I linked to this earlier, but amateur history buffs will find Cato Unbound’s discussion on the origins of modernity pretty fascinating. The central point of contention is the so-called “first cause” of modernity – did the West develop because of spontaneous social change, secularism, the rise of “engineering culture,” or competition between European states? I’m inclined to agree with Stephen Davies insofar as competition among states probably laid the groundwork for the subsequent cultural, political and social changes we associate with modernity, but all four contributors raise some interesting objections.

One point of agreement among the contributors is the radical discontinuity between pre-modern Western civilization (read: Christendom) and modern culture. All four authors seem to agree that the connection between Christendom’s essential features and Western modernity is pretty tenuous, which raises a few interesting questions about other religions’ encounters with modernity.

Some of the best evidence for the modern departure from Christendom are what early European liberals had to say about religion. I’m immediately reminded of Leon Gambetta’s famous utterance, ,”Le cléricalisme, voilà l’ennemi!” His views on Christianity were shared by any number of his classically liberal contemporaries. From Galileo to Darwin to the Scopes Monkey Trial, innumerable scientists of the early modern era also held skeptical views about the compatibility of science, reason and faith.

Christianity and modernity survived this encounter. The pope now speaks of the fundamental relationship between God and reason. The recent Manhattan Declaration emphasizes the connection between liberal accomplishments like ending slavery and challenging the divine right of kings and Christianity. The theological and historical truth of these claims are almost irrelevant – the larger point is that Christians have self-consciously accepted the legitimacy (and, indeed, desirability) of liberalism and modernity.

The disconnect between how the contemporary Church views its relationship with liberalism, modernity and science and how early liberals viewed the church is worth remembering in the context of the current debate over Islam. You frequently hear that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with pluralism, liberalism, and the penumbra of Western political and cultural practices. If the Christian experience teachers us anything, however, it’s that the fluidity of historical interpretation and theology can open up space for liberalizing movements to take hold within a major Abrahamic faith. Over the next few decades, it will not surprise me if major Muslim leaders begin emphasizing how Islam preserved the works of great philosophers and fostered scientific learning throughout the Middle Ages as evidence of their faith’s integral relationship with science and modernity. In fact, it’s already pretty common to hear similar talking points from moderate Islamic leaders in the United States and Europe. This narrative may not be completely accurate, but that’s almost beside the point. If the number of liberal Muslims reaches a critical mass, they’ll find ways to justify their political and cultural outlook within a rich theological tradition, just as liberal Christians have done in the West.

UPDATE: See also Johnathan Rowe at Positive Liberty.

Many readers are undoubtedly suspicious of self-indulgent exercises in libertarian wankery, but this excellent dialogue from Reason raises some interesting questions about the nature of governance, freedom and culture.

As someone who grew up in a pretty liberal milieu, I instinctively found myself nodding along to Kerry Howley’s comprehensive vision of cultural libertarianism. But I’m not sold yet. The reason, I think, is that I am less and less confident in my own assumptions about what freedom really means. The example Howley mentions to buttress her argument – the Chinese women who flee a repressive, patriarchal village for the bright lights of the big city – is undoubtedly moving. But not every scenario offers such a clear-cut choice between freedom and coercion.

A child raised in a religious household, for example, has some ill-defined right not to be brainwashed by fundamentalist parents. The parents, however, have some equally ill-defined countervailing right to guide and nurture their child. How do you assess these competing claims? Cultural libertarians will balk at the idea of children being indoctrinated by adults. Traditionalists may be more sympathetic to the parents’ prerogatives.

This scenario isn’t some far-out hypothetical, either. It’s an inevitable consequence of applying abstract ideas like freedom to the knotty problems of everyday life.

Maybe this is a cop-out, but instead of convening the grand counsel to decide on some unitary vision of what freedom means, I’d rather give people license to experiment and hash things out among themselves. Maybe your town is determined to become the next Las Vegas. Maybe the local zoning board is more interested in banning strip clubs and adult theaters.  I think  localities should have a lot more leeway to define their own peculiar vision of what freedom really means, precisely because the day-to-day work of marrying liberty, culture and government is so fraught with difficulty.

Seasteading – another libertarian experiment – is premised on the idea that floating city-states would dramatically lower the barrier to entry for government-creation, encouraging innovation and experimentation among seaborne communities. The end-result would be a world of competing ideas about governance that – instead of inhabiting dank classrooms or obscure Internet message boards – will actually stand or fall on their own practical merits. I am very doubtful that any floating cities will be launched in my lifetime, but the idea behind the venture is compelling: let loose the creativity of humankind on the business of government, and may the best system win.

If floating city-states don’t work, however, a return to subsidiarity may be the next best thing. We already have thousands of venues – towns, cities, counties – for political experimentation. Why not turn them loose, and may the best locality win?

(All of which is to say that I agree with Daniel McCarthy, whose response  to Howley does a much better job of explaining this pluralistic vision.)

The man in the below video is Patrick Byrne of a blog I just recently discovered called Deep Capture.  He’s also the CEO of Overstock.com. [Read more →]