From: lrvanh00@nx38.mik.uky.edu (lee r vanhorn)
Subject: Communitarianism
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:58:44 GMT

In article <93017.173100JXM39@psuvm.psu.edu> J.F.McLaughlin Pittsburgh,PA  
<JXM39@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> I have recently become aware of Amatai Etzioni's communitarian movement.     
I
> am excited about this movement because it addresses so many questions I  
have
> asked myself.  For instance, just recently a curfew was proposed for my
> hometown, Pitsburgh, PA, due to our seriously increasing drug and  
drive-by
> shooting situation.  It was immediately opposed on the grounds that it  
would
> unfairly discriminate against black males.  Now it seems to me that we  
must
> examine such situations in a new light.  There is truth to the fact that  
black
> males would tend to be targeted by such a law; its also true that black  
males
> are almost exclusively responsible for the drive-by shootings.
> 
>      This must also be considered from a community perspective;  
loitering on
> corners, while an established custom in many ghetto areas (also done in  
other
> primarily white areas, of course, but there are no severe problems with
> violence there), is deleterious to the community if it leads to  
increased
> levels of violence (as it clearly is), even if it is enjoyed by the
> individuals involved.  It seems to me that no one would benefit more  
from some
> controls on such activities than the immediate community involved.   
However,
> our obsession with individual rights at the cost of community well-being  
and
> safety seems, as usual, to be gaining the upper hand. This, I hope, is  
the
> type of situation which a movement such as communitarianism can address  
in
> order to restore balance, safety, and a sense of well-being in our  
domestic
> affairs.
> 
>      Common sense, consensus, and compromise could be used in a  
situation like
> this.  These men have a right to enjoy mutual companionship, and it is  
true
> that different cultures view street behavior differently; what goes in
> Hazelwood, a poorer area in Pittsburgh, would be totally unacceptable in
> Squirrel Hill,  a more affluent area.  The community, it seems to me,  
ought to
> be able to regulate such behavior.  For instance, there are many vacant  
lots
> in the Hazelwood area;
> some could be turned into parklets, given open shelters and a few  
facilities,
> and congregating would be allowed.  They would provide the outlet the  
local
> people need for companionship and still be easily policed by cruisers  
driving
> by.  If serious violence a/o illegal drug-related activity persists then
> further measures should be establish including ID roadblocks and curfews  
for
> minors.   The American Alliance for Rights and Responisbilities, the
> communitarians' public-interest group, has fought the ACLU and won some  
legal
> battles allowing such measures.
> 
>      I have read criticism that communitarianism "is a white  
upper-middle-
> class cultural response to our disintegrating society" (historian John  
Patrick
> Diggins of CUNY quoted in US News & World Report, 11/25/91, p.30).  What  
an
> insulting racist remark!  Does Mr Diggins, likely a WUMC person himself,
> assume that other classes and races do not share the desire for safe,
> nurturing communities?  Afro-Americans, for instance, have a long and  
rich
> tradition of such community efforts dating back to their African  
descendants
> and including both urban and rural arrangements in this country.  Surely
> Blacks in all walks of American life desire exactly what the WUMCs have,  
safe,
> attractive communities.  I am sure that they detest the violence and  
support
> proper police activity just like most other Americans.
> 
>      Incidentally, Etzioni's organization is the American Alliance for  
Rights
> and Responsibilities, and they publish a quarterly, Rights and
> Responsibilities.  I would be interested in the comments of readers on  
this
> news group and wonder if anyone could inform me as to where  
communitarians are
> active on the internet.  Thanks, Joseph F. McLaughlin
> 
> Yeah, we need Communitarianism.  Yeah.  In fact, why don't we just vote  
fascist next time!  We could rally use another Hitler or Mousolini(sp?).

Individual rights mean nothing!

Big Brother is watching you.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un