Sunday, November 28, 2004
The Sinful State by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
The Sinful State by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Lew Rockwell presented this speech on the ways in which the participants of the state are motivated by the seven deadly sins rather than by the virtues. Though it does a most fine job at that, I must wonder at what seems to be a deficiency: The section on virtue treats only of the four so-called 'moral' virtues and not of the 'theological' ones, respectively (on the one hand) justice, temperance, fortitude and prudence, and (on the other hand) hope, faith and love. It would seem to be a welcome addition to the analysis. Indeed, their counterparts may perhaps be found in the section on deadly sin in the discussion of vainglory (instead of love) and anger (instead of hope). Why mention the other three? Are they not too far removed from social problems to be of service in discussion of their roots?
I think not. Take the virtue of hope. For me, much of the pleasure derived from reading Murray Rothbard comes from the effusion of hope from him. And see his "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" for a discussion of the matter. Hope is what sustains an ongoing and permanent liberal revolution against the state. Hope is what drives liberty's ideals to its ideas, its principles to its program.
What of love, and of faith? I'm not so sure. I'm not even sure what those virtues are. I am not a theologian or a philosopher or a loving and faithful person. I suppose love is giving of oneself back to the greater good. What does such a virtue do for liberty and peace? How does the State act against love? I'm not sure I have a good reason for asking what may be inane questions.
Perhaps they are questions worth asking , though.
Link
Lew Rockwell presented this speech on the ways in which the participants of the state are motivated by the seven deadly sins rather than by the virtues. Though it does a most fine job at that, I must wonder at what seems to be a deficiency: The section on virtue treats only of the four so-called 'moral' virtues and not of the 'theological' ones, respectively (on the one hand) justice, temperance, fortitude and prudence, and (on the other hand) hope, faith and love. It would seem to be a welcome addition to the analysis. Indeed, their counterparts may perhaps be found in the section on deadly sin in the discussion of vainglory (instead of love) and anger (instead of hope). Why mention the other three? Are they not too far removed from social problems to be of service in discussion of their roots?
I think not. Take the virtue of hope. For me, much of the pleasure derived from reading Murray Rothbard comes from the effusion of hope from him. And see his "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" for a discussion of the matter. Hope is what sustains an ongoing and permanent liberal revolution against the state. Hope is what drives liberty's ideals to its ideas, its principles to its program.
What of love, and of faith? I'm not so sure. I'm not even sure what those virtues are. I am not a theologian or a philosopher or a loving and faithful person. I suppose love is giving of oneself back to the greater good. What does such a virtue do for liberty and peace? How does the State act against love? I'm not sure I have a good reason for asking what may be inane questions.
Perhaps they are questions worth asking , though.
Comments:
Post a Comment
