Comments on: Front Porch Empire

By: Dain

Dain — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:18:35 +0000

Mark,

“For a long time we’ve been engineering social disintegration. Let’s look for ways to pitch the gradient another way.”

But those in earlier years thought that was exactly what they were doing. (By “earlier years” I mean Progressive Era/New Deal to Great Society, not since.) They thought they were bolstering a conservative social order. The progressives sought to preserve traditional familial roles via reform, contrary to myth, with some exception in the form of artists/writers.

By: Mark Shiffman

Mark Shiffman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:01:09 +0000

Casey makes a good suggestion, and I think I’ve tried to do a little of that in some of my FPR posts (and so have others). But it’s a good direction to think in.

Dan’s remark that localism is not a panacea is a common response, but it seems to reflect much more on what readers come to the site looking for than on what anyone on the site is claiming or trying to provide. So agreed on that point.

As for the specter of social engineering, that strikes me as much like the claim that distributive economics depends on the horrendous prospect of redistributing wealth. Policies always affect these things in some direction. For a long time we’ve been engineering social disintegration. Let’s look for ways to pitch the gradient another way.

By: PomoCon’s In The Basement, Mixing Up The Medicine, Front Porch’s On The Pavement, Thinking About The Government « Around The Sphere

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:39:13 +0000

[...] And some outsiders comment. Daniel McCarthy: I’m closer to the Front Porchers, for their decentralism and because they make the more [...]

By: Tripp DeMoss

Tripp DeMoss — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:52:33 +0000

I think a good cosmopolitan like me likes the idea of a peaceful global network of trade, unrestricted markets, etc, and if a Wal Mart just springs up so be it- there would be no danger of the state getting involved on anybody’s side when that happens, other than guaranteeing contracts. I like other countries, I speak French, and I wouldn’t know the first thing about farming, so necessarily I’m not a pro-localist per se. In essence, my version of cosmopolitanism rather than involving some sort of super state would involve nearly the complete lack thereof, but since these markets are so truly free, there is less opportunity for corruption, subversion, coercion, etc.

By: Casey Khan

Casey Khan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:43:48 +0000

Brilliant critique of the Front Porchers. I love their website and their take on many issues, but theirs’ is often a sentimentalism on the other side of the “pomocon” coin. Localism and cosmopolitanism, like all human ideals can go far astray. The issues shouldn’t be merely pro-provincial versus pro-cosmo, but what makes a good instance of provincial or cosmo. In other words what virtues make us good instances of our kind? These are the principles public intellectuals should be investigating in light of being provincial or cosmo.

By: Tripp DeMoss

Tripp DeMoss — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:53:57 +0000

You certainly paint a very pretty pastoral picture of tiny heartland local America. It’s heartwarming- ultra Grant Wood. I perhaps take issue with your faith in local government/community, if indeed your point is nuanced to the extent that in this utopia you’ve created neither central governments nor big box retailers exist. I hate central governments just as much as any good minarchist does- if Wal Mart doesn’t take subsidies, relies solely on innovation for its competitiveness, and doesn’t use government or coercion otherwise to make a profit, however, I couldn’t care less and would in fact be happy for it. I do not see anything wrong with Wal Mart’s success inherently. Don’t misunderstand me- the minute government in any form whatsoever gets involved with the enterprise it’s game over. In the Mises-esque (or Molinarian world, if you prefer) world I would like to live in, we wouldn’t have to worry about that.