libertarian vs communitarian

[henry quirk]

Libertarian Theory

This approach assumes that individuals take precedence over government. They inherently possess certain rights which the government should preserve and promote. This view assumes that human beings are capable of choice and development on their own without the help of government. Government should merely provide the institutions and mechanisms which will enable individuals to exercise their rights and pursue their private interests. Individuals are more important than the political community, and their rights and interests supersede those of the community. Libertarians see government as necessary because the clash of individual interests creates conflict. This requires institutions which can mediate these differences. The ideal government as envisioned by libertarians would be one in which general, impersonal laws and disinterested judges provide the peace and security under which each person can pursue private interests. Thus, the libertarian has a notion of justice that is purely procedural in nature. A procedural view of justice sees the political system as legitimate as long as it applies fair rules and procedures equally to all persons. Persons using these procedures to obtain vastly different results is not seen as being unjust. For example, a college admissions system may be based on merit. High school seniors will be admitted to college if they achieve a certain grade point average and adequate scores on college admissions tests. Those who do not meet the standards are not admitted. Though this system differentiates between people, it is procedurally just because it applies what are believed to be appropriate standards equally to all persons.

Communitarian Theory

This perspective emphasizes the positive role that government plays in the lives of its people. This view asserts that individuals are not completely independent, but rather, have an inherent need for association with their fellows in the political community. Whereas the individualist-libertarian approach assumes that people can choose and develop on their own, the communitarian approach contends that people need the community and its values to nurture their development and enable them to make proper choices. Under this view, democratic government exists not only to recognize and protect individual rights and to satisfy personal interests, but also to bring individuals together into a political community to solve public problems. Politics is not a necessary evil to be limited in scope andfunction. Thus, communitarians recognize that the “public interest” creates responsibilities that may override the individual’s rights. Whenever a conflict occurs between individual rights and the public interest, the communitarian resolves the conflict on the side of the public interest. Thus, the political majority may sometimes need to impose certain values on individuals who find themselves in the minority. Communitarians take a substantive view of justice. Whereas the libertarian is satisfied with fair procedures as a measure of justice, the communitarian is more likely to look at the fairness of the results obtained. This view contends that vast inequalities among individuals are potentially damaging to society as a whole and supports the use of government power to achieve greater justice. In college admission systems for example, communitarian theory supports affirmative action on behalf of minorities to redress institutional inequalities. Thus a college may give admissions preference to minority group members in order to increase their numbers in higher education and obtain a just result for all elements in society, even though such action may discriminate against individuals who are not minorities.

[Gary Childress]

Not sure which I fall into "most" between the two options offered. I mean, I believe that human beings possess certain rights and are capable of choice and development without the help of government but certainly NOT without the help of being part of some sort of community. Just looking at cases of feral children (for example) seems to confirm that. Not sure what is meant here by "government" as it doesn't seem entirely synonymous with "community". For example any sort of capitalist enterprise is essentially a form of governance in the workplace, though often not very democratic.

[henry quirk]

Damned few true middle-of-the-roaders in the world.

[Impenitent]

Damned few true middle-of-the-roaders in the world.

the highways of Texas are filled with the corpses of middle of the road armadillos...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

Same here in Louisiana.

Middle of the road = roadkill.

[henry quirk]

C'mon prople, vote, damnit.

[]...[]

.



Just about ready to vote, but...um, since you refuse to use what we all recognize as paragraphs could you please re-write your original post without using any periods so that your post is just one free-floating fuckin stream of thought - ya know, without any of the pesky incumberance of punctuation?


Thanks ahead of time. Make it a real train-wreck.


.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, Bill, I ain't doin' that.

No worries: I already know what you are.

[henry quirk]

4 to zip.

[]...[]

.



And why just ONE vote? Who the hell are you?

I want to vote 1,000 times!


WTF? - Why should you have authority over us?


You on some kind of power trip?

I'm capable of choice & development on my own.

I don't need you acting like some fuckin gobment imposing ALL your rules on me!


VERY UNFAIR! SAD.


.

[henry quirk]

Ain't nuthin' stoppin' you (or anyone) from settin' up a poll, Bill.

[Walker]

Did you compose those theories?

[henry quirk]

Nope.

Both 'theories' come from the same source, which I cut and pasted from 'as is' (except for leavin' out a tiny bit at the end of each description, a tiny bit which I think could skew the polling [such as it is]).

Later, once I'm satisfied with (or tired of) the poll, I'll post the link of the source.

[henry quirk]

5 to nada.

Who are these kindred souls, these four self-possessed individuals?

Remain ye not closeted, brothers, sisters!

Fly your Gadsden.

[Stuart523]

The descriptions were useful. I'm not libertarian in that I don't advocate for or against any larger social action, preferring to simply consider what is most rational without concerning myself with the intricate complexities that involve actual social or political change. Libertarianism as described is clearly the more rational option.

It's worth noting that in the description of libertarianism it describes the ideology in an abstract state, not speaking to how the misuses of the ideology by those claiming to have been libertarians were enacted. In the description of communitarianism it gives examples of misuses of the ideology. Though not presenting them as such. Even if one was concerned with the welfare of strangers in one's society, if he was legitimately so, he wouldn't seek to redress discrepancies in quality of life and opportunity by focusing on larger groups, for which the act of belonging itself is not an automatic negative state. but would simply define the factors that make an individual lacking and work to help such individuals.

For example, belonging to the group poor or the group disabled may as well be said to automatically be a negative state, but to belong to the group black, or a the group women, is not. The latter groups might be reasonably said to speak to an average state of lacking income and opportunity, where a black person or woman of any race who has compensated for that average state of lacking can hardly be said to have any disadvantage in itself for simply being a woman or being black, or to claim otherwise would be tantamount to claiming being black or a woman is an undesirable state under any conditions.