-Member of Dutch Anti-Revolutionary party

I tend to think Kuyperianism superior to subsidiarity, because Kuyperianism focuses first on the type of authority, only secondly on its geographical scope. I e “City hall” is still “the government” and General Motors and the corner store are still “business” and the local storefront independent church and the Roman Catholic Church are still “the church.” I don’t want authoritarian government, which presumes that the community ultimately owns my property, out of City Hall any more than I do out of Washington D C.

Yes being human such a system would be flawed and would eventually fall but so would any human system and this one is simply that which would seem to be the best.

“Certainly. But wouldn’t this imply that a state, by its very nature is vulnerable to the temptations of statism? ”

It can be vulnerable, nothing is perfect and we always have to be on the look out but it would still be the best system any other choice would be either too anti-state to the point it has problems functioning and paradoxically then invites statism or it would be overly statist to begin with.

“You are correct in this assertion. I just find it hard to imagine how there would ever be social cohesion in a society as fragmented as America today. The effects of radical individualism have burrowed too deep in our social fabric.”

I think your in a better position than us Brits. We lack that conscious and cohesive social conservative core.

2. On the issue of Federal social policy you should be careful again about the actual effects of government involvement. Even on a policy that has been so lauded (though unsustainable) as Social Security came under this attack by Nobel laureate, Gary Becker: “parents who do not need support when they become old do not try as hard to make children more loyal or guiltier or otherwise feel as well disposed toward their parents. This means that programs such as social security that significantly help the elderly would encourage family members to drift apart emotionally, not by accident.”

I meant by my first question, that since the State is comprised of human beings, each with their own flawed (even fallen) nature, it surely would eventually be corrupted and devolve into tyranny. Perhaps it wouldn’t, though, given the right circumstances. I just tend to be skeptical, given the track record of the state throughout history.

“There is a difference between having a state, even a a state beyond the local level, and statism.”

Certainly. But wouldn’t this imply that a state, by its very nature is vulnerable to the temptations of statism?

“Culture and society have parts beyond the local and there would be chaos and dislocation if we totally removed any higher power than the local community.”

You are correct in this assertion. I just find it hard to imagine how there would ever be social cohesion in a society as fragmented as America today. The effects of radical individualism have burrowed too deep in our social fabric.

“The important thing is to have a system that maintains the balance and the autonomy for these local and intermediate areas and we will not find that by simply, I’m afraid somewhat utopianly, hoping a world of townships may provide it.”

I pray that such a system can eventually be found and can be sustained without falling victim to the inherent corruption that governmental structures often do. Still, the kind of system you mention appears smack slightly of utopianism itself. Then again, I could be mistaken.

Thank you for the well thought out answers, they are much appreciated.

“But won’t the State, which is inevitably collective, eventually become corrupted by its members? ”

I’m unsure what you mean by this. There will be tension certainly when an ideology of individual autonomy if perpetuated under a collectivist, statist system such as that of the Jacobins. However the lack of community will destroy the very wish or ability of too much autonomy from state tutelage in many people.

“Obviously some form of government is inevitable but does it have to be a central government? Radical individualist anarchy and statism are two extremes. Surely there has got to be middle ground that does not favor centralization of human power.”

Indeed, it is what we are talking about and is in some form or other, no matter how flawed the conception, of a many ideologies. There is a difference between having a state, evena a state beyond the local level, and statism.

“Cannot a theory of anarchism be envisioned that favors community, family, and tradition yet is hostile toward centralized human control (the state)? I always thought that the purpose of localism and decentralization was to keep “The State” in its all powerful and tyrannical form from existing.”

It is unlikely that a stable form of such “anarchism” could exist. Culture and society have parts beyond the local and there would be chaos and dislocation if we totally removed any higher power than the local community. Most of us localists and decentralists are not anarchists or fundamentalist localists. We want to return a lot of power to the local level and to revive the intermediate associations of society, we want more regional and local sustainability but we do tend to recognise the balance and functions that higher levels like regional and national gov’t generally must provide. The important thing is to have a system that maintains the balance and the autonomy for these local and intermediate areas and we will not find that by simply, I’m afraid somewhat utopianly, hoping a world of townships may provide it.

Bob, my friend, I ask questions simply so I can learn different perspectives and enrich my understanding. Feel free to ignore them if you find them tedious.

Obviously some form of government is inevitable but does it have to be a central government? Radical individualist anarchy and statism are two extremes. Surely there has got to be middle ground that does not favor centralization of human power.

Cannot a theory of anarchism be envisioned that favors community, family, and tradition yet is hostile toward centralized human control (the state)? I always thought that the purpose of localism and decentralization was to keep “The State” in its all powerful and tyrannical form from existing.

And as for the state “staying in it’s place” how does one propose we do that?

Libertarianism and Anarchism are unworkable and by their hostile attitude to even social authority and any non-completely voluntaryist social association, not to mention their sociologically and psychologically individualist philosophies, tend to undermine the necessary health and stability of social bonds which are absolutely necessary to resist state tyranny.

Ultimately the state is inevitable and far from necessarily a bad thing(I would say it is a divine institution.) as long as it stays in its place.

It is for this reason that, while I believe in community, I find myself politically drawn in the direction of philosophical anarchism or at least libertarianism.

Not all statism is driven to fruition by individualism. Many tyrannical states in history have been driven by collectivist ideology.

Hence, I cannot see how replacing one state with another is any solution. Perhaps someone here could enlighten me as to what I’m failing to grasp.

(Greek mythology apology. I have used the Latin spelling of Orthus instead of the Greek Orthros and I’ve sent Cerberus, the true guarding hound of Hades, to the dog pound because he has three heads and, therefore, doesn’t fit into the symbolism. According to legend Orthus was a mere cattle guard but fierce nevertheless.)

Congratulations Mr Daly on what promises to be a very well researched book and a very strong thesis.

My only criticism is that there are perhaps times where you become just a tad too socially democratic or at least times when your meaning is open to that interpretation.

I too agree the state, even the central state, has an important role in supporting the vital intermediate associations of society like the family. However it must always be remembered that the state, particularly the central state, is also one of the most dangerous institutions for these intermediate associations in terms of usurping their functions and autonomy.

So while distancing myself from any libertarian or liberal position and reiterating the positive role the state has in society I still think we need to be remember to use caution and be measured when we come to detailing and working out this role.

Also while it is certainly true a proper “social pluralist” society will not countenance liberal/libertarian individualism or free market fundamentalism/neoliberalism it will still be quite decentralised and have a lot smaller gov’t than we’ve got now, which is always worth bearing in mind.