Morality closely plays a role in solidarity. There are certain moral principles anyone in a free society will agree on. People are entitled to freedom of speech, private property, and the right to life and those should not be unnecessarily infringed upon. However, morality goes farther. There needs to be a sense that people live in a just society or that society will begin to fracture. It is only possible for a moral people to be free. An immoral populace requires an expansive government to keep the order.
The role of government needs to be tightly defined in a free society. It is not that governments are bad. Regulation is necessary for a well-ordered society. This can be seen in simple things as having a common side of the road to drive on, a common currency, consistent standards for phone lines, and complex things like interstate and international commerce, and educational standards. Disputes will arise in any culture and there needs to be a fair arbiter. Society needs rules in how to operate. However, the government should not be treated as the end-all-be-all of what we should do and how we should act. The government should be restricted to those functions that cannot be adequately performed by individuals, civic groups, or communities. Government should also govern at the lowest level possible for the function involved. Not everything requires a national program. The bigger the government gets, the harder it gets to keep in check. The more involved government is in other functions, particularly economic, the more special interests and the well-connected are represented.
The free market, properly understood, entails the freedom to make economic choices for oneself. The parties to a transaction are the best ones able to determine their values. As far as possible, transactions and the terms of those transactions should be left to the "buyer" and the "seller". Information is obviously needed to make intelligent economic choices and policies should have a presumption of disclosure with reasonable exceptions (i.e. trade secrets, etc). However, the free market entails more decisions than just what to buy, it entails where to work, what methods to use, and which vendors to do business with. All parties should have the broadest possible choices in which to ask to ensure that the free market produces efficient and fair solutions. Reasonable and limited regulation is appropriate, but over regulation just leads to the dynamic where the wealthy and well-connected start to lobby for regulations that tip the scales in their favor.
Article comments
1 - lumpy
Good post. When I saw the title I expected to see a narrow ideological definition that I would find objectionable because it ruled me out as a conservative, but you've taken a nice inclusive perspective that's very appealing.
2 - Baronius
A solid start. I have two concerns, though.
Your definition of morality is fine by me, but would exclude the sizable libertarian wing of Conservatism. Those wacky pot-smokers tend to vote the same as other conservatives, but hold very different views in certain areas. Do you mean to exclude them?
Secondly, you imply self-government when talking about subsidiarity and the role of government, but I think it should be formally listed as a principle.
3 - Bliffle
Wow! That's the most damning denunciation of the neocons that I've ever read.
4 - John Bambenek
As far as libertarians, well I'm going to post on each principle seperately, but for now, I think libertarians would hold to some level of morality they just wouldn't admit it. Libertarians aren't pro-murder or pro-theft, for example.
And I'm quite skeptical of neocons. On one had, the world is a crappy place and good national defense is not bad, but for a big "empire" that they want to establish it is unclear who that empire represents. I can vote out a President. Can you vote out the career diplomats that run this empire?
I'm skeptical of neocons, and in the end, I think it will begin to exist for its own ends and not for the ends of the American people.
5 - lumpy
I didn't see him define the specifics of 'morality', Baronius. Libertariqnism is inherently moral. Freedom is the highest moral principle and nothing is more immoral than forcing your views on others using the power of government.
6 - Baronius
I erred in my statement. A libertarian can have great personal morality. Indeed, emphasis on the role of the individual is spiritually healthy. I just don't see the libertarian signing on to those six principles. The need for a shared morality goes against their grain. I could be missing John's point, however.
7 - gonzo marx
John B. - this is by far, the best bit of writing i have seen from you...by and large i Agree with quite a bit of it..
strange as that may seem to many folks around here
looking back at much of what you have written in the past, and in Light of what you have written here, i think i see the conundrum
it revolves around your personal definition of "morality"
let me clarify...to most folks there is a dividing line between Morality and Ethics
and it goes like this...
Morality: a set of Rules for proper living handed down from a "higher authority" , usually some Book or Teachings considered "holy"
Ethics: a set of Rules for proper living together as set out by Reason and agreed upon by common consensus
big difference here...
allow me to postulate that our Nation, under the Rule of Law and as defined by our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a country defined by those documents as our common set of Ethics...
this was done quite deliberately, with the Understanding by our Founders that you can NOT legislate "morality"...since what is quite "moral" behavior to some...is anything but to others..
Example: ritualistic cannibalism...to some who practice it, it is the epitome of "moral" behavior...confirming and communing with their "higher Authority"...to others it can be considered quite gruesome and abhorrent
yet very few would say that good Catholics who attend church on sundays and participate in Communion are not Ethical folks by and large...no matter how strange they may think Transubstantiation is
might i suggest you re-Think where you are going...look at the Bill of Rights, and examine the difference between what you think of as "morals" and the Ethics inherent in our Rule of Law...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
8 - John Bambenek
If you wish to define ethics the way you do, you can largely replace the word morality in my piece. In general, however, I don't necessarily agree with how you define ethics and morality. But for the purposes here, we don't need to fight about definitions. When I say morality, by and large, I mean the set of values that enable people to live together in relative harmony. Or at least stability.
Now, as a Catholic, I see Christian morality largely holding those same values and not in opposition in any way to values that allow for a society to stay together in stability but includes a much larger group while holding for many more virtues than the bare minimum. I don't think that code should be imposed, I think it's perfectly convincing in its own right, but that's for another time and place.
The point is that the way you define ethics is pretty much the way I intend "morality" to be above. That should be clearer when I get to the post on that. This was more introduction.
9 - gonzo marx
fair enough John, and thanks for the clarification...
but i do think the differences in definition here, and the Principles behind said differences, are the EXACT things you and i tend to argue about
just something for a Thought...
i look forward to the next installment
Excelsior!
10 - John Bambenek
Probably true, though I think you think that I mean to say certain X set of morals should be forced, which I don't save the very few that entail things like murder, theft, etc.
I think religious faith has to be voluntary to have any real effect. Now I think it is what's best for anyone and it's perfectly persuasive, but that's another issue.
But yet, basically much of the fighting on politics is over the loaded word of morality, which hopefully I'll reclaim to some acceptable definition.
thanks.
11 - matra
Outside American political life the difference between liberalism and conservatism or left and right is not so obvious. Even, some authors stand that the difference does not exist any more. In European version of democracy or so called social-democracy, in contrast to liberal-democracy that is in US, five of these principles are implemented (i've doubts about the last one - organic growth). However, this does not lead to one coherent ideology. I think that the reason for this are mainly two. First, the issues, and respectively the policies, are left or right them selves. For example, public health care is left issue. Second, people who live in 21st century are different from their parents. During 20th century the ideology was a powerful mean for political and social mobilization. It is not true any more. I cannot say whether i am liberal or conservative. The answer is - it depends of the issue. This means that politicians and the policies that they suggest have to be fragmental in order to reflect people demands. This is what i think. I hope i did not offend any one.