3 ms·

I think this would depend on what you consider liberalism. For instance, I think two of the most important components of liberalism are the autonomy of the indi

I think this would depend on what you consider liberalism. For instance, I think two of the most important components of liberalism are the autonomy of the individual and the consent of the governed. If we wanted to create a truly liberal government we might have institutions where you were given the option of paying an education tax. And if you paid this tax, then you would be able to opt in to public education benefits which would be equitably distributed and could approach "free" depending on how many people paid in and the cost of the education institute any given student was pursuing. However, if you chose to opt out of this tax, you would be obligated to pay the costs and fees all on your own. Instead proponents of "free" things tend to take the view that we should forcefully demand one segment of society pay for this "free" thing for the rest of society, and threaten them with violence or imprisonment if they refuse. There might be completely reasonable justifications for this, but I think it is a stretch to call this a liberal view once we consider what we actually mean by "free".

pjc50 8y ago
> opt in to public education benefits which would be equitably distributed and could approach "free" depending on how many people paid in and the cost of the education institute any given student was pursuing. However, if you chose to opt out of this tax, you would be obligated to pay the costs and fees all on your own And if you opt out of the public education tax, every time you want to see a doctor or cross a bridge or use a computer program, you have to pay a contribution to the student loans of the people who wrote it? (The history of public education in the west goes back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system and wasn't originally "redistributive" in the modern sense at all, more the tail end of feudalism)
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Can you state your implications more directly? I'm pretty sure I see what you're suggesting, but I'd like to make sure I'm not straw manning you.
shard972 8y ago
> I think this would depend on what you consider liberalism. For instance, I think two of the most important components of liberalism are the autonomy of the individual and the consent of the governed. I would say these two aspects definitially are hallmarks of liberalism. Your next steps go down a libertarian or "right" path but if we were to add to our bucket of values some form of egalitarianism, which is quite common amongst those on the "left" or "progressive/socialist" you would end up going down a completely different path of conclusions. In the end you would still both be operating under the pretense of liberalism, but i'm sure there would be disagreements about who is truly being liberal :P
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I can clearly see how one ideology could be seen as operating under a pretense of liberalism, at least given the hallmarks we've mentioned. How do you think the government (or at least the segment of government) I've described would also be considered to be operating under pretense?

pjc50 8y ago

> opt in to public education benefits which would be equitably distributed and could approach "free" depending on how many people paid in and the cost of the education institute any given student was pursuing. However, if you chose to opt out of this tax, you would be obligated to pay the costs and fees all on your own And if you opt out of the public education tax, every time you want to see a doctor or cross a bridge or use a computer program, you have to pay a contribution to the student loans of the people who wrote it? (The history of public education in the west goes back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system and wasn't originally "redistributive" in the modern sense at all, more the tail end of feudalism)

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Can you state your implications more directly? I'm pretty sure I see what you're suggesting, but I'd like to make sure I'm not straw manning you.

shard972 8y ago

> I think this would depend on what you consider liberalism. For instance, I think two of the most important components of liberalism are the autonomy of the individual and the consent of the governed. I would say these two aspects definitially are hallmarks of liberalism. Your next steps go down a libertarian or "right" path but if we were to add to our bucket of values some form of egalitarianism, which is quite common amongst those on the "left" or "progressive/socialist" you would end up going down a completely different path of conclusions. In the end you would still both be operating under the pretense of liberalism, but i'm sure there would be disagreements about who is truly being liberal :P

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I can clearly see how one ideology could be seen as operating under a pretense of liberalism, at least given the hallmarks we've mentioned. How do you think the government (or at least the segment of government) I've described would also be considered to be operating under pretense?