The Swift Community

1) From reading Tawney, Nisbet, an Ehrenhalt, it would seem conservative-traditionalist-communitarians are concerned with restoring some vestige of familial belonging within society that has been lost with the advocacy of freedom and autonomy of individuals.

2) We do have just duties that are imposed on us and are not a result from our own free choice. One of these is to be ready to defend the nation of our birth; as we are all citizens of the Union, we are to a certain extent obligated to help defend each other against foreign invasion. War is always a threat to the well-being of our way of life and we have a responsibility to our neighbor's safety and way of life. Liberals are wrong to say that we are born with rights but acquire duties, because all rights have responsibilities that require us to be dutiful in their execution, or else liberty degrades to license.

3) Both Swift and Friedman advocate a kind of liberalism that emphasizes autonomy of the individual and freedom to live according to conscience. Both see individualism within the community as a positive benefit; as it cultivates a drive for excellence apart from the mainstream.

4) Conservative-traditional-communitarians would say something like that; there would be a demand for conformity in morals and customs. Liberals would disagree on the grounds that everyone has a right to live according to their conscience and enforcement of societal customs would be an invasion of privacy and a form of oppression.

5) No a community cannot be non-unanimous because community is about family, it is about familiarity and uniformity. A non-unanimous community would eventually fall into factionalism and dissolve into smaller communities with their own uniformity in customs and morals.