Communitarianism

                                                      
     Several years ago I read an article in the newspaper in which the author (a college student, as I recall) deplored a lack of responsibility toward the concept of civic responsibility. He was fond of using the word, "collective," the individual's duty toward the community and the "collective's" duty toward the individual. The rights of the property owner should be subservient to the "right" of the "collective."

     The premise was that we have rights only in context to our relationship with others in the community. The author went so far as to say that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is not equal to the Constitution itself, since the Bill of Rights is merely a group of amendments and not part of the original! After all, he maintained, the Constitution established rules and duties for society and they came prior to establishment of rights. He cited an essay, "The Principle of Duty," by David Selbourne, a British academic, which lays society's problems on selfish obsession with rights and "collective" abandonment of sense of duty.

     Now, I can agree with the idea that some demands for "rights" are misplaced. We see that every day. However, this is not what is meant in this case.

     In the first place, the Preamble to the Constitution states the purposes and objects of the document. It lists the things that were deficient in the union of the states. There was not real power to carry out measures of the Continental Congress.

     However, there would have been no ratification of the Constitution if the Bill of Rights were not agreed to. A number of states worried that there would be misconstruction of federal power or abuses of that power. Those very important 10 amendments are meant to protect the states and individuals - I repeat, individuals - from possible invasion of their rights by the federal government. They are not subordinate to the Constitution because they came after. They are integral to the Constitution.

     This is a government of the people, not the states and not the federal government. The powers, duties and responsibilities of the federal government "derive from the consent of the governed." the escalating powers we give to any government through our careless election of representative who do not represent rights of individuals threatens our freedoms.

     Keep in mind, the first two amendments are supposed to prohibit Congress from establishing a state religion, or to deny to any one religious liberty, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to petition the government, and to bear arms.  These two amendments are under constant attack. They are the most important.

     The third and fourth prevent Congress from quartering soldiers in private homes without consent, and from allowing national officers to search homes without warrants that describe the property to be seized.  The fourth amendment is being weakened, as we see in the news too often.

     The last four of the first eight amendments give accused persons specific rights and protections. The ninth says that enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed as to deny others retained by the people. The 10th says that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.  Just about all of these amendments are being threatened in one way or another.

     The Bill of Rights removed the fear that the federal government could be a menace to states or to individuals. Eat away at these amendments and eventually endure tyranny.  The rights of individuals are not subservient to the dictates of the Constitution. They are equal and guarantee that the United States is unique in the world. Note: the United Nations recognizes so such rights as we know them.

     Since several times in the last couple of years I've heard the word, "communitarian," slip by in political conversations on TV with no exposition of its meaning, I dug into into my files. Rather than try to explain the various conflicting ideas in the different types of communitarianism, I'll keep it simple.  Social-ism, stat-ism, commun-ism, one world-ism, communitarian-ism - are all "isms" that are a danger to our Constitution.

     Communitarianism is a movement for cultural and institutional regeneration. It has many good points, advocating morality and responsibility. After reading over the preamble to its platform, It seemed appealing. However, I then read that "the evaluation of what is a proper moral stance will vary according to circumstances of time and place."  That is the relativistic notion that moral truths are changeable.  Communitarians are proponents of strong democracy; but to have a strong democracy there must be curbs on the private sector. It holds that families are weak in their capacity to provide moral education, so it should be the responsibility of the schools. We see that happening all the time.  In the area of social justice, "individuals have the responsibility for the material and moral well-being of others." Read my prior blogs on this subject.

     The movement advocates disarmament of citizens. Global community is truly to be sought. While everyone can applaud the belief in strong families and community, it stresses that individuals are only as worthwhile as their commitment to the community. Communitarians say that we are too individualistic, that the majority of us are self-absorbed and not responsible to community. To them, communities must define what is expected of people and to educate their members to accept these values.  "It is up to communities to tell people what their morality should be and what commitments they should make."  Our own government is doing its best to carry out these ideas, is it not?

     Endorsements of the movement are many, varied and impressive. They include academics, activists, corporate heads, human rights advocates and civic leaders. The aims sound innocent enough at first , but the smell of socialism and one-world government soon becomes overpowering. I wondered why the author of the newspaper article mentioned in my first paragraph was quoting a British academic (Selbourne) in telling us what we should believe about our Constitution.

     If anyone really wants to dig and find out more, here is some reading:
     "Communitarian Dreams" by Roger Scruton, City Journal, Fall 1996. Quest for Community, Robert Nisbet (Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1953). "Socialism," Ludwig von Mises (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1981). "Communitarian, authoritarians and nonconformists," Prof. Anthony Giddens, The Independent, July 6, 1995.

10/20/11