The Empire thus fostered a deep-rooted, conservative ideal of freedom as local and particular, shared by members of corporate groups and incorporated communities. These were local and particular liberties, not abstract Liberty shared equally by all inhabitants… This [explains] why central Europeans remained so unreceptive to nineteenth-century liberalism… liberals discovered that ordinary people often did… continue reading on Sancrucensis
Unreceptive to Liberalism — Sancrucensis
07 Wednesday Mar 2018
This reminds me of an Austrian Catholic priest who wrote a book over a hundred years ago on individualism and conservative politics in general, and how the state draws the border on personal liberty far and wide, setting only reasonable limits if it goes against the natural law or commong good, but otherwise allows the person to be as individualistic as possible.
I think I may have actually read you mention the priest and book somewhere on your site, but I’m not sure.
Anyways, this also reminds me of Chesterton’s quotes of how there must be authority before there is liberty, or how the walls of a playground are necessary in order for there to be actual good play, since if the walls are too close the play is rigid and limited, and if they are too wide one risks inviting danger.
Perhaps this is the secret of the New Earth and New Heaven and how there will be no sin in the afterlife. The happiness of Heaven is thus the ultimate freedom; both because no sin is possible and thus everything is allowed, and because evil is actually a privation and by definition finite, and is destined to die at the hands of the Good, and since the Good is the fullest reality, the infinite white light from which all other goods derive, Heaven will in a sense be an endless freedom with endless option for enjoyment.
Both because of the lack of sin, which is itself a necessary precondition for true personal liberty, and the glory of God, who is the infinite Good. This is also reflected in the existence of the state, which exists for the sake of the common good, not to only impose limits and try to win battles, but to let true joy into life, to remove evil so that there can be true openness to life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael Rothblatt said:
It’s interesting to note that liberalism started out as a conservative reaction against monarchs encroaching on feudal liberties (indeed, the elements of feudalism have remained as late as Locke — see, for example, the Constitution of Carolina that he penned) only to be transformed into a revolutionary force later on. Similarly, socialism started out as a conservative reaction against national states doing away with traditional way of life, only to be transformed into the most revolutionary force known to man later on.
The Hapsburg Restorationist said:
It does seem that the worst errors as those that contain a large measure of truth. Similarly good movements go astray by pursing one good aspect such as Freedom or Common Society inordinately.