tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post9114956465764593806..comments2023-04-03T05:20:01.318-04:00Comments on Young, Hip and Conservative: a skeptical blog: Procedural liberalism requires consistencyMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-71014288462003680062011-10-21T22:05:21.741-04:002011-10-21T22:05:21.741-04:00I accept your premise that ethics are bigger than ...I accept your premise that ethics are bigger than the law, but if following the rules can be ignored simply by declaring a rule unjust, than the rules can be disregarded just as easily as declaring they can be ignored for an emergency.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-25141918525411126812011-10-21T00:38:48.152-04:002011-10-21T00:38:48.152-04:00You're missing fundamental underpinnings here....You're missing fundamental underpinnings here. By the way you're using 'procedural liberalism', it can be said that the concept can exist equally in modern day America as well as it could have existed in Gadhafi's Libya. <br /><br />The foundation to this thought is that society must itself trend towards justice. Procedural liberalism presupposes not only democracy, but a basic equality. As I pointed out earlier, your own definition given in your opening paragraph speaks to this fact: <em>all members of a <strong>just</strong> society</em>. If the society is fundamentally unjust, procedural liberalism does not apply; we must first arrive at some degree of justness or some basic goal of justness before we an employ something like procedural liberalism.<br /><br />To put it another way, this idea holds that what is needed is equality before the law (whereas other forms of liberalism require that the law create equality). In the case of MLK, there was no equality before the law and so it had to be rectified. That is, in part, how the OWS protestors feel, right or wrong.Michael Hawkinshttp://forthesakeofscience.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-82556949426337499842011-10-20T10:50:48.958-04:002011-10-20T10:50:48.958-04:00The idea that one can break the rules in the inter...The idea that one can break the rules in the interest of society is from the Carl Schmitt school of thought, which opposes procedural liberalism - and is embraced by anti-globalization Marxists.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-31898888141735632652011-10-20T05:29:38.462-04:002011-10-20T05:29:38.462-04:00The point of procedural liberalism is to obey rule...The point of procedural liberalism is to obey rules which are in the furtherance (or at least not in the hindrance) of a just society. The OWS protestors* obviously don't believe no trespassing laws prevent justice, but they do see their actions as pertaining to going after unjust laws, policies, and regulations. <br /><br />*I am not arguing or implying that the political philosophy of OWS protestors (or the American left in general) is actually procedural liberalism.Michael Hawkinshttp://forthesakeofscience.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-66645644305938166182011-10-18T12:36:43.790-04:002011-10-18T12:36:43.790-04:00OK Michael, it sounds like you're making an ar...OK Michael, it sounds like you're making an argument against procedural liberalism as a valid philosophy.<br /><br />As the Bryan Caplan link above shows, I agree that rules can be unjust and get in the way, but that is the other side of the same coin of a president breaking the constitution to be more effective in a war.<br /><br />I'm simply stating that people can't have it both ways.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-46379576781764473632011-10-18T01:14:50.672-04:002011-10-18T01:14:50.672-04:00This whole post falls apart right in the first par...This whole post falls apart right in the first paragraph. People who believe in procedural liberalism believe it is necessary to living in a <em>just</em> society. It isn't merely that we must follow the rules because the rules are the rules and that's the path to justice. It's that there is justice and then there are the rules designed to protect that justice. I cede the floor to Dr. King:<br /><br /><em>One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."</em><br />~Letters from Birmingham Jail<br /><br />I would say this sentiment is closer to what the vast majority of liberals say than what you've described.Michael Hawkinshttp://forthesakeofscience.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-60090439895129511842011-10-17T02:56:59.927-04:002011-10-17T02:56:59.927-04:00I just want to comment on DOMA. The Obama Administ...I just want to comment on DOMA. The Obama Administration has done a great disservice both to the rule of law and to those who advocate for gay marriage.<br /><br />Had the administration continued to fight for the law, it could have been declared unconstitutional. Perhaps the court would have simply found it isn't the purview of the federal government, but the court may have found that marriage is a right and cannot be denied to gays.<br /><br />But alas, the President gave in when his jobs is not to decide which laws to defend or uphold but to defend them all and uphold them all. As you say, the way to change legislation is to change legislation. Allowing the Executive Branch to decide which laws to defend and which laws not to defend is a shocking and terrible precedent and I feel it should be enshrined in law that the president is bound to defend all federal laws in court, not pass his own judgement.Natehttp://congressshallmakenolaw.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com