3 ms·

so why not actually define what you mean by “Liberal”? that would actually stimulate a thoughtful discussion; otherwise your comment comes off as just a snide r

so why not actually define what you mean by “Liberal”? that would actually stimulate a thoughtful discussion; otherwise your comment comes off as just a snide remark. bertrand russell seems to be saying liberalism is simply showing tolerance for people but denying appeals to authority (which is what fascism espouses). he’s saying give the benefit of doubt for ideas you think are wrong while challenging dogmatism (as a corollary, labels/identities like liberal and conservative are detrimental). only by airing “wrong” ideas can we together reach for better versions of society, governance and culture.

ur-whale 8y ago
Liberals in the US now seems to be synonymous with some (sometimes mild, sometimes not) form of socialism or to be a tad gentler, collectivism. None of the folks whose prose I read or speech I've listened to that claim to be "liberals" in the US have any of the political attributes described by Russel. Their agenda is squarely focused on improving the well-being of the group over that of the individual. They're something all right, but "liberal" isn't it at all if you understand the word as per item 6 of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal namely: "associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives" Or from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism : "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" None of the US "liberals" fit this definition. OTOH, they certainly have co-opted the word and, along with it, the unsuspecting crowd that still understands "liberalism" as being focused on individual freedoms.
- clairity 8y ago
  so i think your definition is couched in the political (as opposed to, say, the philosophical), and that leads into the identity politics that russell argued against. regardless, why confine liberalism as simply encompassing the individual end of the individual<—-—>collective freedoms spectrum? it seems that liberalism could encompass all of these freedoms as well as russell’s definition, no?

ur-whale 8y ago

Liberals in the US now seems to be synonymous with some (sometimes mild, sometimes not) form of socialism or to be a tad gentler, collectivism. None of the folks whose prose I read or speech I've listened to that claim to be "liberals" in the US have any of the political attributes described by Russel. Their agenda is squarely focused on improving the well-being of the group over that of the individual. They're something all right, but "liberal" isn't it at all if you understand the word as per item 6 of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal namely: "associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives" Or from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism : "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" None of the US "liberals" fit this definition. OTOH, they certainly have co-opted the word and, along with it, the unsuspecting crowd that still understands "liberalism" as being focused on individual freedoms.

clairity 8y ago
so i think your definition is couched in the political (as opposed to, say, the philosophical), and that leads into the identity politics that russell argued against. regardless, why confine liberalism as simply encompassing the individual end of the individual<—-—>collective freedoms spectrum? it seems that liberalism could encompass all of these freedoms as well as russell’s definition, no?