Kevin--
It is a misconception that a need to restrain liberty justifies the modern
bureaucratic state. The argument that the dangers of liberty require
governmental restraint leads only to the night watchman state, government
limited to the protection of person and property. Minimal government is the
more common libertarian ideal. This is the argument of Nozick's Anarchy,
State, and Utopia. Philosophical anarchists like Rothbard would disagree,
but most libertarians are "minarchists."
Another misconception is that institutions and activities of value which are
currently provided by government would not exist unless provided by
government. Historical sites, like the teaching of history, are of great
value. Things of value, like the arts, education, philosophy, and
scientific discovery, have always been afforded by prosperous societies,
whether paid for by government or by private interests. That they are
usually taken over by governments as good excuses for taxation and the
growth of the state is no reason to say that they would not otherwise exist.
Professors of history would still be employed, even if there were no public
universities.
Regards,
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Ft Monroe & public funds
Sam--
I still think its a false dichotomy. First of all, I do not think it is
self evident that we have more to fear from too much centralized power as we
do from too much liberty. For one thing, the two are connected--too much
liberty creates the conditions that lead to tyranny.
For another, we do not have to stipulate that the the threat between the two
is equal (as you seem to imply below) in order to claim that we need to
guard our polity from the dangers of both. All I need to claim is that the
dangers from too much liberty are demonstrable and real, and sufficiently
grave to merit our public attention.
I think that public funding for historical preservation of sites like
Fortress Monroe is one of the ways that we ensure ordered liberty in our
country--and because ordered liberty is a good thing (whereas unrestrained,
disordered liberty is a bad thing) I think the coercion you quite correctly
note is justified.
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date: 10/29/2008
7:45 AM
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
