In Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor chapter of The Brothers Karamazov, the character Ivan details a very intellectual and intricate opposition between the philosophies of welfarism (collectivism, essentially) and libertarianism. This is not libertarianism in its political sense, but in its more philosophical sense.
So, Ivan basically equates welfarism and libertarianism with the ideals of happiness and freedom, respectively. He argues that most people prefer happiness over freedom, and would rather have some institution (in The Grand Inquisitor, it's the Catholic Church) bear the burden of freedom for them. For Ivan, the Catholic Church becomes the embodiment of welfarism and the ideal of happiness. The Protestant Church stands for the ideal of freedom and libertarianism.
Ivan basically declares that the ideals of happiness and freedom cannot coexist. Dostoevsky, on the other hand, tries to respond to Ivan by arguing that they can. He encourages a compromise between the two ideals represented by his own Russian Orthodox Church. I, personally, feel that such a compromise is truly impossible.
In another section of the book, Ivan writes that:
"Tell me yourself, I challenge you-answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature-that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance-and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?"
So, I suppose this question has multiple parts. For starters, the question above should provide some good debate. Furthermore, can the ideals of happiness and freedom truly coincide in the same society? Can collectivism and individualism find a middle ground?
So, Ivan basically equates welfarism and libertarianism with the ideals of happiness and freedom, respectively. He argues that most people prefer happiness over freedom, and would rather have some institution (in The Grand Inquisitor, it's the Catholic Church) bear the burden of freedom for them. For Ivan, the Catholic Church becomes the embodiment of welfarism and the ideal of happiness. The Protestant Church stands for the ideal of freedom and libertarianism.
Ivan basically declares that the ideals of happiness and freedom cannot coexist. Dostoevsky, on the other hand, tries to respond to Ivan by arguing that they can. He encourages a compromise between the two ideals represented by his own Russian Orthodox Church. I, personally, feel that such a compromise is truly impossible.
In another section of the book, Ivan writes that:
"Tell me yourself, I challenge you-answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature-that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance-and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?"
So, I suppose this question has multiple parts. For starters, the question above should provide some good debate. Furthermore, can the ideals of happiness and freedom truly coincide in the same society? Can collectivism and individualism find a middle ground?