This was really great! The only thing I would add in Section III (since that's the only section I know enough about to comment on) is what I would call the 'addiction distinction'.
Latter-Day Saints have a long history of breaking with classical liberals (at least the modern iteration) when it comes to regulating activities that directly and substantively decrease one's agency.
Three examples include alcohol (see the strong support of prohibition by past faith leaders, as well as the Church's current support of Utah's restrictive alcohol laws), marijuana (see Church statement opposing the legalization of marijuana in California), and pornography ("Church members should avoid all forms of pornographic material and oppose its production, dissemination, and use", General Handbook, 38.6.13).
This distinction probably falls under the third principle in the quote by President Benson that we should oppose "enslavement of another" given that partaking of a highly addictive substance is analogous to voluntarily submitting to one's own future enslavement.
Yes, I think there's a pretty decent case for what you called the "addiction distinction." However, I think that there's a decent case in the other direction too. For example, the Church has a mixed history with alcohol restriction. There are plenty of quotes I've found in my research condemning it and supporting prohibition, but also others referring to a right to drink, the Church operating a bar in the Hotel Utah, and other quotes that seem to state that the limit to free action is injury to others is the limit, as opposed to injury to yourself. The Handbook statement on pornography also isn't necessarily an endorsement of legislation and is easily read to mean societal and private opposition. I do know that the Church has looked into legislation that would require pornographers to use digital tags on content so that filters work properly and have sold it as it will allow adults who want to view it to find it easier and help those who don't want to see it to to avoid it better.
In sum, I think there's evidence going both ways and what we could be seeing here is just differences in application of a principle as opposed to different principles at play.
This was really good! One quibble: I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the nationalists are following in the tradition of Burke. Burke could be characterized as a classical liberal and supported such things as free trade (against mercantilism) and the rule of law (“value neutral” process). He was a Whig, not a Tory.
I agree with you. As you said, his support for free trade is a great example. I think that the Nat Cons like Hazony don't actually agree with Burke, they're just using his name. Wouldn't be the first time Yoram Hazony played fast and loose with facts in the name of his agenda.
“ the Nat Cons like Hazony don't actually agree with Burke, they're just using his name. Wouldn't be the first time Yoram Hazony played fast and loose with facts in the name of his agenda.”
Haha, oh man, exactly! I have thought precisely the same thing.
This was really great! The only thing I would add in Section III (since that's the only section I know enough about to comment on) is what I would call the 'addiction distinction'.
Latter-Day Saints have a long history of breaking with classical liberals (at least the modern iteration) when it comes to regulating activities that directly and substantively decrease one's agency.
Three examples include alcohol (see the strong support of prohibition by past faith leaders, as well as the Church's current support of Utah's restrictive alcohol laws), marijuana (see Church statement opposing the legalization of marijuana in California), and pornography ("Church members should avoid all forms of pornographic material and oppose its production, dissemination, and use", General Handbook, 38.6.13).
This distinction probably falls under the third principle in the quote by President Benson that we should oppose "enslavement of another" given that partaking of a highly addictive substance is analogous to voluntarily submitting to one's own future enslavement.
Thank you for the feedback!
Yes, I think there's a pretty decent case for what you called the "addiction distinction." However, I think that there's a decent case in the other direction too. For example, the Church has a mixed history with alcohol restriction. There are plenty of quotes I've found in my research condemning it and supporting prohibition, but also others referring to a right to drink, the Church operating a bar in the Hotel Utah, and other quotes that seem to state that the limit to free action is injury to others is the limit, as opposed to injury to yourself. The Handbook statement on pornography also isn't necessarily an endorsement of legislation and is easily read to mean societal and private opposition. I do know that the Church has looked into legislation that would require pornographers to use digital tags on content so that filters work properly and have sold it as it will allow adults who want to view it to find it easier and help those who don't want to see it to to avoid it better.
In sum, I think there's evidence going both ways and what we could be seeing here is just differences in application of a principle as opposed to different principles at play.
This was really good! One quibble: I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the nationalists are following in the tradition of Burke. Burke could be characterized as a classical liberal and supported such things as free trade (against mercantilism) and the rule of law (“value neutral” process). He was a Whig, not a Tory.
I agree with you. As you said, his support for free trade is a great example. I think that the Nat Cons like Hazony don't actually agree with Burke, they're just using his name. Wouldn't be the first time Yoram Hazony played fast and loose with facts in the name of his agenda.
“ the Nat Cons like Hazony don't actually agree with Burke, they're just using his name. Wouldn't be the first time Yoram Hazony played fast and loose with facts in the name of his agenda.”
Haha, oh man, exactly! I have thought precisely the same thing.