Positive Christianity (not so positive)

[Epoetker]

I did read the whole thing. The article is a diatribe against freedom, but for some reason the title complains that liberals are against freedom. It's like starting a racist article with "I'm not racist but..." He obviously doesn't believe in the virtues of freedom, and should not pretend that he does with a dishonest title.

The word may not mean what you think it means, and it's fairly clear he's using it in the Moldbuggian sense:

To a Carlylean, the main event is the struggle between left and right. Which is the struggle between good and evil. Which is the struggle between order and chaos. Evil is chaos; good is order. Evil is left; good is right. Evil is fiction; good is truth. Gentlemen, there is no other road! The facts, it's true, are stones between our teeth. Shall we chew these stones? If not now, when?

Note that if we find a way to make this theory work, we completely explain the Misesian perspective. Mises becomes, as promised, a subset of Carlyle. Freedom is good, because freedom is fundamentally orderly - ie, right-wing. Tyranny is evil, because tyranny is chaotic - ie, left-wing.

Tyranny is one form of chaos; freedom is one form of order. There are others of each, however. And order is always preferred to chaos. Thus, to a Carlylean, the fatal error of libertarianism is the confusion of anarchy and freedom. Not only are they not the same thing; they are opposite poles of the political spectrum. Freedom - spontaneous order - is the ultimate form of order. Anarchy is the ultimate form of disorder.

To a Carlylean, anarchy and tyranny are fundamentally and essentially allied and indivisible. And again: the apparent affinity between anarchy and freedom is wholly illusory. In fact: to maximize freedom, eradicate anarchy. To achieve spontaneous order: first, achieve ordinary, down-to-earth, nonspontaneous order. Then, wait a while. Then, start to relax.

Here is the Carlylean roadmap for the Misesian goal. Spontaneous order, also known as freedom, is the highest level of a political pyramid of needs. These needs are: peace, security, law, and freedom. To advance order, always work for the next step - without skipping steps. In a state of war, advance toward peace; in a state of insecurity, advance toward security; in a state of security, advance toward law; in a state of law, advance toward freedom.

The Newtonian envelope of libertarianism is the last of these stages. Once the state of lawful government is reached, that state can generally improve itself by minimizing its interventions and applying a policy of laissez-faire - advancing from enforced to spontaneous order. With the caveat, of course, that this policy not jeopardize the more important achievements of peace, security, and law.

When a state finds itself outside this Newtonian window, however, Mises and Rothbard are of no assistance whatsoever in helping it get back in. Worse: Rothbardian libertarianism can be a positive hindrance to the Carlylean roadmap.

Since most of what Jim criticizes in the article is the chaotic, destructive, and disorderly effects of an anarchic attitude toward Biblical law in the upper class, which quite unsurprisingly culminated in a form of growing centralized tyranny yet foreign to Americans not in power at the time, and since Jim has quite a big overlap with Moldbug on his attitude toward freedom, this is probably where the confusion comes from.

[Darth Executor]

Moldbug is misusing the word so it's understandable that there would be confusion. Jim should stick to common definitions of words.

[firstfloor]

Firstfloor, this is what you mean by Christian Dominionism, right?

I was thinking of nutters like Tom DeLay.

[Thoughtful Monk]

What's scarier, I wonder? When the Church gets too involved in matters of State, or when the State gets too involved in matters of Church.

For different reasons, I think both are bad (at least until Jesus returns to rule and reign over the earth.) I think when the church gets too involved with the state, it loses its witness to God. When the state becomes too involved in the church, it tries to control the church's witness.

Personally I think in the US, where entering a phase where the State is going to become too involved in the Church.

If you want to have some fun, ask a support of separation of church and state what they are doing to keep the state out of the church.

[Epoetker]

Moldbug is misusing the word so it's understandable that there would be confusion. Jim should stick to common definitions of words.

Freedom means different things in different contexts, and is a word to bring horror, anger, and derision when heard in the mouths of some and gladness and relief when heard in the mouths of others, according to time and place. Whatever words they use, ye shall know them by their fruits.

Tocqueville's America would have understood it far better, and it's wise to recall that it was in fact a thing that existed in history, the echoes of which you may see again.