The essence of the Right is an unequal order. But the first principle must not be because it is natural, or in keeping with any given tradition; these rationales crumble under logical examination.[3] It must not be a reality that is accepted, but an ideal that is worth achieving. It must be an ideal that has human happiness as its aim; it must consider what the individual does want, and attempt to answer what he should want.
To make this concrete, there is no intrinsic conflict between ethno-nationalism and the core spirit of Liberalism. Ethno-nationalism flows from a logical, idealistic, abstract ideology of individual happiness—particularism. The starting point for particularism is that the individual should want to perpetuate himself, and therefore the state should be a means to this end. However, self-perpetuation means different things to different people. So the idea is that there ought to be a far greater multiplicity of states, representing as many human spirits as possible in order that the state may represent the individual’s will as closely as possible. The nature of the individual’s bond with his fellow citizens could be ethnic, religious, ideological, anything that is willed with sufficient power. The only limiting principle is the viability of the state, and its society, to perpetuate itself.
Are there then no genuine social goods? An state in which the individual's private good is no longer a state (or community) but some sort of alliance. The essay seems rather incoherent. Why should an individual seek to preserve his ethnicity or heritage, rather than creating a new one?
No comments:
Post a Comment