if you'll permit me, I'm going to skip to other comments that I feel these two points did not address.

The community is not going away - it is transforming. The tremendous success of social network applications life facebook illustrate how persistent people are in choosing to interact with a moderately small group of friends and relatives. That the group no longer needs to live in geographic proximity is neither here nor there.

Certainly, "the community is not going away--it is transforming"--I completely agree. The community is becoming, as I have argued, individualized. This is not limitted to geographical location. It has to do with how agents must choose and live under the current socio-economic conditions. Under the current conditions of individualization, agents are more and more forced to disregard communal norms and act solely in relation to their own "private interests", to continually reinvent themselves, to "better themselves", to seek out the next opportunity, and to organize and structure their whole life security (including both material and "spiritual" needs) entirely as their own personal responsibility, rather than something assumed as a communal task without question.

I see it as overall positive

To me, I keep reading you as seeing it as a positive simply by virtue of the changes as instituting choices. In other words, you seem to view "choice" as an end in itself--I think this is a mistaken outlook.

Methodological Individualism is not the meaningful cause of any changes - it merely reflects an evolution in our moral understanding away from old oppressive and inflexible social structures into a world of individual choice.

Insofar as methodological individualism is a product of the capitalist mode of production it also serves to buttress and fasten its transformations. Indeed you are correct that methodological individualism by itself as a pure idea, does very little. But as an idea that takes its force from already existing conditions or emerging conditions of existence (the capitalist economy) and then seeks to politically implement itself, it certainly does create and quicken the individualism we have been discussing as well as serving to justify the outcomes the capitalist economy.

[Eran]

1) Force is a very general word.

In the context of my previous post, I was thinking of "force" in a very specific context as the initiation of an unwelcome physical invasion (or threat thereof) of another person's private property.

This is narrower than such uses as the "forces of nature" or "economic forces".

I am the one making the distinction between voluntary and forced (in the sense above) action because of the observation that voluntary action always improves the (subjective ex-ante) situation of the acting person. Nothing similar can be said about a forced action. I do believe that (under normal conditions) human societies can best operate through purely voluntary interaction of their members.

In the context of a free society, the other forces you describe are merely the aggregation of the voluntary choices of countless other individuals with which members of society interact. Thus "economic transformation" is not a force of nature, but merely the sum total of the economic environment, itself the end-product of the voluntary choices of other people.

Now I may well be harmed by perfectly legitimate (non-violent) actions of other people. For example, if I own the only ice-cream store in a small town, and a competitor opens another ice-cream store across the street, that action is likely to reduce my income from my store, and thereby "harm" me.

Outside the area of economics, if I am in love with a girl, and she chooses to bestow her affection on another, that decision also harms me (potentially more severely than by a trivial use of force).

The non-trivial argument of classical liberals is that with proper definition of property rights and despite such potential harms, society is much better off if people are free to act within their property.

2) I understand your point about institutional transformations "forcing" (in a slightly different meaning of the word) individuals towards a more individualized existence. I am yet to be persuaded that such forces indeed predominate either modern society or the capitalist system.

In fact, modern technology and economics allow people a great range of choice with respect to the degree to which they want to live in isolation from others. Nothing prevents members of modern societies from forming strong cohesive communities. To the extent that people don't to so, it is out of completely voluntary choice.

Under the current conditions of individualization, agents are more and more forced to disregard communal norms and act solely in relation to their own "private interests", to continually reinvent themselves, to "better themselves", to seek out the next opportunity, and to organize and structure their whole life security (including both material and "spiritual" needs) entirely as their own personal responsibility, rather than something assumed as a communal task without question.

Even taking the broad meaning of "force", how are people forced to disregard communal norms? People have a wiser range of choices in wealthier and more open societies. They are certainly empowered to choose more individualized existence if that's what they prefer. But how are they forced in that direction?

To me, I keep reading you as seeing it as a positive simply by virtue of the changes as instituting choices. In other words, you seem to view "choice" as an end in itself--I think this is a mistaken outlook.

At one level, being a very tolerant person, I tend not to judge other people. If you prefer leaving your home town to live in a large city where you hardly interact with anybody else - that's your choice, and I will assume that you know best what's good for you.

While there may be isolated exceptions, as a rule, I do believe people know best what's good for them.

At a second level, I think overall today's society is better than any one that existed in the past. There are aspects which are inferior, but which are a necessary price paid for the far superior benefits of modern existence.

To take a trivial example, the world used to be much emptier (of people) and more pristine than it is today. If you like to experience unspoiled nature in isolation, that's much more difficult today than it was a few centuries ago. But the vast majority of people prefer living in relatively crowded surroundings and enjoy the huge benefits of easy interaction with other people over the (still available) rugged outdoors.

So both at a theoretical and a practical level, I do think that allowing individuals as much choice as possible is a recipe for a better world.

But perhaps we can revisit your arguments for why the capitalist economy inherently pushes towards (substantive) individualism?

[anticlimacus]

the observation that voluntary action always improves the (subjective ex-ante) situation of the acting person.

But again, you are continuing to neglect what I am pointing out. I'm inquiring into the the conditions under which "voluntary" choices are made and, more importantly, the conditions under which your classical liberalism defines what constitutes "voluntary". Take an example: the peasants forced off the land in the emerging capitalist economy of England were left with a choice: they could either remain vagabounds and starve, or move to the city and take whatever wages and conditions they could get. Now these choices were "voluntary"--regardless of 1) how they came to be choices and instituted over time and 2) the the fate in which these choices in fact came to be choices at all (the peasants did not choose these choices). Again, it really is quite gratuitous of you to view choices as a good in and of itself, always being empowerment--as if tradition and its assumed existence cannot be equally good and empowering.

As Paul Tillich was fond of saying, "religious symbols are not chosen, they are born"--in other words the power of the religious symbol comes from its taken-for-granted force and impact on one's existence. Desaturating one from that concrete lifeworld and suddenly making it a "choice" does not make the symbol more powerful--it devalues it's power, exchanging it for the individual taste of the agent. Traditional life is much the same, its power and meaning comes less from the choice of adopting it, and more from it being viewed as a force that acts within and upon agents. To be sure, I'm not saying this is always unambiguously good--but you seem to be making the unwarranted conclusion that these background taken-for-granted traditional assumptions are worse off if they do not become foreground concious decisions of agents.

the other forces you describe are merely the aggregation of the voluntary choices of countless other individuals with which members of society interact.

I entirely disagree, because even the "free society" is institutional and formed by the force of institutions. Institutions do not operate on the ad hoc aggregation of voluntary choices. They have a general taken for granted logic with a given set of resources that becomes a part of the "doxa" (the taken for granted assumptions) of agents within the institutions. Institutions change as a result of their interelation with other institutions and as a result of the conflicts between dominant and dominated agents within the existing institutions. Thus institutions fundamentally transform individuals making them parts of wider wholes. They do not act as single individuals that can be added up into a lump sum. They act relationally where interests are transformed in relation to the structures of the institutions and in relation to the position of other agents within those institutions. In this way the institutional formation becomes internalized and socialization occurs without any hint of a conscious decision for the basic background orientations agents take in the world and in relation to each other. As I have been saying, we are thrown into an individualized world and we are increasingly socialized as single individuals acting in relation to the market with our privatized taste--we don't choose it, indeed it becomes a value primarily because it gives itself.

The non-trivial argument of classical liberals is that with proper definition of property rights and despite such potential harms, society is much better off if people are free to act within their property.

Well sure...this is the argument. But you have not defended it--and neither has it ever been defended that convincingly. But my point in refering to classical liberalism--to which your view is deeply akin--is that the definition of "force" presumes, as a premise, the very individualism that defined definition of force is designed to protect. What goes without question, in other words, in your definition of "force" is the very individualism we are questioning!

I am yet to be persuaded that such forces indeed predominate either modern society or the capitalist system.

In fact, modern technology and economics allow people a great range of choice with respect to the degree to which they want to live in isolation from others. Nothing prevents members of modern societies from forming strong cohesive communities. To the extent that people don't to so, it is out of completely voluntary choice.

I think you're still missing my point a bit, and no doubt I believe this has much to do with your view that individual choice is always viewed as a good thing. However, I have posed that having a great range of choice is not necessarily a good thing, particularly if one is forced to choose about things that one does not want to have to make any choice about. Such as where one will live and die, or how one will be taken care of if X Y or Z occurs or what is "true", etc. And yes, nothining in principle prevents strong cohesive communities, just like nothing in principle commits the landless peasant to go take a job in the city for whatever wages he can get. But the extensive free flow of capital and rapid flight of capital, the increasing surge of global corporatism moving agents around every five to ten years, the educational system focused on individual career development, the welfare state entirel centered upon individuals, etc. all become de facto barriers to traditional communal life. Sure, nothing forces the illegal immigrant to the US, but the new conditions of existence force upon them new choices that disrupt their traditional way of life that becomes ever more impoverished (because of flight of capital, and reinvestment by multinationals disrupting traditional farming practices, etc).

Even taking the broad meaning of "force", how are people forced to disregard communal norms? People have a wiser range of choices in wealthier and more open societies. They are certainly empowered to choose more individualized existence if that's what they prefer. But how are they forced in that direction?

I think this should be fairly clear by now. Capitalisms globalizing effect causing standardization of norms under abstract legal codes, the increasingly fast movement of capital making sedintary life unstable, the ever change and often superfluous changes in technology (material and legal and institutional--in terms of complexity) causing ever new needs of self-development in relation to the economic system as opposed to the community, the individualization of work life which also serves to systematically establish new distincitons between public and private all in terms of the economic system, the new systems that emerge in relation to the modes of capitalist production, such as the welfare state that presumes individualized existence and relates to "citizens" in terms of their individual life course, largely based on "employment", the creation of mass consumerism that increasingly encroaches upon communal production of meaning, and instead making it a commodity for individual taste, the ever more present bureaucratic systems of organization built to deal with standardized individuals, viewed as numbers and "individual cases", etc. None of these are things agents choose. These are all part and parcel to the institutional production of capitalism nuanced by the other factors I have mentioned in previous posts.

At one level, being a very tolerant person, I tend not to judge other people. If you prefer leaving your home town to live in a large city where you hardly interact with anybody else - that's your choice, and I will assume that you know best what's good for you.

But have you thought about the case in which "deciding what is best for you" is not always desired? In fact, as expressive of individualism as you are, I would venture to believe that you would want some things to simply be decided for you--that you simply don't want to have to think about, and indeed, whatever it may be, the moment you are forced to make a decision about this prior assumed/taken-for-granted belief or resource or relation because of some crisis, it is not pleasant, but a source of new anxiety and personal upheavel. But maybe you are an exception to this general rule, you still seem to be ignoring the conditions under which choices are not always good to have. I've discussed this throughout the post, so I don't believe that I need to belabor the point here. But, for example, suddenly creating the conditions under which my family becomse a choice, rather than a pre-given source of support that shapes my individual existence is not necessarily a good thing. Or suddenly transforming the conditions under which a community knows it will care for one another because of, say, foreign capitalization and the reaping of resources in surrounding communities (again as a result globalized capitalism) and so now they will all increasingly have to fend for themselves and make a choice for their own destiny--a destiny which was once pre-given and to which was a constant source of meaning and security--is not necessarily a good thing.

At a second level, I think overall today's society is better than any one that existed in the past. There are aspects which are inferior, but which are a necessary price paid for the far superior benefits of modern existence

I think this depends on what perspective you are looking at it from. Indeed if you ignore the escalation of military wars and arms races, or the increase of starvation in various pockets of the world, and the increase of global inequality, the introduction of environmental catastrophe on a global scale, in addition to the increasing destruction of communal existence for support and sources of meaning, among other things, one might find that the new situation is not to be swathed over with a blanket judgment of "progress". What is a "necessary price paid" is indeed relative, and often depends on the things one is willing to ignore or need not suffer.

[Happyhippo]

But again, you are continuing to neglect what I am pointing out. I'm inquiring into the the conditions under which "voluntary" choices are made and, more importantly, the conditions under which your classical liberalism defines what constitutes "voluntary". Take an example: the peasants forced off the land in the emerging capitalist economy of England were left with a choice: they could either remain vagabounds and starve, or move to the city and take whatever wages and conditions they could get. Now these choices were "voluntary"--regardless of 1) how they came to be choices and instituted over time and 2) the the fate in which these choices in fact came to be choices at all (the peasants did not choose these choices). Again, it really is quite gratuitous of you to view choices as a good in and of itself, always being empowerment--as if tradition and its assumed existence cannot be equally good and empowering.

As someone who once was a classical liberal (although never completely convinced, just as I`m not convinced about my current political stance), I really can`t stress how important and powerful I think this criticism is. It is one of the biggest reasons I switched my views to libertarian socialism (there are several other reasons now, of course, but I was largely unfamiliar with anarchist philosophy at the time) and I am looking forward to Eran`s response as I think this is completely overlooked by most right-libertarians.

Nice discussion. Thumbs up to both of you!

[Rei Murasame]

But again, you are continuing to neglect what I am pointing out. I'm inquiring into the the conditions under which "voluntary" choices are made and, more importantly, the conditions under which your classical liberalism defines what constitutes "voluntary". Take an example: the peasants forced off the land in the emerging capitalist economy of England were left with a choice: they could either remain vagabounds and starve, or move to the city and take whatever wages and conditions they could get. Now these choices were "voluntary"--regardless of 1) how they came to be choices and instituted over time and 2) the the fate in which these choices in fact came to be choices at all (the peasants did not choose these choices). Again, it really is quite gratuitous of you to view choices as a good in and of itself, always being empowerment--as if tradition and its assumed existence cannot be equally good and empowering.

Exactly! That is so well-written that I literally nodded when I saw it. I've been asking liberals that question for as long as I can remember, and I can never seem to pin them down on it, but you have really said it properly there, fantastic.

I too am eager to see how Eran will deal with that question, because that is really the root of everything.

[Eran]

I'm inquiring into the the conditions under which "voluntary" choices are made and, more importantly, the conditions under which your classical liberalism defines what constitutes "voluntary".

These are excellent and even critical questions.

The definition of "voluntary" is tightly related to the definition of initiation of the use of force which, in turn, depends critically on the definition of "property". Many critics of libertarianism recognize that libertarians tend to defend private property rights, but assume that the "property" being defended by libertarian coincides with the "property" recognized by the State.

While in may cases, especially in a relatively free economy such as that of Western developed countries, the two definitions coincide. The further one looks back in history, however, the more frequently one finds glaring exceptions to the association between libertarian and state-recognized property.

Take an example: peasants were forced off the land by the legally-recognized owners of the land - aristocrats who could often trace their title back to the Norman Invasion of England (or equivalent conquests in continental Europe). The illegitimacy of driving the peasants off their land is directly related to the unjust nature of the aristocratic ownership of the land that would have rightly belonged to the peasants themselves.

Thus my claims with respect to the just nature of purely free market interactions rely on a tolerably just definition of property rights - clearly not in place in industrial revolution England. Similar claims of dispossession are much harder to make with respect to the US, where historic (unjustified) rights played a much smaller role than in England or the continent.

The definition of "force" requires a prior definition of private (though not necessarily individual) property rights. That dependence is analytic (depending on definitions), and doesn't depend on Methodological Individualism per-se.

However, I have posed that having a great range of choice is not necessarily a good thing, particularly if one is forced to choose about things that one does not want to have to make any choice about.

It is true that a state of affairs in which an individual has a great range of choices is not necessarily better for that individual than an alternative in which a completely different (and possibly much narrower) range of choices is available.

However, it is generally true that an individual's situation is improved if his range of available options expands with additional options not previously available, so long as all previously-available choices are still available. Thus if your best choice is to work 14 hours a day to feed your family or starve, you are not very well off. However, your situation is still better than an alternative in which that 14 hours a day option is not available.

And yes, nothining in principle prevents strong cohesive communities, just like nothing in principle commits the landless peasant to go take a job in the city for whatever wages he can get. But the extensive free flow of capital and rapid flight of capital, the increasing surge of global corporatism moving agents around every five to ten years, the educational system focused on individual career development, the welfare state entirel centered upon individuals, etc. all become de facto barriers to traditional communal life.

I am not persuaded. Perhaps it would help if you gave us a little more flavour of what you characterize as "traditional communal life", and why you believe that such life is less individualized than many alternatives in which people experience untraditional communal life.

Sure, nothing forces the illegal immigrant to the US, but the new conditions of existence force upon them new choices that disrupt their traditional way of life that becomes ever more impoverished (because of flight of capital, and reinvestment by multinationals disrupting traditional farming practices, etc).

Do you have any evidence to the claim that traditional ways of life are become ever more impoverished in any absolute sense, as opposed to the relative sense of being progressively more impoverished relative to available alternatives?

There is no doubt that new technologies and foreign investments open up to traditional subsistence farmers a range of opportunities that allow them a much higher (and more stable) income than their traditional communal life ever could. Traditional life of subsistence farming is inconsistent with the standard of living that even poorer residents of developing countries now aspire to.

Consequently, the (natural and understandable) choice of many subsistence farmers living traditional communal life in developing countries is to leave that life for a different existence in a large city.

To be clear, the choice was still there. Many hundreds of millions of Indians, Chinese and members of many other nations are still subsistence farmers living (in poverty, as their ancestors did for generations) their traditional communal life. The Amish of Pennsylvania and the Ultra Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn are but two examples of groups in the west who have successfully chosen to retain their traditional communal life.

Further, abandoning traditional communal life doesn't necessarily imply abandoning communal life altogether. You would be hard-pressed to show why modern life is inconsistent with non-traditional communal life.

Let's go over your points one by one:

Capitalisms globalizing effect causing standardization of norms under abstract legal codes

Please explain "abstract legal codes", as well as relevance to individualization

the increasingly fast movement of capital making sedentary life unstable

What does fast capital have to do with sedentary life? As noted above, fast capital creates opportunities to shift away from traditional sedentary life for better opportunities, but doesn't make existing opportunities necessarily worse.

the ever change and often superfluous changes in technology (material and legal and institutional--in terms of complexity) causing ever new needs of self-development in relation to the economic system as opposed to the community

Again, these changes open new horizons away from traditional community life. But what does self-development "in relation to the economic system as opposed to the community" mean? There are definitely more opportunities for self-development, as well as individual desire for such self-development given the opportunities opened by such development. Yes, the opportunities are economic, and self-development in that context would be relative to such economic opportunities.
But what does "self development in relation to the community" mean in the context of a traditional community?

the individualization of work life which also serves to systematically establish new distincitons between public and private all in terms of the economic system

What makes you assert that work life is being individualized? If anything, industrial revolution (the major force shifting people away from traditional communal life) is blamed for eliminating the individual, and naturally resulted in trade unions - a new "community" created to accommodate the new working conditions.

the new systems that emerge in relation to the modes of capitalist production, such as the welfare state that presumes individualized existence and relates to "citizens" in terms of their individual life course, largely based on "employment"

There is nothing inherently capitalist about the welfare state. Rather, it is a consequence of broad democracy, coupled with the natural tendency of people to want to help their fellows, and the desire of politicians to add as much power to the government they run.

I do agree that the welfare state tends to break down communities as it makes at least one aspect - mutual help - largely redundant.

the creation of mass consumerism that increasingly encroaches upon communal production of meaning, and instead making it a commodity for individual taste

This is distinctly an expression of individual choice. People voluntarily prefer the more successful mass consumer products. This makes sense - it is precisely the ability to appeal to many people that makes those products successful.

the ever more present bureaucratic systems of organization built to deal with standardized individuals, viewed as numbers and "individual cases", etc.

As opposed to what? Economies of scale require progressively more efficient means of dealing with people. In every field you will find organizations offering both high and low degrees of standardization vs. individualized attention. The former tends to be more efficient and less expensive, the latter tends to be preferred by those who can afford it.

It would be even easier for bureaucratic systems to deal with whole communities. The fact that such treatment rarely arises is an indication that people don't want to be grouped together with their community - they like the individual treatment, even of the standardized type.

None of these are things agents choose.

On the contrary - most of the factors mentioned above become relevant precisely because they are preferred by many agents. Not everybody gets to choose them, but the market tends to satisfy the preferences of any large enough group of paying consumers.

These are all part and parcel to the institutional production of capitalism nuanced by the other factors I have mentioned in previous posts.

These are all part and parcel of modern technology, allowing people to enjoy economies of scale with unprecedentedly affordable prices on an unprecedented range of products. You cannot have modern standards of living together with traditional community life. People prefer the former over the latter.

But have you thought about the case in which "deciding what is best for you" is not always desired?

By whom?

In fact, as expressive of individualism as you are, I would venture to believe that you would want some things to simply be decided for you

Of course - and free market capitalism is very good at giving people just that. That's where default choices, automatic renewal, set menus and package deals come in - these are all ways to give consumers an ability to make fewer choices if they so desire.

for example, suddenly creating the conditions under which my family becomes a choice, rather than a pre-given source of support that shapes my individual existence is not necessarily a good thing.

It isn't clear whether the family is a pre-given source of support for me, or a requirement on me to provide support. If it is the former, than the development clearly is not a good thing - a pre-given source of support has now potentially gone away. If, however, I am the one expected to provide support, the development is an excellent thing - I can still provide support if I choose to, but I am no longer forced to.

Or suddenly transforming the conditions under which a community knows it will care for one another because of, say, foreign capitalization and the reaping of resources in surrounding communities (again as a result globalized capitalism) and so now they will all increasingly have to fend for themselves and make a choice for their own destiny--a destiny which was once pre-given and to which was a constant source of meaning and security--is not necessarily a good thing.

Please explain how "foreign capitalization and the reaping of resources in surrounding communities" suddenly transformed community conditions other than by freeing some members of the community from a duty they neither chose nor preferred to keep.

You seem to be concerned about the impact of increased freedom to members of traditional communities, freedom not to be a captive of their ancestral costumes and traditions, but rather to be able to shape their own (individual!) destiny.

I see that freedom as unmitigated positive. Most importantly, I see any change as due to the individual choices of those who now prefer not to be held captive by tradition.

the escalation of military wars and arms races

Death due to violence has been declining throughout history. See Steven Pinker here

the increase of starvation in various pockets of the world

To the extent starvation increases, that is due purely to civil wars - wars between groups over the "privilege" of become government. Overall, deaths due to starvation have decreased dramatically. In fact, they are completely unknown in the past couple of centuries in any nation that adopted even broadly capitalistic modes of production with even a moderate degree of freedom of trade.

the introduction of environmental catastrophe on a global scale

What catastrophes? How many people have died due to environmental deterioration? The number pales in comparison with the number saved thanks to the technologies enabled by pollution.

the increasing destruction of communal existence for support and sources of meaning

As discussed in more detail above, the destruction of communal existence is a direct result of people expressing their preference for non-traditional modes of existence, a very natural preference given the dire poverty associated with those traditional means.

[Daktoria]

I'm inquiring into the the conditions under which "voluntary" choices are made and, more importantly, the conditions under which your classical liberalism defines what constitutes "voluntary".

Process of elimination.

You ask, "How is it possible for a person to act in certain conditions?" Then, you ask, "Which possibilities do not infringe upon others?"

For example, a signature at the end of a document represents consent because a signature is unique and its location corresponds to the message in the document itself.

For example, containing a sector of land represents consent because nature is open. Enclosure corresponds to identity.

For example, a handshake represents consent because it is a physical, peaceful, and definite confirmation of recognizing and agreeing with the other person's positions.

There are certain facets of life which are more difficult than this because confirming consent defeats the purpose. Take love for instance. Making love official puts out the spark that comes with flirting. It also twists a relationship's purpose from caring about the other to expressing prestige among society.

However, you can't force people to love one another either because that likewise puts out the spark. The best we can do is let people choose how much officiation versus flirting they're willing to engage in.

There is one exception to this, and that's manners. Manners don't serve purpose in themselves. The only possible value to throwing that extra bit in is to show appreciation. From there, you ask yourself, "Is going along with certain manners a cultivation of the other's personality, or is it merely a relishing of my own?"

That is how self-interest translates into selflessness. Of course, this goes both ways as well. You should NOT use manners with people you don't have a chance at getting to know better. It degrades yourself, elevates someone who's undeserved, and frustrates third parties. Furthermore, those who insist upon manners despite a reluctance to get to know you better are rude.

[Soixante-Retard]

I've just finished reading this essay by Hayek; something I've been meaning to do for a while - but, finally, I've read it. I was very pleased with it, I think it's one of Hayek's best essays, and it resonated deeply with me.

My favorite parts:

[Individualism's] basic contention is quite a different one; it is that there is no other way toward an understanding of social phenomena but through our understanding of individual actions directed toward other people and guided by their expected behavior. This argument is directed primarily against the properly collectivist theories of society which pretend to be able directly to comprehend social wholes like society,etc., as entities sui generis which exist independently of the individuals which compose them.


...the main point about which there can be little doubt is that Smith's chief concern was not so much with what man might occasionally achieve when he was at his best but that he should have as little opportunity as possible to do harm when he was at his worst. It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of the individualism which he and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid. Their aim was a system under which it should be possible to grant freedom to all, instead of restricting it, as their French contemporaries wished, to "the good and the wise."


True individualism not only believes in democracy but can claim that democratic ideals spring from the basic principles of individualism. Yet, while individualism affirms that all government should be democratic, it has no superstitious belief in the omnicompetence of majority decisions, and in particular it refuses to admit that "absolute power may, by the hypothesis of popular origin, be as legitimate as constitutional freedom". It believes that under a democracy, no less than under any other form of government, "the sphere of enforced command ought to be restricted within fixed limits"; and it is particularly opposed to the most fateful and dangerous of all current misconceptions of democracy-the belief that we must accept as true and binding for future development the views of the majority. While democracy is founded on the convention that the majority view decides on common action, it does not mean that what is today the majority view ought to become the generally accepted view-even if that were necessary to achieve the aims of the majority. On the contrary, the whole justification of democracy rests on the fact that in course of time what is today the view of a small minority may become the majority view.


When we turn to equality, however, it should be said at once that true individualism is not equalitarian in the modern sense of the word. It can see no reason for trying to make people equal as distinct from treating them equally. While individualism is profoundly opposed to all prescriptive privilege, to all protection, by law or force, of any rights not based on rules equally applicable to all persons, it also denies government the right to limit what the able or fortunate may achieve. It is equally opposed to any rigid limitation of the position individuals may achieve, whether this power is used to perpetuate inequality or to create equality. Its main principle is that no man or group of men should have power to decide what another man's status ought to be, and it regards this as a condition of freedom so essential that it must not be sacrificed to the gratification of our sense of justice or of our envy.


...the fundamental attitude of true individualism is one of humility toward the processes by which mankind has achieved things which have not been designed or understood by any individual and are indeed greater than individual minds.

The entire libertarian/bastardarized liberal interpretation is based on a sort of denial of everything since Socrates and Plato, which is to say, the denial that "the City" (shared existence) and therefore "public good" exist.

I, Hayek and Karl Popper (for that matter), interpret it very differently. I see the "libertarian/bastardarized liberal interpretation" (as you call it) as a complete rejection of Plato and embracing Socrates.

Plato, like Descartes, thought there was a complete body of knowledge out there and that all we need to do to live in Utopia is "put the right people in charge"; a very naïve view in my opinion.

Whereas Socrates, like Hayek and Popper, made the claim, rightly I think, that there is very little that man really knows and that to best achieve something approaching Utopia is to realize our ignorance and not act as if we are omniscient. That is, not invest power into a group of people but ensure that individualism and, its corollary, pluralism are allowed to naturally flourish due to the diversity of human thought and action. Rule of institutions not of man.

As Popper (and Hayek in the above) succinctly puts it, contra Plato and Rousseau:

The question is not ‘Who should rule? or ‘Who is to have power? but ‘How much power should be granted to the government?’ or perhaps more precisely, ‘How can we develop our political institutions in such a manner that even incompetent and dishonest rulers cannot do too much harm?’ In other words, the fundamental problem of political theory is the problem of checks and balances, of institutions by which political power, its arbitrariness and its abuse can be controlled and tamed.

Regarding the "public good" that you speak of, as if it exists, Hayek (or more precisely Acton) addresses classical liberals' (i.e. the individualist's) aversion to such totalitarian thinking:

The most general principle on which an individualist system is based is that it uses the universal acceptance of general principles as the means to create order in social affairs. It is the opposite of such government by principles when, for example, a recent blueprint for a controlled economy suggests as "the fundamental principle of organisation ... that in any particular instance the means that serves society best should be the one that prevails". It is a serious confusion thus to speak of principle when all that is meant is that no principle but only expediency should rule; when everything depends on what authority decrees to be "the interests of society." Principles are a means to prevent clashes between conflicting aims and not a set of fixed ends. Our submission to general principles is necessary because we cannot be guided in our practical action by full knowledge and evaluation of all the consequences. So long as men are not omniscient, the only way in which freedom can be given to the individual is by such general rules to delimit the sphere in which the decision is his. There can be no freedom if the government is not limited to particular kinds of action but can use its powers in any ways which serve particular ends. As Lord Acton pointed out long ago: "Whenever a single definite object is made the supreme end of the State, be it the advantage of a class, the safety or the power of the country, the greatest happiness of the greatest number or the support of any speculative idea, the State becomes for the time inevitably absolute".

That is, the concept of the "public good" is a disrespect for the heterogeneity of human desires within society and thus a disrespect for pluralism and individualism. It is to treat humans as one homogeneous "lump" to be manipulated by the authority that decrees what is "the interests of society" regardless of whether the authority has the best or worst intentions for the members of society.

[Suska]

Individualists and collectivists, when they think things through, arrive respectively at collectivism and Individualism.

Atheism and Libertarianism go hand in hand, it's hard to see because - even Theists don't think of their society as a god any more - it takes some faith in the nature of men and the universe to organize properly. But it is odd, I'll grant, to have one's faith assumed and exploited - to be utilized is not the same thing as to be noble, on the other hand, the momentum of the past - tradition dwells in the world - it really is like a giant person that lives thousands of years, culture. It confronts me with the idea that maybe people are democracies of cells instituted in organs, and maybe the gods of Earth constitute an over god, a mind and personality in the aggregate, or vice versa.

A friend used to tell me, "It's an and thing" - his way of promoting optimism. It's not really a choice between things, but a bunch of things. It isn't either/or. Collectivists want what individualists want, the rest is partisan mimicry and ignorance.

Somehow it's different; taking volunteers is not the same as punishing non-compliance, and the former is preferable, but it seems unnatural to stick one's neck out for rivals and foreigners. So we're really talking about identity. Who are we? What am I? The answer to that is a riddle of its own. It is what you make it and it is what it is...

The collective has its mind and identity in our institutions, and people have their mind and identity in our persons. About personal things the institutions are blind (even when they pretend not to be), and about institutional things, embodying the whole is a genuine measure of excellence in poets and politicians and God. I suppose this is where the Hayek quotes come in, lifting the curtain on the Wizard. It doesn't prove anything; the Wizard was a good man who did his best for good people, but now the lawyers want to know exactly what that means and he's not built to explain, nor are we built to understand - at least while we're looking for permanent solutions that don't require us to be good and useful to each other constantly.

[Soixante-Retard]

Individualists and collectivists, when they think things through, arrive respectively at collectivism and Individualism.

Atheism and Libertarianism go hand in hand

I disagree. Although I'm an atheist (or more precisely, an apathetic agnostic), libertarianism says nothing about faith in god(s). Similarly, atheism says nothing about non-aggression towards non-aggressors (libertarianism).

See this video from 9:15 to 10:22 regarding libertarianism and atheism.

[youtube]WGVtgIWDrMc[/youtube]

[Eran]

I too am an atheist (though an enthusiastic and principled one). But at least in the US, libertarianism is typically associated with the political right, which tends to be more religious than the American mean (itself much more religious than most of Europe).

Libertarian Christianity even claims to find libertarian roots in the Bible. As an anecdote, when my father (who is a retired Rabbi) asked "where in the Bible does it say that taxes are wrong?" to which I answered "Thou shall not steal".

[Suska]

That is to say, the superficial form of Libertarianism and the superficial form of Atheism are similar in an important way, both suppose the collective is mindless. I point that out as a minor observation. Neither Libertarianism, nor Atheism is necessary for a lack of faith - we usually just call it pessimism, or realism. I use the term 'superficial' deliberately, we've talked about this before, a common theme for me lately is how people do things they don't excuse and excuse things they don't do - eg. behave in a religious way and call it something else, or vice versa, so to me, superficial is about what we often say and normally assume.

The 80's Neo-Con movement was an unforgivable confusion of politics and faith. On the other hand it was also a justifiable assertion of "Red State" culture. We're going through a national allergic reaction to that currently. Eran, this is why I put my foot down with you about religion. You come at it from a cultural position and to me - I've studied comparative religion - religion is personal and when it develops in a positive way it becomes conservative culture (plain living, community, reverence, marriage etc) - a culture that actually has no need for "progress" - the idea that younger Cosmopolitan people in America have about religion is warped and dangerously cavalier.

There is more to what is going on than Libertarian explains in a practical way. But as I said, and I stand by this, when the individualists really think things through they arrive at collectivism. I never really abandoned Libertarianism as a concept, but as a culture it is justly ridiculed - just as Neo-Cons get more and more ridiculous looking the farther we get from the Reagan-era.

On the other hand, this is something like what happened in Egypt to produce Qutbism and the reaction to it - the Arab Spring. What is happening in Syria has the same character of people using different world-schemes (mostly badly) to justify a violent reaction. I point this out to highlight the seriousness and the dangers, but also to leave the question out in the open, should any principle imaginable, even the principle of non-principles, supersede actual people - shouldn't we be trying to form a consensus and bridge the differences - understand each other at least..? As a culture (a collective) Libertarianism is as chauvanistic as any other, it is an ideology with no explicit purpose (very delierately - that's essentially what it is), but it does have a following and that is a purpose.

You can tell a lot about a people if you can perceive their blind spot. We all have our assumptions about the world. What they take for granted is often the diametric opposite of what they speak most strongly about. Libertarians, like most modern types assume a base level of religious faith and rely on it and ask people (as do Anarchists) to be good neighbors (like religious people are supposed to be) for no reason at all. Absent any spiritual salvation or even community recognition.

[Eran]

The relation between anarchism (as an extreme form of libertarianism) and atheism is actually something I gave some thought to.

I see an analogy between the two, in the following sense.

1. Both ideologies are defined in the negative. Atheism is lack of belief in God; anarchism is lack of belief in the State
2. Both ideologies have been heterodox for most of human history
3. The orthodox alternatives (belief in God, belief in the State) are inculcated in most people from birth (belief in God until about 100 years ago)
4. The orthodox alternatives are accepted without question by most people, including otherwise very intelligent people
5. Both ideologies have been persecuted or looked-down on both rational and ethical grounds
6. Both orthodox alternatives effectively require people to relinquish, at least partially, their independent moral compass as part of assuming a position of subservience to a higher authority.

Thus I see an analogy between, say, Descartes's blind faith in God, and Rand's or Mises's blind faith in the need for a state. Those are all very intelligent people, who still couldn't free themselves from the shackles of their upbringing.



A different analogy between religion and politics relates to emergent vs. designed order. Traditional theists believed God designed the world in all its details. Atheists, in contrast, see the world as having evolved naturally. The order we see in life around us is not, according to all atheists and many theists today, evidence of intelligent design.

Libertarians (and particularly anarchists) similarly see human society as naturally evolving. They don't see a need for "intelligent design" (in this context - central planning) to create order. Rather, they see order emerging and human cooperation evolving naturally.

[Suska]

Both ideologies are defined in the negative. Atheism is lack of belief in God; anarchism is lack of belief in the State

Exactly, which in Pagan terms is not two terms but one; irreligious.

belief in God, belief in the State... are inculcated in most people from birth

I would call that a way of life and a birthright. You depict it as indoctrination, but it's just that having found a good way one demonstrates it - whoever comes along, but most effectively with children. Even Libertarians "inculcate" - or they aren't demonstrating Libertarianism.

Both orthodox alternatives effectively require people to relinquish, at least partially, their independent moral compass as part of assuming a position of subservience to a higher authority.

Neither of these statements is true. If what you want is a powerful collective you do this, it doesn't matter the ideology. But that isn't religion, nor is it state, if we're at all charitable - if we mean at least vaguely resembling the ideal.

The order we see in life around us is not, according to all atheists and many theists today, evidence of intelligent design.

And yet you and I act every day as if it were when we merely expect the local Starbucks to be open before heading over there. You have some silly ideas about sociology, I half suspect you're an econ major.

they see order emerging and human cooperation evolving naturally.

Every sensible person does so. In that the Conservative need not have sand in their head they might say the same thing. There is just a difference between stability and surprise.

[Soixante-Retard]

On Hayek's marvelous essay, I do have one quibble with it which Ralph Raico has pointed out; Hayek's disparaging treatment of certain French Liberals that Hayek (for some reason) equates with the Rousseau rationalistic tradition (false individualism) when they are in fact the Smith anti-rationalistic tradition (true individualism), which Hayek praises.

[Suska]

If Aekos showed up it would be a veritable orgy of Freidmanites in here. I was gonna ask how I got here but then I realized it's Dak's fault for calling the thread "True AND False."

[Eran]

I would call that a way of life and a birthright.

Fair enough - I didn't mean any negative connotation. People's worldview is usually derived from the society within which they grow up and live. There need not be any deliberate attempt (not to mention malevolent attempt) at "indoctrination". In fact, much of our world-view is manifested as implicit assumption we are barely aware we are making.

As a libertarian, for example, I am struck by how, in TV debates, libertarian options are not even rejected - they are never even considered. I just finished Alexis de Tocqueville's excellent "Democracy in America" (highly recommended, btw). de Tocqueville takes it for granted that belief in God is required for people to behave morally. He isn't arguing the point - he is implicitly assuming it.

Neither of these statements is true. If what you want is a powerful collective you do this, it doesn't matter the ideology. But that isn't religion, nor is it state, if we're at all charitable - if we mean at least vaguely resembling the ideal.

I'm not sure I understand your opposition. Isn't it the case that religion expects people to accept God's word as a moral absolute? Isn't that equivalent to relinquishing your independent moral compass? The situation with the State is less comprehensive, but it is still the case that people accept as just most legislated decrees. Thus, since Marijuana is outlawed, most people (even many of those who would like it to be legalised) accept without outraged a situation in which people are thrown into cages for years, and have their lives destroyed for no other reason than that they violated the dictates of the state.

And yet you and I act every day as if it were when we merely expect the local Starbucks to be open before heading over there.

We expect order. But order doesn't require design. In human society, we see designed things all the time. From the coffee machine at Starbucks to its opening hours. Precisely because much of what we see in human society is designed, we naturally expect that design is necessary at all levels, hence the intuition that society as a whole needs a guiding hand.

You have some silly ideas about sociology, I half suspect you're an econ major.

Physics.

[Suska]

So, back to my basic spiel these days...

de Tocqueville takes it for granted that belief in God is required for people to behave morally

Under some fair and orthodox definitions of the word God that is more than fair to say, it is a truism. "Belief in God" being synonymous with "behaving morally." In the same way there is no difference between true ideology and way of life, but there may be a vast difference between avocation and action. As you put it, "much of our world-view is manifested as implicit assumption we are barely aware we are making." I could reinforce that in a variety of ways, the Russian proverb has it, “Judge a man not by his words, but by his deeds.” By this course my experience tells me that they so often don't match that it seems deliberate; this is what I mean by "Blind Spot." Yours (eg. Physics) is all about occulting the occult, the symbolism of anti-symbolism, the analogy of correspondence and the faith in the reliability of being unfaithful. This is what I see, however strange it may seem. I see people and they all have the same basic problem, only when it comes out in speech it's too many things too wickedly knotted together to fathom.

Isn't it the case that religion expects people to accept God's word as a moral absolute?

Of course not. But ultimately it's a personal experience - you can't go cutting down trees expecting to grow fruit. As with science you need to make some assumptions and pursue their effects.

they violated the dictates of the state.

But how is this inherent in states, and not the individual operators? And if there's a good answer to that, how is it inherent in individuals and not states? Either/Or is a losing strategy no matter what happens, which is why I emphasized the "And." The very implications of the Hayek quotes is such that we ought to feel warned about what it is possible to communicate - especially to a hostil audience. I think there are similarities among people, that doesn't mean I don't see differences, but the question is at what level do these reside and that is a metaphysical question that we never avoid answering one way or the other. We automatically - by our manner of living - issue judgement on the nature of the world.