Political web-site “Hot Air” has an article that discusses de Mint’s assertion that one needs to have “big God” in order to have “small government”. The author takes a mocking tone with the perjorative “Saint Ayn”, while asking:
We don’t need to have a full-on believer/infidel food fight here about whether devoutly Christian countries necessarily have more effective governments (ahem, Mexico), but I’m curious to know what the Objectivists among us think of DeMint’s argument. Last I checked, Saint Ayn was both an atheist and a pretty darned ardent believer in small government.
Thought I;d post the link, in case anyone wishes to register there and post their opinion. Remember, it is not just the opinion that sticks, but the way it is presented: the epistemology, certainty and maturity will be remembered more than the argument itself.
Some of the very high-traffic opinion-sites have gone that route. I think they would like to build a steady group of readers and get comments from them, but they are not as interested in the drive-by commenters who will register, comment and then never return to their site. Little Green Footballs was similar: they used to open registration some weekends, for an hour or so… the idea being to attract people who really, really wanted to join.
Inasmuch as religion was a primitive attempt at philosophy I suppose I read into it what I want to see- he says values and religion are needed. I believe in values through philosophy.
You can take “higher power” or “superior being” to mean whatever you want- including yourself. Which I do- as god of my own personal universe.
I find when conservatives try to say that free market values disappear alongside Christian/religious values we have a simple mistaking of correlation/causation.
Thomas Sowell, who I enjoy, seems to agree with DeMint’s stand that the loss of socially conservative values helped bring about a decline in free market values.
At the heart of the problem is the prevalence of the belief that values must come from an external source.
So the only options are a Hobbesian “Leviathan”, or “The Grand Inquisitor” from The Brothers Karamazoff? What about the option of not willfully forfeiting our basic freedoms to anyone, God or government? When your basic view of man is that of a savage beast, waiting to tear his neighbor to ribbons at the first opportunity, like Hobbes, or as fortunes fool simply because God has given us too much freedom, your going to be looking for proection from yourself, and others. Giving up freedom to attain that protection is the easy way out. The philosophic implications of this line of thinking could be examined endlessly.