Even highly regarded anthropologists get it wrong.
The sanctification of the rights of individuals and their liberties today by libertarians and Tea Party conservatives is contrary to our evolved human nature as social animals. There was never a time in history before civil society when we were each totally free to do whatever we elected to do. We have always been social and caring creatures. The thought that it is both rational and natural for each of us to care only for ourselves, our own preservation, and our own achievements is a treacherous fabrication. This is not how we got to be the kind of species we are today. Nor is this what the world’s religions would ask us to believe. Or at any rate, so I was told as a child, and so I still believe.
That's interpretive over-reach in search of a hobgoblin to exorcise. Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives hold to the position that government is one name for the things we choose to do together, and it's frequently an ineffective or clumsy way of achieving that coordination.  Mahablog seems to grasp this point even in the middle of pronouncing a related anathema on libertarian thought.
I’ve argued for a long time that the ideal is a kind of balance between the needs and interests of individuals and communities/societies, and when one of these is weighted more heavily than the other there will be dysfunction.
That's not too bad a case for limiting the power of communities or societies to dictate the behavior of members, while at the same time recognizing that the power to exclude disruptive or non-cooperative individuals has value.  Put another way, interaction for mutual benefit with rules of exchange to structure those interactions.  Economics and Ethics expands.

No comments: