31 March 2010

Sisyphean

Modern "classical liberals" erroneously believe the prevailing notion of universal equality is a deviation from classical liberal principles, when it actually is a consequence inevitably following from them. The reversion to an earlier, less “progressed” state of liberalism they seek is therefore no solution at all. 

2 comments:

  1. It's hard to pin down in what sense they don't actually believe in universal equality. They sort of talk a certain amount of game about inequality of outcome being unrealistic, but it's not clear how they think the realistic (perhaps unmolested by government, as they tend to blame a lot of inequality of government encouraging dependency and whatnot) game would go. If they won't attack, say, No Child Left Behind for its basic absurd premise (even ignoring race) it's not clear how they're any different from Reasonoid libertarians--that is, it's not clear how they're not basically liberals who just dig war a bit more and pot and gayness a bit less than the Reasonoids.

    Back in the day, classical liberals seemed to assume that of course certain races weren't equal but within the relevant cluster of folk they didn't seem to have any real arguments against universal equality, despite perfunctory protestations ("there is a natural aristocracy"-TJ) Marxists too, I guess, and even more so (Marx was "racist" about blacks but seemed to think there was no natural aristocracy in Europe). It's not clear to me when and how exactly that changed. I guess what I'm saying is 19th century liberals would have been surprised that their beliefs led inevitably to the modern belief in universal equality (and Marx surprised that blacks were "let in" to his b.s.), yet I agree with you that liberalism did do just that. So what happened?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why those principles work themselves out in a particular way over time is a complex question. It’s gradual. Why doesn’t the ideological process of liberalism just stop at some point? Faced with limits it instead adds another layer, much like how conspiracists do in order to absorb contradictory information.

    That it is a process makes debate difficult. For example, many liberals genuinely support free speech, at this time. But that’s only because they are not as far along on the ideological continuum. All countries more progressive than the US have speech restrictions. So when one truthfully observes liberalism eventually necessitates censorship liberals think you are misrepresenting them.

    ReplyDelete