While following a couple of threads about the California gay-marriage decision, I ran across this two month-old post by Jim Manzi at the corner. It's about "subsidiarity" (the principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest competent authority) and what conservatives and libertarians could learn from each other:
We live in an imperfect world. Ironically, given the deeply anti-utopian orientation of Hayek and Popper, contemporary Libertarianism has veered off into increasingly utopian speculations disconnected from the practical realities that ought to animate it. At the same time, the Conservative movement has become increasingly ideological about enforcing moral norms. Both could learn a lot from re-engaging with one another.
In an imperfect world, in other words, we have to find our way somewhere between "one rule fits all" and "no rules at all." If that's just simple common sense, why do so many insist on one way or the other?
