Liberalism is liberation from Nature--from race, sex, tribe, family, and all natural affiliations that undermine desire-satisfaction, which alone is of intrinsic value. Liberalism is inimical to communitarianism, the idea that our culture is somehow part of us rather than a constraint that prevents us from being the people we are and getting what we want. Liberal societies maximize individual desire-satisfaction as distinct from traditional societies in which the life one lives is largely determined by sex, family of origin, social position and other unchosen conditions. Liberalism is ultra-individualistic, recognizing persons as social atoms fighting to achieve what they want in a Hobbesian war zone with the state adjudicating in the interests of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. The state liberates us from the natural conditions that undermine desire-satisfaction by economic redistribution and by anti-discrimination regulations, including affirmative action, that prevent others from putting us in our 'natural' places.
PLI is insidious--conservatism made respectable. Yeah, yeah the DEI departments and 'trainings' are bs. And, yeah, Western Civiliation, the humanities, and Great Books are a good thing. But when it gets down to brass tacks I know very well was it all means: it means I can't get what I want or avoid what I don't want. Without the state enforcing anti-discrimination regulations and affirmative action my prospects would have been at best secretarial. The bottom line is that these conservative policies restrict the power of the state to liberate us from natural constraints.
As a defender of liberalism I found Emily’s article to be Whiggish and naive. Categorising a heterogeneous set of critiques as the PLI (splitters) does not do justice to their objections. The free exchange of ideas has often objectively retarded progress. That doesn’t make it worse than the alternative. The invention of the printing press allowed superstitious fears about witchcraft to gain traction in the Renaissance, after a thousand year hiatus. Economic incentives led the colony of Georgia, which included much of modern day Alabama and Mississippi, to overturn an absolute ban on slavery that had lasted for decades. The theory of evolution rapidly led to the concepts of eugenics and social Darwinism which underpinned the intellectual justification for the holocaust and the starvation of millions of Soviet PoWs. The free contestation of ideas doesn’t always work. Progressive policies can often unnecessarily constrain individual liberty and also erode community ties. We do need to think seriously about demographic change, and the balance of rights. Despite that, liberalism is worth fighting for.
Blaming evolution for "the holocaust and the starvation on millions of Soviet PoWs" is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. Hitler was certainly not motivated by the belief that Germans and Jews are part of the same species. And wouldn't an actual Darwinian Nazi have to believe that Aryans are superior in some environments but not others? Not to mention that Darwin himself had no use for the ludicrously misnamed "social Darwinism", famously mocking a guy who thought he'd "proved that 'might is right' and therefore Napoleon was right, and every cheating tradesman is also right."
“If I can believe in one commandment it is this: thou shalt preserve the species.” The first victims of the gas chambers were indeed disabled Aryans under the Aktion T4 program. While Darwin himself had no part in eugenics, both his son and his cousin were prominent devotees.
The basic problem with liberalism is that it has no magnetic north and south. Wealthy liberal feminists believe they are disadvantaged. Poor jobless people have no leverage to help improve their lot. Guess which group moves the needle.
Thus , liberalism as a non- institutional concept is random and irrational in its impact on the entire community. So socialists can parade as progressives by pretending to be “caring”.
In many ways liberals are to blame for polarization today. Much more focus on political science and ethics (NOT culture) is needed to establish a compass for today’s political spectrum.
The idea that liberal democracy is in decline reflects a basic truth. Liberal societies don’t exist for very long. The U.S. was a stable democracy for a long time because it was not liberal. It was in fact, deeply conservative (socially conservative, not politically conservative). Something called the “American Code” governed (severely restricted) personal behavior. Now it doesn’t and quite predictably political democracy is in decline.
The US (much less the world) is not Sweden and pretending it is doesn’t change that fact. Sweden’s laws and system of government don’t work in other places. Increasingly, Sweden is not Sweden either. For example, two very different countries with no liberalism have systems that work. China has not abandoned liberalism. China never had it. Does China’s combination of authoritarian government and a (mostly) market economy work? You bet it does. China has 25,000+ miles of HSR. California has zero miles of HSR (but plenty of liberalism). Of course, California does have men with dresses. El Salvador was once ‘liberal’. Now it is not. The current president (Nayib Bukele) has cracked down on the gangs plaguing his country. He has achieved a remarkable reduction in crime (murder).
Like it not, but mass immigration means the end of liberalism and probably democracy throughout Europe. A quote from Helmut Schmidt should make this clear
“Multicultural societies have only … functioned peacefully in authoritarian states. To that extent it was a mistake for us to bring guest workers from foreign cultures into the country at the beginning of the 1960s.”
Of course, mass immigration can not be stopped by liberal means. Either Europe (and the USA) will adopt illiberal policies to stop mass immigration or will adopt illiberal policies to deal with the consequences of mass immigration. Either way, illiberalism is the future (if there is any future).
The world (really the US and Europe) were lulled into temporary tranquility by the post-war (WWII) economic boom. The boom is over (and has been since the 1970s). Now we have an era of conflict.
I have strong doubts that any of the more vocal proponents of the PLI movement have ever developed, marketed or delivered a product or service, balanced a budget, started a new business, had profit and loss responsibility, had regulatory compliance responsibility, etc. If they had successfully done any of those things, they would see the benefits of living in a liberal constitutional democratic republic.
As we live with 21st media and not those of the 17th or 18th century, the defense of liberal democracies must be made in no more than the equivalent of three coherent paragraphs of course using complete sentences.
As I browse this discourse, to which I am admittedly a newcomer, I get the uncomfortable feeling that Afro-Americans and women are being intellectually maneuvered into pulling the short straw.
These modern arguments for more religiosity often smack me as luxury beliefs. I talk to people all the time who say other people need religion, while not needing it themselves. What's the deal with this line of thinking? Is it as simple as: they wish lower class people would constrain themselves with more (religious) rules?
Liberalism is liberation from Nature--from race, sex, tribe, family, and all natural affiliations that undermine desire-satisfaction, which alone is of intrinsic value. Liberalism is inimical to communitarianism, the idea that our culture is somehow part of us rather than a constraint that prevents us from being the people we are and getting what we want. Liberal societies maximize individual desire-satisfaction as distinct from traditional societies in which the life one lives is largely determined by sex, family of origin, social position and other unchosen conditions. Liberalism is ultra-individualistic, recognizing persons as social atoms fighting to achieve what they want in a Hobbesian war zone with the state adjudicating in the interests of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. The state liberates us from the natural conditions that undermine desire-satisfaction by economic redistribution and by anti-discrimination regulations, including affirmative action, that prevent others from putting us in our 'natural' places.
PLI is insidious--conservatism made respectable. Yeah, yeah the DEI departments and 'trainings' are bs. And, yeah, Western Civiliation, the humanities, and Great Books are a good thing. But when it gets down to brass tacks I know very well was it all means: it means I can't get what I want or avoid what I don't want. Without the state enforcing anti-discrimination regulations and affirmative action my prospects would have been at best secretarial. The bottom line is that these conservative policies restrict the power of the state to liberate us from natural constraints.
As a defender of liberalism I found Emily’s article to be Whiggish and naive. Categorising a heterogeneous set of critiques as the PLI (splitters) does not do justice to their objections. The free exchange of ideas has often objectively retarded progress. That doesn’t make it worse than the alternative. The invention of the printing press allowed superstitious fears about witchcraft to gain traction in the Renaissance, after a thousand year hiatus. Economic incentives led the colony of Georgia, which included much of modern day Alabama and Mississippi, to overturn an absolute ban on slavery that had lasted for decades. The theory of evolution rapidly led to the concepts of eugenics and social Darwinism which underpinned the intellectual justification for the holocaust and the starvation of millions of Soviet PoWs. The free contestation of ideas doesn’t always work. Progressive policies can often unnecessarily constrain individual liberty and also erode community ties. We do need to think seriously about demographic change, and the balance of rights. Despite that, liberalism is worth fighting for.
Blaming evolution for "the holocaust and the starvation on millions of Soviet PoWs" is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. Hitler was certainly not motivated by the belief that Germans and Jews are part of the same species. And wouldn't an actual Darwinian Nazi have to believe that Aryans are superior in some environments but not others? Not to mention that Darwin himself had no use for the ludicrously misnamed "social Darwinism", famously mocking a guy who thought he'd "proved that 'might is right' and therefore Napoleon was right, and every cheating tradesman is also right."
“If I can believe in one commandment it is this: thou shalt preserve the species.” The first victims of the gas chambers were indeed disabled Aryans under the Aktion T4 program. While Darwin himself had no part in eugenics, both his son and his cousin were prominent devotees.
Fair enough
The basic problem with liberalism is that it has no magnetic north and south. Wealthy liberal feminists believe they are disadvantaged. Poor jobless people have no leverage to help improve their lot. Guess which group moves the needle.
Thus , liberalism as a non- institutional concept is random and irrational in its impact on the entire community. So socialists can parade as progressives by pretending to be “caring”.
In many ways liberals are to blame for polarization today. Much more focus on political science and ethics (NOT culture) is needed to establish a compass for today’s political spectrum.
The idea that liberal democracy is in decline reflects a basic truth. Liberal societies don’t exist for very long. The U.S. was a stable democracy for a long time because it was not liberal. It was in fact, deeply conservative (socially conservative, not politically conservative). Something called the “American Code” governed (severely restricted) personal behavior. Now it doesn’t and quite predictably political democracy is in decline.
The US (much less the world) is not Sweden and pretending it is doesn’t change that fact. Sweden’s laws and system of government don’t work in other places. Increasingly, Sweden is not Sweden either. For example, two very different countries with no liberalism have systems that work. China has not abandoned liberalism. China never had it. Does China’s combination of authoritarian government and a (mostly) market economy work? You bet it does. China has 25,000+ miles of HSR. California has zero miles of HSR (but plenty of liberalism). Of course, California does have men with dresses. El Salvador was once ‘liberal’. Now it is not. The current president (Nayib Bukele) has cracked down on the gangs plaguing his country. He has achieved a remarkable reduction in crime (murder).
Like it not, but mass immigration means the end of liberalism and probably democracy throughout Europe. A quote from Helmut Schmidt should make this clear
“Multicultural societies have only … functioned peacefully in authoritarian states. To that extent it was a mistake for us to bring guest workers from foreign cultures into the country at the beginning of the 1960s.”
Of course, mass immigration can not be stopped by liberal means. Either Europe (and the USA) will adopt illiberal policies to stop mass immigration or will adopt illiberal policies to deal with the consequences of mass immigration. Either way, illiberalism is the future (if there is any future).
The world (really the US and Europe) were lulled into temporary tranquility by the post-war (WWII) economic boom. The boom is over (and has been since the 1970s). Now we have an era of conflict.
I have strong doubts that any of the more vocal proponents of the PLI movement have ever developed, marketed or delivered a product or service, balanced a budget, started a new business, had profit and loss responsibility, had regulatory compliance responsibility, etc. If they had successfully done any of those things, they would see the benefits of living in a liberal constitutional democratic republic.
As we live with 21st media and not those of the 17th or 18th century, the defense of liberal democracies must be made in no more than the equivalent of three coherent paragraphs of course using complete sentences.
As I browse this discourse, to which I am admittedly a newcomer, I get the uncomfortable feeling that Afro-Americans and women are being intellectually maneuvered into pulling the short straw.
These modern arguments for more religiosity often smack me as luxury beliefs. I talk to people all the time who say other people need religion, while not needing it themselves. What's the deal with this line of thinking? Is it as simple as: they wish lower class people would constrain themselves with more (religious) rules?
I have a standard comment about this.
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”
Here is another word that dooms liberal democracy. Bukele.
Liberal democracy did not end the violence in El Salvador. Ending liberal democracy did.
Liberal democracy has produced atrocities such as men pretending to be women and cheating at sports.
Liberal democracy is dying.