Liberty Without Virtue Leads to Ruin...
https://pod.link/1657770114/episode/a354d0b5fa960f759690e9a5632f7522
#podstr #podcast
Discussion
It is certainly true that liberty without virtue is ruinous. However what I’ve never heard the right wingers making this argument explain is how you can build a virtuous society without liberty?
Liberty is a necessary (though insufficient) prerequisite for virtue, because virtue cannot be real without both the availability of the path to dishonor and the choice on the part of the individual not to take that path. Forced virtue is an oxymoron, anyone arguing for it has the causality reversed at best.
Full disclosure, I’m basing this statement off other podcasts that I’ve listened to with Auron MacIntire as a guest. I haven’t yet listened to this particular episode. Perhaps he explains his position more thoroughly.
I believe he does explain his position more fully, and you might consider this podcast worth a listen. Here is an excerpt pertaining to your question:
"The mistake here lies in the order of operations, assuming that virtue is the result of liberty rather than understanding that liberty can only be enjoyed by a people who have first cultivated a high degree of virtue.
"...For Machiavelli, the key factor that made Republican government possible was the virtue of the people. Under a monarchy, the people didn't need to practice a high degree of self discipline. The king provided order, and that order allowed the people to prosper even if they didn't have the character to rule themselves.
"Order is more necessary for human flourishing than freedom, a lesson that many who have always lived under the benefit of a stable civilization often forget.
"...Ordered liberty is not the freedom to pursue every base desire, but the ability to pursue virtue inside a shared understanding of the good. That's why Machiavelli agreed with Aristotle that virtue requires community. The individual is not virtuous in isolation but must exercise that virtue by pursuing the good in relation to friends, family, religion, and business.
"Without order, we can't have community or understand our role inside of it.
"Order is a precondition for community.
"Community is a precondition for virtue.
"Liberty is the rare and delicate fruit of a society which is virtuous."
So it sounds to me like MacIntyre says first you need order, which leads to community, which can bring about virtue, and from which Liberty may be possible.
If these are examples of his thinking then I believe my original critique was spot on.
TL;DR - The more thoughtful right wingers, and I would count Auron MacIntyre among them, would do well to read more Hans-Hermann Hoppe. https://cdn.mises.org/What%20Must%20Be%20Done_7.pdf
"The mistake here lies in the order of operations, assuming that virtue is the result of liberty rather than understanding that liberty can only be enjoyed by a people who have first cultivated a high degree of virtue."
The mistake is in the order of operations, but it is not mine. Virtue without liberty is forced virtue, which as I said originally, is an oxymoron. Forced virtue is simply unthinking compliance, and unthinking compliance is not a virtue. Even God wants us to think as we attempt to comply with His law. However, order and virtue are not the same thing and we should consider the two separately.
"For Machiavelli, the key factor that made Republican government possible was the virtue of the people. Under a monarchy, the people didn't need to practice a high degree of self discipline. The king provided order, and that order allowed the people to prosper even if they didn't have the character to rule themselves."
This is exemplary of the propensity of right wingers to use the word "order" without defining it. Order is the degree to which individuals can be comfortable that their person and property are not in imminent danger of being violated. Some kings may have provided some degree of order at some times by providing a level of protection of persons and property from violators other than the king and his agents, but it is important to remember that each king is also to a lesser or greater degree an agent of disorder himself. The private thieves and murders which the king would, on occasion, protect individuals against were not the only violators of person and property, but the king himself obtained his vast wealth by performing the same type of violations he claimed to protect against.
"Order is more necessary for human flourishing than freedom, a lesson
that many who have always lived under the benefit of a stable civilization often forget."
Order is more necessary for human *survival* than freedom, but for human *flourishing* liberty is more important. Order predates widespread material prosperity, which is what I assume is meant by human flourishing in this context. If order alone were sufficient for increases in material prosperity then we should expect the historical record to reflect material prosperity increases commensurately with increases in order, and this is demonstrably not the case. Order is necessary to maintain what has been achieved, but to go beyond that and build something new liberty is required. Increases in material prosperity require trying new ideas or techniques for production, which is the job of the entrepreneur. Neither a king nor a modern nation state can effectively do the job of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurs can only exist within a framework of not only order but also liberty, as they must be free to experiment and take risk (liberty) while also perceiving no imminent threat to their person or property (order).
"Without order, we can't have community or understand our role inside of it. Order is a precondition for community. Community is a precondition for virtue. Liberty is the rare and delicate fruit of a society which is virtuous."
I don't think this framing is correct, I think this is a far more accurate summary:
Order and community are inextricably linked, there is a causality going in both directions. Order cannot be obtained by an individual alone, nor can a community be maintained if people are not secure in their persons and property to a large degree. Community and order are both preconditions for liberty, as without the assurances of security in person and property (both physical security as well as normative security) provided by the community then the exercise of liberty is impossible as the struggle to survive is all-consuming. Liberty is a prerequisite for virtue as virtue can only truly be achieved when the vast majority of the individuals within the community choose to be virtuous of their own volition. This choice is only possible when unvirtuous choices are both presented (liberty) and declined (true virtue), otherwise any virtue is merely forced virtue, which is not virtue at all.
Some of the disagreement may come from different definitions of "liberty/freedom." He began the podcast stating:
"Freedom in the abstract makes for a very stupid god. In many progressive cities across the United States, heroin addicts are free to spend their days shooting up while living in the squalor of homeless encampments that now line urban streets. But only the most deranged ideologue would see this as a blessing. Anyone who truly understands human nature knows that our impulse is to make ourselves slaves in one manner or another. Left entirely to our own devices, the isolated individual tends to suffer from a thirst for annihilation, indulging in excess or deprivation of some kind that will bring ruin."
I'm not familiar enough with MacIntyre's thought to know how he would answer, but perhaps he believes that one can't truly be "free" unless they are virtuous. If you are a slave to sin, then you can't be free. And of course, freedom from sin comes through Jesus Christ, and Christ is mediated to us through the church, which is community. So political freedom would first require personal spiritual freedom. Thus, non-Christians, being slaves to sin, would always be political slaves as well. But if that's what he means, he didn't say it in those terms.