the middle to upper class dictum: "get good grades and wrack up accomplishments so you can go to a good college, and do the same there so you can get a good job, and then you can get a good job and do what you want."

By the way, I don't even think champions of liberalism want this. Our "meritocracy" has become a sort of curse. David Brook's writes about this a lot. As the chasm between the few "haves" and the vast multitudes of "have-nots" grows ever wider, families are forced into a sort of meritocratic arms race to secure elite status for their progeny, lest they fall down the ladder to a point where the rungs are so far apart that ascent becomes impossible. The system ruthlessly sifts winners and losers, wheat from chaff. Yet since most people are consigned to being "chaff," we might ask if time wouldn't be better spent on teaching the ways in which "having-not" in the context of a developed welfare state is not inimical to flourishing.

At any rate, parents and children do not seem to actually want the sort of education system liberalism suggests to itself. Even if they buy into the idea of man as Homo oecononimicus, they would prefer to be educated as Homo sapiens. For instance, when we look to contemporary fantasy and science fiction, a sort of mirror for the imagined ideal, we can find many novels that focus on education. Indeed, the “elite academy" is practically its own sub-genre. When we look at the stories that capture our imaginations, they do not look anything like our contemporary education system. They are decidedly not for "raising up consumers." When fiction writers strive to envision an education system that will produce heroes, very often they turn to the old, ascetic model of education, an education heavily focused on developing self-governance and character. Moral, intellectual, and often physical virtue (excellence) are often seen as the goals of education in such narratives.

I am thinking here of the pressure cooker academy of Orson Scott Card’s “Battle School” in his popular novel Ender’s Game. Similar themes show up in the “Institute” of Pierce Brown’s best selling series Red Rising. Likewise, in the fantasy world of R. Scott Bakker’s Second Apocalypse series, the superhuman “Dunyain” monks are trained using methods that recall Christian and Buddhist monasteries far more than modern classroom. The training Paul Atreides, the main character of Frank Herbert’s Dune receives likewise focuses on ascetic discipline and contemplative exercises. Indeed, these themes are particularly popular in works targeting young adults themselves, e.g Veronica Roth’s hit Divergent series. Other examples abound here.

One example of this in the real world is the enduring appeal of military training for the imaginations of young people (particularly young men). This is what the very well-funded and well-researched marketing campaigns of the US military focus on. "Join the Marines and we will challenge you and make something out of you. We will reforge you." There are serious drawbacks to military training, it's only appropriate for soldiers, but not all of what makes it appealing is impossible to capture. Indeed, part of what makes it appealing is precisely the camaraderie and shared purpose, not having everything focused on the atomized individual.

Obviously, fictional worlds are no sure guidance to real world education, but if this is the sort of training we think heros, as opposed to “rational self-interested consumers,” need, then we might very well want to reflect on that. Certainly, part of the appeal of these narratives is their foreigness, and often their danger. But one doesn't need to go all the way into violent competition and days spent out in the wilds without food to capture something of what these narratives take hold of.

Edit: BTW Deneen points out that the dramatic pivot away from the "liberal arts," even by elites, is a pivot away from precisely the sort of education that was previously seen as enabling human freedom. The switch is a switch to what was previously considered to be appropriate for servile education. Liberalism started with the slogan "every man a king," but in this respect seems to trend closer to "every king a commoner."

But my concern is whether liberalism has the conceptual tools to address systemic and structural power before harm is framed as a rights violation. It does not. — Benkei

What does?

Did I say anything about prediction? No. — Benkei

You said

What’s missing is a vocabulary for preventative, collective responsibility; a way to interrogate power before it consolidates, and beyond the frame of discrete violations. — Benkei

Who does this interrogation of whom before what power can consolidate, and how, without prediction, can anyone - everyone? - do this? Attempts have been made, based on warning signs and predictions but the collective responsibility was unresponsive. Liberalism fails because it lacks the vocabulary of fear and loathing.

I wouldn't expect any different from an extreme leftist. When you're so far to the left, everyone else is right. — Harry Hindu

The current US Democrats are what you consider far left? In that case, I'm so far left I'm beneath your horizon. No, not in an ism, and not on the basis of any big-name thinker's recommendation; simply through observation of how we humans screw up our lives, our communities and our world.

Can't quite grasp your views, but I found this further reading fun https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2295&context=law_faculty_scholarship

I think John Locke's point was that if we believe that the One Truth is discoverable by rational means, we'll never be at peace, because people come up with different formulations. It's better to start with mutual respect. If you're a protestant, it's none of your business what Catholics think. — frank

Well put.

Note that those who take themselves as having access to the One Truth might well treat rationality as a means to the end of justifying or evangelising that One Truth. For them liberalism is an abomination; becasue it allows difference of opinion, it allows false belief.

It must be comforting to have such certainty. But I don't tink it moral.

It must be comforting to have such certainty. But I don't think it moral. — Banno

It leads to inquisitions where heretics are rounded up.

Liberalism has tools for punishing individual bad actors and... that's it. It can address discrimination by outlawing specific actions but falters when inequality results from patterns that no one individually chose. — Benkei

But what about antitrust legislation? This very day, Meta is being taken to court in the US to consider compulsory divestment of WhatsApp and Instagram, on the very grounds you cite, i.e. concerns over monopolisation of social media (ref). Likewise the European Union has aggressively pursued antitrust legislation against Google (ref)

Liberalism’s emphasis on rights also tends to obscure the role of duties. If rights are powers granted through the mutual structure of society, they ought to imply obligations to that structure. But liberal theory tends to treat duties as secondary or voluntary. — Benkei

That, I agree with. As I noted earlier, the original Christian social contract was grounded in such mutuality, the expection that political liberty also implied moral obligations. I think the erosion of this sense is again because of the delegation of responsibility to the individual conscience, which in turn was a consequence of Reformation theology.

That, although the Desert Fathers (and through them Christianity writ large) borrow terms from Pagan philosophy, they actually use them very differently. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, but even though I said that the Christian ethos was foundational to Western culture, I don't know if monastic spiritual practices are relevant to politics in a pluralistic society. It is by nature a renunciate philosophy.

The key examples of the "ruthless" pursuit of liberalism that came to my mind is the US attempt to foist liberal democracy and social norms on Iraq and Afghanistan by force of arms, — Count Timothy von Icarus

But those actions are not a specific consequence of liberalism. Another American president, say if Al Gore had won by a hanging chad, might have pursued a different course of action, but still been considered to be acting within a liberal political framework. (Although I'd be inclined to include under the umbrella of evangalistic liberalism, support for gay liberation in e.g. Africa and Muslim Indonesia. In fact, sexual politics and sexual identity are central to the whole debate. Jordan Peterson's rise to prominence originated with his objection to the mandatory use of non-binary pronouns in Canada, for example.)

For them liberalism is an abomination; becasue it allows difference of opinion, it allows false belief. — Banno

I think the deep philosophical issue is, whether anything can be deemed true, beyond what is objectively so. And what is objectively so can be deliberated by science. But then, science has nothing to say about what should be done; there's no scientific reason not to pursue development of weapons of mass destruction. I notice in reading the conservative criticisms of liberalism, the conviction that Aristotelian virtue ethics, often conjoined with Christian faith, embody transcendent truths about the human condition. But from a science-based perspective, there is of course no basis to make such claims, meaning that for all practical purposes, these are matters of personal conviction, therefore what is right 'for you'. And I'm afraid this conflict is irreconciliable.

My view: this is where I appeal to a kind of pluralistic perennialism e.g. Huston Smith or John Hick. Not that I expect any agreement on that, and certainly no means by which to assert it.

Since I have not a major interest in politics I've refrained from commenting on liberalism understood as a social/political praxis. I have read along though, and I see two predominant polarizations. First, there is the Marxism/Liberal democracy polemic. And there is a Traditionalism/ Modernism polemic.

I favour a liberal socialist democracy. Unfettered capitalism is a disaster and can only lead to ever greater enrichment of the rich and impoverishment of the poor. I also favour democratic elections, even though it seems that view people have the understanding to make informed decisions about which party to vote for—a situation which has been made even more difficult by the fact that politics in general has degenerated into vacuous sloganeering if not outright propaganda from both sides.

The problem for Marxism is that it is based on the idea of becoming established by revolution, not by democratic election, so introduction of a softer socialism seems much more attractive. But how to bring that about if not by education? And how to begin that education?

The problem is that the way things are set up where the choice is between two major parties, and everyone's focus seems to be more on economic management than anything else makes it very difficult to institute fairer social welfare practices and more equitable economic practices. This seems to be made even more difficult by global warming and diminishing resources and burgeoning populations. I don't hold out much hope for betterment of our societies.

As to the Traditionalist/ Modernist divide, I think there are problems on both sides. The idea that materialism (in the metaphysical not the consumerist sense) is the problem shows, I think, a poor understanding of history. I doubt that life for the masses was better back in some imagined 'Golden Age'. The problems we face are problems of this world, not of some imagined otherworld or afterlife.

And the idea that there are 'wise ones' who know something beyond what practical wisdom , ordinary human compassion and science can tell us is a fantasy. This always becomes clear when it's advocates are asked to say just what they are advocating if not some form of authoritarianism—and they cannot offer any alternative to the idea that diversity of opinion is a good, not a bad, thing.

All they seem to be able to do is talk about a "vertical ontology' being better than a purportedly "flat ontology" without being able to say what either of these actually look like, and just whose ontologies they would be, and just how, if either were to predominate, they could become common coin without being imposed by power or indoctrination. We already have a great diversity of metaphysical views in our societies and across different societies. Thoughtful individuals are, at least in many if not most societies free to form their own views, wherever they are not restricted by one or another more or less rigidly imposed "aegis of tutelage".

.

For them liberalism is an abomination; becasue it allows difference of opinion — Banno

This is not what it does in practice. It allows a certain range of opinion. And that, increasingly small.

This is not what it does in practice. It allows a certain range of opinion. And that, increasingly small. — AmadeusD

What restrictions do you find on your opinions in New Zealand. What opinions would you wish to express and yet find yourself increasingly unable to do so?

- Yes, good points. :up:

(And thanks for responding. I am falling behind on TPF.)

I don't think you're quite framing it fairly. These aren't necessarily considerations of what I can and can't do - I can speak about whatever the fuck I want to. But If i were to, for instance, offer an opinion piece, speak publicly, publish etc.. in a way that received some public review there are several which would result (almost invariably does) in abuse, possible violent abuse, attempts to mar my family, friends and colleagues for associating with me, attempts to end my employment (this one has happened to me twice) among other possible outcomes that are chilling on freedoms to speak):

- trans women are not women;
- Indigenous thinking is not superior to any other kind of thinking;
- You can be objectively wrong about your beliefs;
- That the Treaty of Waitangi needs some serious legal definition;
- That separate rights for indigenous groups and others is wrong;
- That separate standards of assessment for white people and other groups is wrong;
- That the government is doing good (I don't actually hold this view, but its one which has resulted (before my own eyes) in multiple violent responses);
- Prison is a decent response to recidivist offenders;
- That violent Islamic activity is reprehensible and we should be allowed to assess for it;
- That sexual preferences are in fact, preferences, and I need not care what anyone else thinks;
- Thinking the pronoun debate is ridiculous**

Could be worth looking through some of what our Free Speech Union works on for the larger picture:

Police illegally logging - the concept amounts to "If someone is unhappy with what you said, it is hateful".
Professionals increasingly at risk of losing their licenses for personal views
A Mayor silencing political criticism by using a badly-written Act
That our conservative (its actually very much centrist) government has had to table legislation to protect academic freedom in the face of increasing calls for opinions of University workers to be considered disqualifying
And even in the case of lower school teachers, that opinions relayed in private capacities (i.e as a private citizen.. not in private) can be disqualifying, despite being common views.

Obviiously I'm marginally dramatizing a lot of those articles, but the basic notions I've outlined are correct, in my view. It is also possible you do not see these, after looking into them, as curtailing one's freedom of speech. I respectfully disagree and would then thing we are maybe not talking about hte same thing. Probably worth noting, I have increasingly had to stop giving my opinions on these sorts of matters to protect my job, my children and my wife. This is absolutely unacceptable under the head "liberalism".

** I happen to work in a truly liberal law firm. We all have differing views, and we accept them. However, if a disgruntled colleague reported me to a statutory body for at least a few of the points noted above, I would be hauled before a conduct committee and basically have no recourse to defend myself because "the other person was hurt" is the criterion. But more directly to the point linked to, I am aware of several larger law firms who ostracize or even shadow-punish lawyers and executives for not including pronouns in their bio subsequent to a demand from on high via internal email. No, I cannot prove this, but at least one friend has left their firm for this reason and I have seen the email which was sent. It was in no uncertain terms.

But If i were to, for instance, offer an opinion piece, speak publicly, publish etc.. in a way that received some public review there are several which would result (almost invariably does) in abuse, possible violent abuse, attempts to mar my family, friends and colleagues for associating with me, attempts to end my employment (this one has happened to me twice) among other possible outcomes that are chilling on freedoms to speak): — AmadeusD

That is lamentable, but it does not represent a liberal attitude—quite the reverse. There may be a dividing line between freedom and hate speech which is difficult to accurately define, but I think most reasonable people can recognize the differences even if they cannot fully explain them in a way that is completely immune to disagreement.

- trans women are not women;
- Indigenous thinking is not superior to any other kind of thinking;
- You can be objectively wrong about your beliefs;
- That the Treaty of Waitangi needs some serious legal definition;
- That separate rights for indigenous groups and others is wrong;
- That separate standards of assessment for white people and other groups is wrong;
- That the government is doing good (I don't actually hold this view, but its one which has resulted (before my own eyes) in multiple violent responses);
- Prison is a decent response to recidivist offenders;
- That violent Islamic activity is reprehensible and we should be allowed to assess for it;
- That sexual preferences are in fact, preferences, and I need not care what anyone else thinks;
- Thinking the pronoun debate is ridiculous** — AmadeusD

Has anyone the right to tell another how they should identify gender wise? What would be the motivation for wanting to do that if not some kind of desire to vilify?

I wouldn't say that indigenous thinking is superior to any other kind of thinking as such. It may indeed be superior when it comes to looking after the environment or whatever. But I wouldn't say it is inferior tout court either.

If someone wants to show how your beliefs can be objectively wrong then they would need to do so, not merely assert it.

Separate rights for indigenous groups can be justified on the basis of showing that they have historically been and in some ways continue to be marginalized and disadvantaged.

Your own sexual preferences are indeed your own and nobody else's business as such.

I think in general that we have no right to dictate to others regarding their sexual preferences, religious or political beliefs, gender identification and so on. Why would we even wish to opine on such matters, unless someone wishes to impose their views on us, or seeks to convince us, when it comes to political or religious views (and not sexual preferences or gender identification which I think is obviously an entirely individual matter)? Marginalized minorities are seen as injured parties, and as such, it seems fair that they be given special consideration—why should that not be the case?

That is lamentable, but it does not represent a liberal attitude—quite the reverse. — Janus

Yes, for sure. I think that's the problem - they claim liberalism (which I take as a practical movement. The ideology itself was abandoned decades ago). Unfortunately, I am increasingly not convinced the average (self-professed) liberal can tell the difference between freedom and hate. This seems particularly true of self-professed Liberals in the sense that all manner of extremely socially unacceptable behaviour (racism, sexism, violent threats, actual violence etc...) are played out in the name of the ideology. People thinknig "i'm a Liberal, which means my ends are 'righteous' and justify what means I may pursue". Usually, the means are the result of internalized anger and frustration about one's station in life, and not any consideration of what a 'liberal' might actually do in any given scenario. That may or may not be a legitimate thought but to me, the corresponding up-ending of the apple cart, lets say, is not. It's toddler stuff. Safe to say, i'm far more jaded on this one that you are haha.

What would be the motivation for wanting to do that if not some kind of desire to vilify? — Janus

Because its factually incorrect (disagree, or agree...whatever i'm just giving you the reason). I'll add a second though: Why do we tell children they're not actually Firefighters? Because it will be extremely difficult to go through life believing you are, but at every turn, shown that you're not. I feel this is the case for most trans people. Their mental states at large, and their reports of same, seem to indicate this. I don't think this is society doing anything wrong. They want to be something they aren't, and that hurts. I am not the greatest singer in the world, and it irks me. I love singing and I really wish I was good enough to make something of it. But i'm not, and I don't pretend that i am. I have a huge, rather debilitating sympathy for the mindstate of trans people. But I do not have sympathy for trying to force the world to conform to your internal self-image. Not to mention some of the more controversial issues hereabouts (the overwhelming tendency toward sex crime for trans ID'd males, for instance.... big discussion. I pray you simply laugh and gloss over this if its got your back up. I'm simply laying more points out to show that there are arguments).

Separate rights for indigenous groups can be justified — Janus

I disagree. But in any case, that isn't in issue. The fact that opinion is not socially acceptable is the problem. You might have a good argument. It's just not for this exact moment to be fleshed out. Same goes for the above trans issue, but there was a lot more meat there.

unless someone wishes to impose their views on us — Janus

Liberals, overwhelmingly, do to the point of justifying abuse and violence. This is simply not arguable in the wake of things like BLM, Occupy, assassination attempts etc.. etc.. (this is not to claim other ideologies don't lead here too. It's to say that the claim of 'Liberal' tends this way, currently)

why should that not be the case? — Janus

I'm sorry, but why should it? If they're seen as injured parties, that means precisely nothing for policy. Even if they are (which, in a general sense, i usually am more than happy to accept on the facts) it cannot be a "sins of the father" situation. Which it is. In almost every case. I also have much better options in mind to deal with that issue (that I, again, for clarity, fully accept in most cases is truly in play).

Mill both predicted, and lamented this situation in On Liberty 165 years ago. Social restriction of opinion being the absolute bane of a civilised society. And it is.

It's significant that one of the major drivers of Trump's second presidency is the prohibition of any expression of diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI) programs, under the banner of which there have been large-scale sackings in the public service and pressure campaigns on universities. DEI is identified with liberalism (in a very US-specific sense) and it is probably true that it has been cause of reverse discrimination and de-platforming. At the same time, US conservatives have complained bitterly that the fact that their views are censored, or at any rate not circulated, on social media including FaceBook, is an infringement on their free speech rights.

But now we find that even mentioning 'social equity' is career ending under Trump.

In February, Dr. Hall (a leading nutritional scientist at the N.I.H) said that N.I.H. officials told him he couldn’t be listed as an author on a yet-to-be-published scientific review on ultraprocessed foods that he co-wrote with a group of university scientists. This was because the review included language about “health equity” (it acknowledged that some people in the United States don’t have access to healthy food). This discussion may not have aligned with President (Chairman?) Trump’s views on diversity, equity and inclusion. If Dr. Hall wanted to stay on the paper, they said, that section would need to be modified. — NY Times, Leading Nutrition Scientist Depart NIH, Citing Censorship

As it happened, Dr Hall instead chose early retirement, saying that he could not abide being told what to publish or not publish. And this is one of many such examples. So in such cases, it turns out that opposition to DEI is no more beneficial as far as freedom of speech is concerned.

Conservatives complain of discrimination against them when they encounter social disapproval of their views. Liberals complain of being jailed, fired or censored for theirs. Which is the 'snowflake' and which the hypocrite?

You'd think that loosing your career would be a greater penalty than not having your opinion heard, wouldn't you?

While I know what you're referring to, and they are, in fact Conservative, in my opinion their conservatism isn't the reason for their whining. Rather its just another example of the observation that no one complains more than those used to an advantage, perceiving the loss of that advantage.

What does? — Vera Mont

It's not relevant for the critique itself, is it? But Marxism, Communitarianism, Arendt's action theory. Possibly others.

Who does this interrogation of whom before what power can consolidate, and how, without prediction, can anyone - everyone? - do this? Attempts have been made, based on warning signs and predictions but the collective responsibility was unresponsive. Liberalism fails because it lacks the vocabulary of fear and loathing. — Vera Mont

You pick at what you think you disagree with or where you think there's no alternative as if it invalidates the critique. Do you want a combative discussion or do you want to understand what I'm trying to relay? Liberalism fails because it assumes a concept of an atomistic human that never existed, assumes voluntarism because it conceptually only deals with freedom as non-interference and is procedural and formalistic in its approach to justice. It's conceptually an inhuman. In short, it's a political theory for machines, and it's no wonder most of us are reduced to cogs in a self perpetuating machinery no longer capable of questioning itself or to derive meaning from anything else but to consume.

Individualism resists, for instance, redistributive justice. Once power consolidates it can only react to discrete violations but it does not allow redistributing power that enables such violations in the first place. It does not enforce democratic decision making where it matters most in capitalist society because it is stuck in a formal conception of justice. I mean top-down led companies, the economic system that favours capital over labour and gives little to no choice to the latter. I mean externalising everything and having no tools unless rights are violated. The only solution it can seek is turning everything into a market, so we can assign rights to it so it can react to new discrete violations but it cannot deal with the underlying structures causing these issues in the first place and it has no concept of the rape it causes to what it means to be human by reducing everything to something that can be subjected to capitalist forces.

Democritising all socio-economic human activity and decentralising decision making are conceptually the easiest paths forward. What is shared decision making if not a preventative measure to avoid one or a few voices drown out others? What is shared ownership if not a preventative measure to avoid one or a few own most of everything? Sharing is caring!

Everything has to do with a theory of property rights. It seems to me that liberalism is the system providing to the individual effective property rights on his person and his properties. Socialism and communism did fail because of their inability of providing effective property rights to the people. It is interesting to talk about the teleology of society. First, only monarchies do have inherent teleology because of the human and interested nature of the State. Within monarchy, the teleology of society is equal to the enrichment of the royal family. The more society is democratic the more it is the bringer of liberalism. Liberalism is the aftermath of the adfirmation of private industrialism. Within socialism and communism, the teleology of society is the enrichment of the State and its party. Liberalism is not a failure. I tell you that the one who does support democracy is the one who does support liberalism. Richness must be variegated and dispersed. The teleology of society must not exist; if it does exist it does it mean that we are entangled into dictatorship and aberrant general equilibrium theory. I state, however, that it does exist the apriorism of well-being within every human agent. The individual does expect well-being. The more society is liberal, the more society is in a position to free the citizen from taxation and free the citizen from State based industrialism and State based interferences. The problem of communism and socialism is that they do sponsorize the sheer well-being of the State. However, the goal is to assure well-being to every citizen. Liberalism is within democracy and democratic theory of entrepreneurship. The problem has to do also with those philosophers critizing liberalism. Once you do criticize liberalism you are basically helping the criminals advocating anarcho-capitalism. Nowadays, I tell you, liberalism is already conservatism and even reactionary theory.

Not anymore. They're being relentlessly stripped of their voting rights, and such votes as they have, are discounted more at each election cycle. This erosion of democracy has been going on steadily in half the country for over a century and a half. It was retarded for a couple of decades in the mid-20th, but has accelerated in the 21st and under the current ministration, is in existential crisis. — Vera Mont

The erosion of democracy starts with limiting free speech, which has become the mantra of the current incarnation of the Democratic party.

What is so ironic is that you claim the erosion of democracy was retarded in the mid-20th century when the U.S. had a president for four terms. So was it when Congress amended the Constitution to limit the number of terms to two that renewed the retardation of democracy or was it only when Republicans were elected?

Democracy is retarded by life-long politicians like Biden, Pelosi and McConnell and only essentially having two choices.

A two-party system is only one step away from one-party rule. Abolish political parties and give us more choices - that is the essence of freedom and democracy.

Something tells me you wouldn't know who to vote for if they didn't have a D next to their name.

The current US Democrats are what you consider far left? In that case, I'm so far left I'm beneath your horizon. No, not in an ism, and not on the basis of any big-name thinker's recommendation; simply through observation of how we humans screw up our lives, our communities and our world. — Vera Mont

When it comes to free speech and women's rights I would say the Democrats share more in common with the Republicans than independent moderates.

You pick at what you think you disagree with or where you think there's no alternative as if it invalidates the critique. Do you want a combative discussion or do you want to understand what I'm trying to relay? — Benkei

I don't want to be combative; I just don't understand what you're trying to say. At least, I have some grasp of a hint at a theory, but I don't understand how it translates to practical action, or who is expected to do what.

Once power consolidates it can only react to discrete violations but it does not allow redistributing power that enables such violations in the first place. — Benkei

This is what I don't understand. Where in history is this 'first place' in which power had not yet consolidated? The only such instances I can think of are 'primitive' - that is, tribal - societies that consisted of a small number of closely related people. The minute one of these tribes was conquered by a larger, more aggressive nation, those people found themselves under a consolidated power system the beneficiaries of which were not inclined to redistribute anything.
They had the options of submission, revolt, escape or - in some cases - being assimilated. The latter instance is, I believe, where liberalism begins: as a reaction to consolidated power that is unjust to some segment(s) of its populace.

Individualism resists, for instance, redistributive justice. Once power consolidates it can only react to discrete violations but it does not allow redistributing power that enables such violations in the first place. It does not enforce democratic decision making where it matters most in capitalist society because it is stuck in a formal conception of justice. I mean top-down led companies, the economic system that favours capital over labour and gives little to no choice to the latter. I mean externalising everything and having no tools unless rights are violated. — Benkei

I see this as quite distinctly conservative, rather than liberal. I suppose that's the part I don't understand, because we have such varied definitions and descriptions. Perhaps it's that pernicious misnomer 'neoliberalism' at fault?

Democritising all socio-economic human activity and decentralising decision making are conceptually the easiest paths forward. What is shared decision making if not a preventative measure to avoid one or a few voices drown out others? What is shared ownership if not a preventative measure to avoid one or a few own most of everything? Sharing is caring! — Benkei

I totally agree. And can't see any way from here to there, let alone an easy one. Two ways have been attempted in my lifetime: revolution and incremental change. I've seen the latter have some gratifying successes (now being shattered spectacularly) and the former achieve results the exact opposite of what was intended.

Something tells me you wouldn't know who to vote for if they didn't have a D next to their name. — Harry Hindu

Then Something is mistaken. I have a choice of voting L, ND or G. Though none fulfill all of my requirements, I choose the one that comes closest at any given election cycle and hope their parties can form at least a temporary alliance in the face of regressive threats. I do inform myself and I always vote, even if the odious C candidate is a dead cert in my riding.

@Count Timothy von Icarus

It looks as though everyone in the thread is in at least general agreement on the nature of X (whether it is good or bad). By ‘X’ I am thinking of something like capitalism.

The disagreements come when one must decide whether X is attached to liberalism, and this is where the interminable question-begging arises. So if there isn’t some accepted to way determine whether X is attached to liberalism, and therefore some accepted way to determine what liberalism is, then there will be no way out of the question-begging.

(With that said, it seems to me that the folks who say that something like capitalism is not attached to liberalism simply lack historical and political knowledge, and are therefore unqualified to really weigh in on this sort of question.)

(With that said, it seems to me that the folks who say that something like capitalism is not attached to liberalism simply lack historical and political knowledge, and are therefore unqualified to really weigh in on this sort of question.) — Leontiskos

Or is liberalism attached to capitalism? As for lacking historical knowledge, we are all disqualified, being ignorant of or at least hazy on some periods and geographical areas that make up human history.
For that matter, capitalism hasn't been all that clearly defined, either. Is it a self-contained socio-economic system, an economic arrangement, a political stance, a philosophy, a religion, or one aspect of social organization that can exist under different forms of government? Is it attached exclusively with liberalism, conservatism, 'neoliberalism' or socialism, or has it been associated with all of those?

By ‘X’ I am thinking of something like capitalism. — Leontiskos

Not sure I agree; I think it is important that we distinguish liberal practice from the ideology that many identify as liberalism, and I think it is that ideology that is taken issue with, not most liberal practices. I think the problem you are noting with capitalism as it relates to liberal practice, is whether the liberal institutions we have can adapt to the problems that technology and something-like-capitalism have presented. I personally think the answer is yes and that rights should remain part of our discourse, as well as private property, and limits on state incursion. The historical story of liberal practice should not prevent us from making it better today - the same is true for capitalism.

Timothy noted that it is a certain conceptualization of freedom that is most problematic with liberalism. That is, the conceptualization of the self in an atomic way whose self must be asserted and where freedom is optimization of my choices, voluntarism, homo economicus, the procedural (and what Michael Sandel calls) unencumbered self, that vestige of enlightenment thought.

So towards an alternative, I would argue that there is freedom, not in the reification of desires since this probably just leads to addiction, but rather in, in a word, self-knowledge. To demand others acknowledge my desires is to make myself and them at the behest of those desires, and really to control another seems to me to control oneself in some sense, that is, to construct a mental prison for oneself and others.

Greater freedom is surely to be had in recognizing the limitations of reality that are constituted by my mortality, biological self, and others. This bounded system gives me a space that, precisely by its closure, allows me, no, compels me, to have goals; boundlessness gives no reason to pursue goals.

Indeed, but even though I said that the Christian ethos was foundational to Western culture, I don't know if monastic spiritual practices are relevant to politics in a pluralistic society. It is by nature a renunciate philosophy.

Yes, but renunciate philosophy was once widely considered the cornerstone of education. Boethius' Consolation, for instance was the most popular ethical text of the Middle Ages. And it's still something that is part of the core of the Orthodox faith and expected of the laity.

I think you can find wide support for this view throughout ancient and medieval thought:

This highlights another important element in the pre-modern vision of reason. For Dante, man cannot slip into a dispassionate state of “buffered reason” where he “lets the facts speak” whenever he chooses. We are either properly oriented towards Truth and Goodness or we are not; we cannot chose to pivot between finite and spiritual ends as suits us. Rather, man’s intellect and will is subject to the pernicious influence of the unregenerated passions and appetites until “the rule of reason” has been positively established. The “rule of reason” can only be attained through repentance and a transformation accomplished through purgation and penance (something the Pilgrim must accomplish during his ascent of Mount Purgatory). In our life’s pilgrimage, our rationality, our most divine part, begins damaged by sin and in need of healing, a healing that can only be accomplished by ascetic labors and the aid of grace. We are born into a “web of sin” and will invariably become spiritually unwell in this way, to varying degrees, simply by living by the norms of a “fallen cosmos.” This means that a “turn upwards,” metanoia, a crucial part of each human life.

By contrast, if reason is merely something akin to computation, then we all have the same power of reason, albeit some of us may have access to more facts or might be quicker thinkers than others. On the modern view, asceticism and penance aimed at freeing the mind from the control of sensible desires in unnecessary. Here, it is worth noting why repentance is a prerequisite for the health of reason. Repentance represents a self-aware reflection on our own thought processes and choices, the ways in which they fall short, and a renewed commitment towards the pursuit of “what is really true” and what “is truly best” for their own sake. On the older view, where man’s reason cannot pass into an unclouded state free from the undue influence of the appetites and passions, such a move is necessary for the proper function of reason...

Indeed, in the Commedia, it is precisely the damned who appear to possess something like the Humean notion of reason. The damned are motivated by inchoate desires, impulses they do not attempt to master or understand. Count Ugolino will gnaw his rival’s brain for eternity, never questioning this act. The intellect of the damned has become a “slave to the passions,” and this is why we never see any gesture of repentance from them. They are rational just insomuch as they can draw connections between the senses and use these to pursue whatever desires have come to dominate them.

I think John Locke's point was that if we believe that the One Truth is discoverable by rational means, we'll never be at peace, because people come up with different formulations. It's better to start with mutual respect. If you're a protestant, it's none of your business what Catholics think.

Suppose for a moment that the sectarian, extremely exclusivist soteriology of the era preceding Locke's is true. Belonging to the wrong church puts people at a very high, perhaps certain risk of eternal suffering. On this view, simply "going along to get along" is completely abhorrent. It is to consign children to eternal torment to avoid finite, temporary strife.

Now, we might very well agree that dictating policy on the basis of this sort of knowledge is wholly inappropriate. Man cannot know what awaits him after death. Yet liberalism assumes much more about human nature than the ultimate fate of the soul, things we might think are eminently knowable through empirical exploration. And it positively indoctrinates according to its presumption of ignorance. Thus, it's far less modest than it seems. It doesn't just adopt a skeptical outlook, but presupposes the ignorance of others and then forces the conditions implied by this ignorance onto society writ large.

The current US Democrats are what you consider far left? In that case, I'm so far left I'm beneath your horizon. No, not in an ism, and not on the basis of any big-name thinker's recommendation; simply through observation of how we humans screw up our lives, our communities and our world. — Vera Mont

What I was responding to was,

Voting for third-party candidates is voting for Republicans. — T Clark

If you view third party candidates the same as voting Republicans, how much further left could you be?

Conservatives complain of discrimination against them when they encounter social disapproval of their views. Liberals complain of being jailed, fired or censored for theirs. Which is the 'snowflake' and which the hypocrite? — Vera Mont

Just don't conflate the "left" with "liberal". The left will have you censored for refusing the accept that women can be men and men can be women. The left and the right perpetuate delusions. Liberals don't want anything to do with delusions.

Then Something is mistaken. I have a choice of voting L, ND or G. Though none fulfill all of my requirements, I choose the one that comes closest at any given election cycle and hope their parties can form at least a temporary alliance in the face of regressive threats. I do inform myself and I always vote, even if the odious C candidate is a dead cert in my riding. — Vera Mont

The point being that people that do their research actually vote for candidates, not parties. T Clark votes for party. When you do that you don't bother doing research. You don't bother questioning your group when the majority (the more moderate Dems) allow the actions of a few (the extremists (socialists/communists that are trying to erase diversity, not promote it) bring down the whole group and lose.

Suppose for a moment that the sectarian, extremely exclusivist soteriology of the era preceding Locke's is true. Belonging to the wrong church puts people at a very high, perhaps certain risk of eternal suffering. On this view, simply "going along to get along" is completely abhorrent. It is to consign children to eternal torment to avoid finite, temporary strife. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:meh: So the belief is that God is a psychopath. I'm supposed to protect my neighbors by forcing them to also believe God is criminally insane. A liberal society isn't going to do anything to me until my behavior starts getting scary. Then they'll either put me in jail or in a psych ward. I probably belong in the latter on a buttload of anti-psychotics.

It doesn't just adopt a skeptical outlook, but presupposes the ignorance of others and then forces the conditions implied by this ignorance onto society writ large. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If your religion can't survive in an environment of religious tolerance, it's not much of a religion.

I wasn't speaking to religion, I was speaking any conception of human nature that strays from liberalism's volanturist Homo oeconomicus, and the "buffered self" who can achieve dispassioned reason without any need for training in virtue.

A liberal society isn't going to do anything to me until my behavior starts getting scary.

An ironic claim, given the absolute explosion in prison populations under liberalism (not that communism or fascism weren't also deficient on this front). The carceral state and constant litigation isn't a bug of liberalism, it is something it positively constructs as it tears down norms and culture in an effort to "liberate" the individual from these things. But, since the old structures played a regulatory role, a new vast system of administrative laws, courts, and prisons is needed to hedge in the atomized selves jockeying to fulfill their desires.

But more to the point, your words are 100% on point. A liberal society isn't going to do anything negative to you until your behavior starts getting scary, but it also isn't going to do much positive for you to stop you from ending up "too scary" for others. It will give you the "freedom" to ensure you end up locked in a cage (even for recreational drug use). Hence, you get the well-documented "schools to prisons pipeline" of the US, and Europe's segregated ethnic ghettos are not particularly better. Actually, in terms of assimilation they tend to be significantly worse.

Nor is the school to prison transition solely a problem of racial animus. For one, it is often worst in extremely left-leaning urban areas and places where minorities themselves hold chief positions of power in the state. For another, you can find it just as well in rural, overwhelmingly white areas as well. (This is, BTW, the problem with Michelle Alexander's maximalist thesis in "The New Jim Crow." Racial animosity doesn't explain why rural states with extremely small African American populations began putting thousands upon thousands of white men in prison to persecute the War on Drugs, or why conservative states tended to have draconian drug laws regardless of if they had many black residents to harass with them).

wasn't speaking to religion, I was speaking any conception of human nature that strays from liberalism's volanturist Homo oeconomicus, and the "buffered self" who can achieve dispassioned reason without any need for training in virtue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You appear to be saying the state needs to provide virtue training. I was once in a Kiwanis club meeting and this woman came to get the community's support for going into public schools to talk about drugs from a "God centered approach."

This wording signifies a right-leaning thingy where people believe everything should be approached with a sense of sacredness. I couldn't be more thumbs-up to that whole idea. That would really help people. Yet, it would be over my burned and rotting corpse that any religious group would step a foot into a public school in my area to talk about anything. Public schools are not for religious indoctrination. The answer is no.