Not By Half

Eric at Classical Values is discussing communitarianism from a libertarian perspective. I'd like to add my two cents.

We have two communitarian parties in the US. One is based on economic communitarianism the other is based on social communitarianism. And what is the root of this communitarianism? Communism. Actual communists want to control social AND economic relations. In America we have divided the responsibilities between two parties. Each ratcheting up their favored part of the project. Of course this is a very clever way to get us to communism. Or perhaps just communism lite - socialism. And my friends on the social conservative right - being the dupes they are (most of them) fall for this stuff hook line and sinker. They tell me: if the government doesn't control the moral order who will? Uh. Why not try the people?

In any case giving moral authority to the government makes the moral muscles of the people flabby. And that is sad. One reason I support Rockford Pro Life is that they want nothing to do with government help. Why is that good? There are a number of reasons. With abortion above ground it is easier to reach mothers contemplating such action. Such groups are also forced to look into why women would choose to abort and do something about it. Is it economics? An abusive partner? Psychological problems? Fear? By studying the behavior they hope to do something about they can actually do something useful.

Lincoln said that a nation cannot exist half slave and half free. I agree. A nation that is already half communist is half way to full communism. Communitarian impulses lead to the very thing the communitarians on the right fear. Economic communitarianism. This is especially true in a nation without a uniform culture and genetic heritage.

So to my social conservative friends: communitarianism is the handmaiden to communism. Don't go there. Protecting the culture is everyone's job. Don't hand off your personal responsibility to the government. They will not do near as good a job as you can. They are government after all. Their interest is not in solving problems but in perpetuating them.

Take a look at the DEA. Has it made any significant dent in drug use? Yes it has. The number of non-problem users in that market has declined significantly. But you know what? Non-problem users are not a problem. As to problem users? Not a dent. Why? Well if they declined much the DEA people would be out of a job. So they don't look at why hard core users use. Why should they? They might find that law enforcement is not the answer. And then where would they be? Without a job.

At least with private organizations if they don't get results you can stop donating. If government agencies fail their budgets increase. I think it is called doubling down on failure. Since Nixon declared a war on drugs the cost to the Federal government has gone from $100 million a year to $25 billion a year. Even accounting for inflation you have to ask yourself - are you getting your money's worth?