I also think that even with an unknowable good or a plurality of goods it's still the best method. It's always possible to get locked into the wrong conception of good. Enlightenment = Time + Education + Trial-and-Error + Democracy

Only everyone working together over time and after trial and error can we come to a more enlightened state of affairs. We see this same pattern applied to serfdom, slavery, law, style of government, etc.

I have no problem living in a world where we are groping in the dark for the right thing, so long as we are looking and not giving up.

As far as Larisonian, well there are rarely people that are completely correct and rarely people who are totally wrong. I agree that freedom is merely instrumental and in that I think he's right.

I enjoyed Prof. Deneen's post about free-riding and I agree that devout Christians are in a precarious position. I think it is also the strongest position available because we try to be conscious of our debts and to meet our obligations. I submit that the main lines of argument against this position are weak because they point to the issue of the debts.

We inherited our situation, as everyone does, and we aren't satisfied with it. Why is the situation the way it is? It got this way because our ancestors attempted to live independently from God. We can either pursue that attempt or admit that are lives are dependent on God. It is true we wouldn't be in this situation if our ancestors hadn't made the attempt. We should be grateful for what we have inherited, but we shouldn't make the same mistakes as our ancestors.

Respect for what we inherited is important and should be maintained. It is out of loyalty to what our parents left us that we should reject things that destroy the institutions and country to which we owe a great deal.

The first point that I feel ought to be made is that were I translated “our” as “devout Christians” the translation is fairly weak. Unfortunately I'm not at all clear about which group of devout Christians Larison belongs to. My brother would probably know, but since he joined a monastery he's kind of hard to reach.

In Larison's title “Patrimony and Autonomy” Patrimony, as I think everyone knows, refers to what people receive from their parents/ancestors, while Autonomy in this case refers to the relation between individuals and God.

As for the “false beliefs” the only one I know of that he could be referencing is the “belief” generally attributed to atheists and unnamed ancestors is that humans don't need God to thrive. The argument for it being a false belief stems from the metaphysics/theology position that God created and sustains everything.

The point about being dependent on God is related to some of the other things that Christians have done. Particularly when they sell what they have and give everything away to the needy, open free clinics or hospitals, or become teachers to people too poor to pay much beyond subsistence wages. Honestly, Larison seems to be one of the Christians that is mostly concerned with the arguments going on internally to Christian groups and the charity efforts.

Honestly, though, I would like to hear Will's take on it. I appreciate honest feedback.

And thanks, Freddie….

The US still does very well in the happiness 'rankings', though. Maybe there are enough local communities. Maybe the red-blue sorting is helping us out. One law and set of communities for San Francisco, another for Dallas.

Luftgeld

Finanzpolitik und Steuerwesen sind oft so furchtbar abstrakt. Nehmen wir zum Beispiel die Zahl 100 Milliarden. Was sind 100 Milliarden? Seit einiger Zeit treibt uns der Gedanke um, wie man die guten Taten veranschaulichen kann, die wir als Steuerbürger notleidenden Geldabfackelvereinigungen aus der Finanzbranche zukommen lassen sollen.

Die Lösung ist der Artikel „Geldregen“, den das Versandhaus Tom Wet im Katalog hat (http://www.tomwet.com). Die monetäre Pappröhre für 13,75 Euro ist eigentlich als Partygag gedacht, kann aber durchaus für ernsthafte Aufgaben eingesetzt werden. Durch einen Dreh an dem 60-Zentimeter-Rohr werden viele Geldscheine – standardmäßig handelt es sich um Spielgeld – mit einem schönen Knall per Druckluftpatrone meterhoch in die Luft katapultiert.

I'm not endorsing Larison, just explaining. That's why I phrased it as the condtional “if we knew…” One standard small 'l' liberal rejoinder is that since we don't know what the good is (or can't agree on it, or if there are a pluarlity of goods), an attitude like the one Larison endorses carries the danger of 'locked in' to the wrong conception of the good.

That sounds about right to me. But I think it's interesting for those who are essentially instrumentalist about liberty and autonomy (they are good *as means* to human flourishing) to consider how close they are to a Larisonian view…

Amen! I totally agree with that sentiment. We just disagree on what the right is.

What does this have to do with 'little platoons' and chauvanistic communities? On one version: not much. A little platoon or a chauvanistic community could instantiate bad values as well as good. I think where Larison is going with this, however, is that the relationship of a traditionalist towards his community at least partakes in the right aspects of mind. His question isn't “am I getting what I want” or “am I fully being me” he's asking “am I conforming myself to the standard laid down.”