JUDGING LIBERATED FEDERALISM, X
To date, this blog, in introducing the construct, liberated federalism, has reviewed three of its elements: covenant or compact, equality, and communal democracy. Readers are invited to review the last set of postings dedicated to this construct and if they have not read them, are encouraged to do so. These reviews have relied on Philip Selznick’s work and his treatment of those elements.[1]
The last of the Selznick elements is the covenant of reason. This covenant refers to the tacit cultural agreement to a participatory socialization, i.e., a taught morality based on reflection and engagement. Authority under this type of morality must be justified with reasons which would be exercised by those involved. This includes authority (legitimate role) in relation to processes or methods, and to ends. The challenge lies around the ends.
What objective standards can there be for reasoned ends? That is the challenge concerning ends. Ultimately, the commonwealth must decide upon those standards, and this presupposes “… a shared resolve to prefer and perfect dialogue and deliberation. To this extent an element of historicity, of givenness and self-formation, is inevitable and indispensable. But the covenant of reason is peculiar in this, that it is reflexive and self-critical.”[2] That means all aspects of decision-making are subject to such criticism, even the decisions that formulate the ends as well as means.
And in that vein, Selznick identifies three sources of resistance in fulfilling needed support of “reasoned” ends and means.
· One, they rely on normative reasoning – what people decide is worthy of pursuing.[3]
· Two, there is the argument that one should not aggregate a person’s goals and wants into communal rationality – its ambitions, aims, and goals. Communities are their own entities, not a collection of individuals.
· And three, the concern, especially in natural rights guided nations such as the US, is that individual rights are endangered when communities endorse a certain set of moral choices. Yet if one ranks communal welfare above individual preferences, the former should prevail when optional policy is considered.
Intrinsic with the liberated federalist perspective is the concern of congealing, to some degree, the diverse interests and purposes of a modern society. The liberated federalism construct is not a call for complete integration of diverse groups; it is not a desire to eliminate divisive forces in the private sector and it is not expecting unquestioning civic virtue.
Liberated federalism anticipates and encourages a multiplicity of interests in a healthy community. Thomas Jefferson warned the nation of the lack of interests and factions; that if a lack exists, tyrannical rule is more likely, if not guaranteed.[4] The search for a common good, according to this perspective, is to be done within such an environment of diverse interests, not against it. Yes, what is contemplated – and acted upon – is a level of nuance, complexity, and, what’s the word, reality.
This view or element has a number of aspects; this posting will describe the first aspect and the posting to come will review two others. The first aspect of the covenant of reason element is the critique of preferences. This aspect is an expectation that choices will be subject, under the liberated federalism perspective, to critical review.
Surely, in the present market conditions, consumers are not called upon to justify their choices. Voters can make their choices in a similar manner without giving reasons for their preferences even though their choices have social consequences. These arrangements are generally approved of by the assumption that people know what is best for themselves during normal life.
But there should be only the expectation that one’s choices are an indication of what is desirable either for the individual or the community; it is not a conclusive claim. What is wanted should be subject to critical view. By such a review, one understands that ultimately choices fall under a subjective domain; therefore, their justification does not make claims in the objective domain.
But once aims, goals, or targets are identified, objectivity can and should be utilized. An “I want so and so because it will lead to so and so” statement is subject to objective analysis and judgment. In the first instance, objective standards can be applied if the expected consequence is likely to occur or there is a probability that it will. In the second instance, the application of standards by which one judges whether these aims are being realistically pursued can be subject to objectivity.
Objectively derived standards, i.e., standards divorced from the immediate condition can be applied to determine if the consequence(s) is/are desirable for the person or the community. Do behaviors realistically strive toward those aims that have been identified? Do they approach communal desires is a question one can approach from an objective view. This critical function should be obvious, but the application of economic and rationale models has obfuscated this benefit of reflective morality, Selznick points out.
That brings that first aspect, critique of preferences, to an end; next will be claims of conscience, the next aspect of covenant of reason, and then the third aspect, treatment of individual interests will be addressed. With those two aspects “covered,” readers will be sufficiently prepared for the liberated federalism model.
[1] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992).
[2] Ibid., 525.
[3] While such goals, aims, targets are beyond objective review, they are not beyond moral review. What a people want should be questioned as to the goodness or evilness, the rightness or wrongness.
[4] Thomas Jefferson, “From Revolutionary to Statesman/Notes on the State of Virginia,” in Great American Political Thinkers, Volume I, edited by Bernard E. Brown (New York, NY: Avon Books, 1983), 307-331.
0 notes
The day before yesterday I was looking at statistics about reading habits in different countries (average book count per year, age, most read genre, etc) and then yesterday i came across a poll here asking how many books youve read so far this year and now im wondering:
The highest I saw (not just in that poll's tags but on other socials as well) was 365! With the person in question being a lil under 300 rn.
The lowest (and no shame here! I myself have picked up reading again after a long time and it's quite the challenge) was 1! But I also saw lots of people aim for 5.
The average seems to be anywhere around 30 to 60!
And the second most common bracket (interesting that it's also the one made up of mostly late teens and early 20yos) is 10-30!
Idk if anyone will read this but if u do, id love to know more about your thought process in the tags!
(Just pls be kind to each other and no fucked up elitism lol)
596 notes
·
View notes
alright y'all.... the fate of the spommy 5+1 is in the hands of my beta readers. While you all wait... i'll give a little gift hehe
But instead of watching over Tommy’s shoulder like he normally does, maybe with an elbow braced on the back of Tommy’s chair, Spencer decides this is the perfect time to drape himself completely over Tommy’s chair and onto Tommy’s shoulders, chin resting on the juncture between Tommy’s shoulder and neck.
“Bub, I can’t work like this.” Tommy chuckles, trying to ignore how the laughter threatens to be choked off by the vines of affection trying to take root in his throat and use suffocation as a reminder for what Tommy tries desperately to avoid. Spencer, instead of answering, turns his head to bury his face against the column of Tommy’s throat, nose pressing right into Tommy’s pulse point. Tommy doesn’t mean to let the breath catch in his throat, but it lodges there and it takes everything for Tommy to breath out past it all. Spencer’s own breath is warm, eyelashes tickling Tommy’s skin and Tommy doesn’t resist the urge to reach a hand up to the back of Spencer’s neck.
21 notes
·
View notes