Why is the West culturally antagonstic towards non-state-controlled institutions?

[Arrian]

Aeson,

My read of the OP, however, doesn't lead me to believe that aneeshm is talking about things like the military.

He mentions education... yet there are lots of private schools in the US, including university-level.

Take this line:

Why do people from Western countries not have the attitude of "To hell with the state, I'll set up an institution which does not need the state but will work on its own"?

There *are* a few Militia groups out in the West still, no? Leaving the military aside, it seems to me that people do this all the time. Christians fed up with damned liberals teaching their kids they come from monkeys? No problem, set up the school of Christ our Lord. Liberals worried their kids might not be gettin' enough granola? No problem, set up a crispy-crunchy school with no grades. Etc.

So while your post is true, it doesn't really apply to aneeshm's OP, does it?

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I've seen many on the left who say there is something dirty and undignified with charity. And that it is somehow more noble to accept a government handout instead of a handout from charity.

Others on the left are wholly dismissive of charity saying that it only addresses the symptoms and is a waste of time unless we address the root causes of poverty (i.e. capitalism itself).

I know these views exist, but they're certainly not representative for *the* left.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Arrian


How odd. I've never once heard anyone argue that.

-Arrian

I've heard it quite often. Perhaps even on this forum. I didn't phrase it exactly how it is usually stated of course, and I can't recall the exact language of an example, but that tone and attitude is something I have definitely heard.

[Arrian]

Hmm. Tis an odd stance. Must be hard Left, though. A more moderate stance would, IMO, take the view that relying on private charity would be a mistake - private charity is all well and good, but not enough or unreliable (leave aside whether or not that's actually true) and thus the gummint must provide as well.

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

Yea, the hard left vocalizes what the soft left is afraid to say, or feels in their gut but hasn't yet processed. I think the feeling or suspicion is the same, it is just that the hard left has thought it over more and includes it in a concrete framework.

[Arrian]

Oh what a steaming pile.

It could be that the "soft left" (or moderate left, whatever we wish to call it) has thought it over and decided that both gummint and non-gummint institutions have their uses, but that the gummint should provide a certain level of support through its institutions (where that bar is set is obviously variable).

But no, that can't be. Instead, it has to be that the moderates are lying to themselves or are too cowardly to really think it through.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Arrian
My read of the OP, however, doesn't lead me to believe that aneeshm is talking about things like the military.

He is talking about addressing issues through the free market rather than government.

The military is one example I gave that. I gave it because it is one example of a distrust of the private sector that I thought the most people would agree with. Just because it's a "given" doesn't mean it doesn't support the idea that there is distrust for the free market to take care of issues.

You ignored the other examples I gave.

There *are* a few Militia groups out in the West still, no?

There are obviously people who are stupid enough to think it's a good idea of course. Which is why I said "almost" instead of "all". I've lived in small towns nearby some of the "prominent" militia groups. Even in those towns of a few thousand they generally only comprise a small minority.

Gangs would be a much more prevalent form of "private military" IMO. But it's still not something very widely supported.

Leaving the military aside, it seems to me that people do this all the time. Christians fed up with damned liberals teaching their kids they come from monkeys? No problem, set up the school of Christ our Lord. Liberals worried their kids might not be gettin' enough granola? No problem, set up a crispy-crunchy school with no grades. Etc.

Of course. But virtually no one does it exclusively. Even in the case of private schools, there is a push for taxpayer funded vouchers.

Everyone wants a piece of the government pie. No one seems to just trust the free market as the means to get everything they want.

So while your post is true, it doesn't really apply to aneeshm's OP, does it?

It applies to the portion of the OP that I referenced in my opening sentence. "aneeshm is right that there is prevalent distrust of the free market."

People like to claim they want to operate in a free market, but almost no one really does. We just take for granted the portions of the government which curtail the free market already... but that doesn't mean they aren't there because of our society's distrust.

[Arrian]

Fair enough. And if that qualifies as "cultural antagonism toward non-governmental institutions" then aneeshm might have a worthwhile question to ponder. But I would assert that it does not qualify as such.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Sandman


The thing is, no-one thinks 'To hell with the state' when they're setting up a charity, or a business, or a trade union, or a religious group, or anything else. Is that your problem? That 'Western' institutions exist within a legal framework instead of ignoring all laws and being subject to no oversight whatsoever?

"To hell with the state" as in "I don't give a damn what the state does as long as it doesn't interfere with MY work". It's meant to signify the complete independence of the institution you want to set up from the state in which it is being set up.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh what a steaming pile.

It could be that the "soft left" (or moderate left, whatever we wish to call it) has thought it over and decided that both gummint and non-gummint institutions have their uses, but that the gummint should provide a certain level of support through its institutions (where that bar is set is obviously variable).

But no, that can't be. Instead, it has to be that the moderates are lying to themselves or are too cowardly to really think it through.

-Arrian

No one said they were lying or cowards. I think most Americans don't fully think through the issues they support or oppose. Most go from their gut, or based on snippets that make sense to them that are pulled out of a larger more comprehensive treatise on the subject. For example most people have a sense of what Communism and Socialism is, but they get that from a few soundbites on Fox News, or from a cousin that makes an off-hand remark. Most people haven't actually read Marx or Lenin or whoever else.

Most Americans don't ponder the philosophical role that government should play in their lives. They have a sense of that, in their gut, and apply it to individual circumstances. But they don't have a coherent framework that all issues have to fit into like those on the hard right and hard left do (not necessarily a bad thing).

So there is no need to take offense or get defensive about it. This is just how things are.

[aneeshm]

"Antagonism towards" means not trusting anything the government does not have a finger in, either through regulation or through competition.

[Arrian]

So you weren't taking a veiled shot at the center-left? My apologies.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm
"Antagonism towards" means not trusting anything the government does not have a finger in, either through regulation or through competition.

Libertarians and other conservatives, plus some on the lefty (crazy conspiracy theory types) would certainly fall in that area.

There are many non-governmental institutions in the West, certainly in the USA. And if/when the government intereferes (or tries to interefere), many cry foul.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Libertarians and other conservatives, plus some on the lefty (crazy conspiracy theory types) would certainly fall in that area.

There are many non-governmental institutions in the West, certainly in the USA. And if/when the government intereferes (or tries to interefere), many cry foul.

-Arrian

I don't know how to put this, but let me again state what I'm talking about.

Imagine that out of the hundreds of poverty-tackling schemes out there, one strikes a chord with society and actually works. It is not based on charity but on something else, and it has no centre - it is totally decentralised. It slowly spreads all over the nation (over a period of, say, twenty years), and brings down poverty by a whopping 95%. Society adopts to this new rate of poverty, and the past before this looks barbaric by comparison.

My point is that many people, irrespective of political affiliation, would be VERY uncomfortable in letting this remain private or decentralised, and would want some sort of governmental regulation and control over it, or even would want the government to take over it in some way or form, simply because it serves such a vital social function. These people are the ones who are not comfortable with anything which is absolutely essential to the normal functioning of society remaining outside the hands of the state. The more vital the function of an institution, the more pressure there is that the state have some hand in it.




Now do you understand better what I'm trying to say? That people are not comfortable with things on which their way of life and functioning of society depends not being within the purview of the state in some way.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Arrian
So you weren't taking a veiled shot at the center-left? My apologies.

-Arrian

No, I wasn't.

Relax, put down the tin foil, I'm not out to get you.