Conquer Club

Lasch who claimed that the breaking up of the family unit was destroying America.

Murray who proved that the breaking up of the family unit has destroyed America.

The individual is not the fundamental unit of a healthy state.

L. Ron Hubbard

DoomYoshi wrote:The individual is not the fundamental unit of a healthy state.

True, the individual is much harder to be effectively controlled by the state if he isn't tied down by the burdens inherent in supporting a family.

Then again I'm not convinced that's such a bad thing.

I like this Murray guy.

thegreekdog wrote:I like this Murray guy.

--Andy

DoomYoshi wrote:Lasch who claimed that the breaking up of the family unit was destroying America.

Murray who proved that the breaking up of the family unit has destroyed America.

The individual is not the fundamental unit of a healthy state.

I'd reword that. Tocqueville warns of "individualism," which to him meant the isolation of the individual into himself or into his very close circle of friends and family.

Voluntary associations (such as YMCA, Boy Scouts, bowling leagues, Churches, etc.) are what draw people from their "individualism," thus promoting a healthy civic participation. So, civil society is improved--not so much the state, which to me refers mainly to The Government.


A reduction in voluntary associations causes a reduction in civil society. Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State is all about this. IIRC, Murray argues along a similar strand of thought by noting that the effects of the welfare state have frustrated the development of traditional family 'units', which in turn poses significant problems--especially to people in very low income brackets. (note: it's not quite destroying America; it's creating significant problems. Government provision of welfare is another example of good intentions leading to bad outcomes.

I'm not familiar with Lasch's work, but if he's making similar arguments, then kudos to him. Relative importance? I dunno lol because if Murray was influenced by Lasch, then the comparison becomes difficult. And if Lasch's work encourages adherents of critical theory to reconsider positions in favor of the welfare state, then Lasch's work raises in importance.

I'm not sure if he was directly influenced. Lasch was very leftist, and accused of communism. Murray is a libertarian.

Lasch argued from a moralistic and prediction standpoint, while Murray argues from a socioeconomical classification standpoint.

Basically, they reached the same conclusion independently as far as I can tell.

thegreekdog wrote:I like this Murray guy.

It (Coming Apart) will eventually be regarded as a "paradigm-shift" in our society, if it isn't already.

DoomYoshi wrote:I'm not sure if he was directly influenced. Lasch was very leftist, and accused of communism. Murray is a libertarian.

Lasch argued from a moralistic and prediction standpoint, while Murray argues from a socioeconomical classification standpoint.

Basically, they reached the same conclusion independently as far as I can tell.

thegreekdog wrote:I like this Murray guy.

It (Coming Apart) will eventually be regarded as a "paradigm-shift" in our society, if it isn't already.

I'm not sure I agree with Murray's ultimate conclusions of where we're going (after having read his wikipedia page and one of his book's wiki pages), but I think he makes some sense. Perhaps I'll purchase a couple of his books.

I'm going to go with Socrates for important thinker...