On 7/22/2012 11:11 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> One need not be an intellectual to hold to a philosophy based on social ontology.
 > Nor does one need even to know what that is!

Of course.  But when we start conveniently attributing such to
individuals who neither claim it nor provide substantive evidence
of such a philosophical position (e.g., a lack of contradictory
views), then we tread dangerous ground.  Right?

> Do you really believe that, to the Progressive, "individual suffering matters"?  Does forced sterilization ameliorate human suffering? Did Carrie Buck
> suffer less because she was denied the ability to have children?  As such a thing was advocated by some of those Progressive voices, your depiction is
> grossly inadequate, unless by "human suffering" you mean the suffering of those who must live with people of such presumed mental or physical
> deficiencies.


Yes.  Or rather, I believe they believed that. Take Sanger on fertility of
the "feeble-minded", which was the

	"fertile parent of degeneracy, crime, and pauperism."

In Sanger's view, it is costly to those who become the criminals and paupers and
costly to the rest of society (i.e., to other individuals).
Failing to control this outcome "is a deliberate storing up of miseries for future generations."
(which she quoted from Spencer).  This is not based on some reifying "social ontology" as you
put it but rather on the progressive notion that social progress is possible, as measured
by greater individual control over one's fate and provides a tool for self-realization.
"The great principle of Birth Control offers the means whereby the individual may
adapt himself to and even control the forces of environment and heredity."
"Birth Control is an ethical necessity for humanity to-day because it places
in our hands a new instrument of self-expression and self-realization."
"Primarily it is the instrument of liberation and of human development."
These are the kinds of sentiments that are at the core of progressivism,
not some unconsciously held "social ontology".


> Your definition of conservatism is confused, perhaps deliberately so,
 > as the conservative most certainly does not think in terms of the "end of the
> betterment of society," as society has no existence above its members.

I assume you do not wish to claim that early 20th century "conservatives" were
the equivalent of classical liberals, nor that conservative social activism
failed to express and pursue social goals.  So I am not sure what you
have in mind here.  Since I find concrete examples more helpful than
abstractions, I'd like to know who you consider prominent representatives
of early 20th century conservatism in the US.  Ideally they will have
clearly called themselves conservatives and been called so by others
at the time.

A quote from Hayek may (?) be clarifying here:
'to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals
are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives
and socialists recognize no such limits."

You seem to be defining away much of conservatism (including
conservative religious groups) altogether.


> As to cultural elites, they are typically self-appointed and tend to advocate
> social control to maintain their positions -- i.e., they tend to Progressivism!

Again, this looks a bit like Humpty Dumpty to me.
I would have thought that we could at least agree that
the progressives during the progressive era would tend
to self-identify and be identified as others as progressives
in clear ways.  Your position seems to be moving in the
direction of saying others are "progressives" even if they
reject core goals of Progressivism (e.g., ameliorating the
effects of industrialization on women and children,
improving the lives of poor people, mitigating business
corruption, etc).

Alan Isaac