5 ms·

The Threat from the Illiberal Left

39 points by dfdx 5y ago

mattrighetti 5y ago
Neither the left or the right tries to be liberal as Milton intended, they both are not and unfortunately real classical liberals are long gone in politics. Milton and Hayek warned us about the government power grab that we’re seeing more and more today around the world.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  > government power grab Strange. I don't recall them warning about the twisted newspeak of "public/private partnership" or the capitalist capture of government meant by the phrase.
Steve_Baker77 5y ago
Paywall
flushot 5y ago
https://archive.is/ERXHx https://archive.is/ERXHx
GoodJokes 5y ago
I think the threat from articles dressed up as smart from The Economist is bigger. Especially since they still do the incredibly unaccountable no writer byline thing. Only cowards and people who want to hide behind undeserved institutional reputation do this.
quelsolaar 5y ago
The problem with identity politics is that no progress is made. You are never going to convince another identity that yours should get special treatment. Only when a group demands equal rights do we make progress, because there is never any good arguments why one group shouldn't have the same rights as others. Equality remains self evident.
- quantum_solanum 5y ago
  Identity politics IS a demand for equality, based on the recognition that certain groups experience inequality in ways specific to them. For example, Black women are 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy related complications and twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. A plea for that to be considered and rectified is not a desire for "special treatment," and in fact if it were to be changed that would almost certainly improve the United State's abysmal maternal healthcare FOR ALL WOMEN across the board. A rising tide lifts all boats, no?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Black women are 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy related complications and twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. Yes, but only as a statistical category. Skin color is not causal. Rich black women are not 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy complications nor are they twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. Similarly black immigrants have statistically different outcomes from black people who grew up in America on most measures. It’s not that the problems aren’t real. It’s not that they aren’t a consequence of racism. It’s that more racism is not a solution.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >The problem with identity politics is that no progress is made. You are never going to convince another identity that yours should get special treatment. Only when a group demands equal rights do we make progress, because there is never any good arguments why one group shouldn't have the same rights as others. Equality remains self evident. Correct. It's the demand for special treatment and/or allowance for special behavior not tolerated in/allowed for others (and, conversely, not allowing others to receive the same special treatment) that causes resentment. "Part of left's problem is it expects/demands blacks/hispanics to vote on ethnic basis but is appalled when whites do" (<https://twitter.com/JYDenham/status/796345533124186113 https://twitter.com/JYDenham/status/796345533124186113>)
emaginniss 5y ago
Here is more evidence in that direction. NPR is now taking a position against freedom of speech and individual rights. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brief-response https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie...
simmanian 5y ago
>The attack from the left is harder to grasp, partly because in America “liberal” has come to include an illiberal left. I had been one of the illiberal progressive in the past. I feel the illiberalness comes from a sense of danger. It had felt like the world was turning upside down, and I was morally obligated to fight for happiness and safety. A very Hobbesian "a war of all against all" feeling. I got out of the hole only when I realized that sustainable happiness can be attained without sacrificing others. It was really a big, life changing recognition.
Ericson2314 5y ago
The fundamental problem of Liberalism is that it thinks the world is far more stateless than it actually is. I guess the idea was knocking down feudalism would make everything liquid and fast converging? Orthodox economics = equilibrium theory only bakes in the problem by definition. We now know empiricly that this stuff is not true. This pulls out the rug from under so many of Liberalism's precepts, and yet Liberalism hasn't adjusted.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The fundamental problem of Liberalism is that it thinks the world is far more stateless than it actually is. This is vague and untestable. You could literally make this claim against any ideology and we wouldn’t be able to ascertain a truth value.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    What part? That liberalism assumes more statelessness than reality? Or that this is it's fundamental issue? For the former, we have tons of evidence: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/12/11/centuries-later-jesuit-missions-south-america-are-still-strengthening https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/12/11/... https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28979/w28979.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28979/w289... I recall something also about the persistence of Roman settlement patterns in France vs Britain proving to be a disadvantage in the early modern era when ocean-based commerce became so important. Whether it's "equal opportunity vs equal outcome", liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically. When there's an emphasis on rules-based systems, it assumes there is some sort of quorum of those playing by the rules and others will have to join the fold. When there's a belief that competition could sustain itself, we're simply requirements the needs of equilibrium theory back into our assumptions. Rather than being elastic and in balance, the world is much more plastic and constantly rebalancing, with the former masking the latter. There is still much of liberalism to be admired, but it should be saved for the "victory lap". Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> The best way to navigate disruptive change in a divided world is through a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets and limited government. Woa, hold horses! "Open markets and limited government"? That's libertarianism not liberalism. As sooome kind of liberal, I parse "open markets" as "no rights for workers, no-holds-barred environmental destruction by industry"; and whenever I read "limited government" I hear "less power to voters". That is not liberalism. I don't know what liberalism is, though I know it when I see it, but I'm sure that the highest ideals associated with liberalism should be humanitarian ideals, not economic ideals. Human rights legislation, free education and healthcare, policies driven by quality of life indicators, that sounds like liberalism. Free market economics and industry deregulation? Not so much.

39 points by dfdx 5y ago

Neither the left or the right tries to be liberal as Milton intended, they both are not and unfortunately real classical liberals are long gone in politics. Milton and Hayek warned us about the government power grab that we’re seeing more and more today around the world.

drewcoo 5y ago
> government power grab Strange. I don't recall them warning about the twisted newspeak of "public/private partnership" or the capitalist capture of government meant by the phrase.

Steve_Baker77 5y ago

Paywall

flushot 5y ago

https://archive.is/ERXHx https://archive.is/ERXHx

GoodJokes 5y ago

I think the threat from articles dressed up as smart from The Economist is bigger. Especially since they still do the incredibly unaccountable no writer byline thing. Only cowards and people who want to hide behind undeserved institutional reputation do this.

quelsolaar 5y ago

The problem with identity politics is that no progress is made. You are never going to convince another identity that yours should get special treatment. Only when a group demands equal rights do we make progress, because there is never any good arguments why one group shouldn't have the same rights as others. Equality remains self evident.

quantum_solanum 5y ago
Identity politics IS a demand for equality, based on the recognition that certain groups experience inequality in ways specific to them. For example, Black women are 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy related complications and twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. A plea for that to be considered and rectified is not a desire for "special treatment," and in fact if it were to be changed that would almost certainly improve the United State's abysmal maternal healthcare FOR ALL WOMEN across the board. A rising tide lifts all boats, no?
- zepto 5y ago
  > Black women are 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy related complications and twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. Yes, but only as a statistical category. Skin color is not causal. Rich black women are not 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy complications nor are they twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. Similarly black immigrants have statistically different outcomes from black people who grew up in America on most measures. It’s not that the problems aren’t real. It’s not that they aren’t a consequence of racism. It’s that more racism is not a solution.
TMWNN 5y ago
>The problem with identity politics is that no progress is made. You are never going to convince another identity that yours should get special treatment. Only when a group demands equal rights do we make progress, because there is never any good arguments why one group shouldn't have the same rights as others. Equality remains self evident. Correct. It's the demand for special treatment and/or allowance for special behavior not tolerated in/allowed for others (and, conversely, not allowing others to receive the same special treatment) that causes resentment. "Part of left's problem is it expects/demands blacks/hispanics to vote on ethnic basis but is appalled when whites do" (<https://twitter.com/JYDenham/status/796345533124186113 https://twitter.com/JYDenham/status/796345533124186113>)

emaginniss 5y ago

Here is more evidence in that direction. NPR is now taking a position against freedom of speech and individual rights. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brief-response https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie...

simmanian 5y ago

>The attack from the left is harder to grasp, partly because in America “liberal” has come to include an illiberal left. I had been one of the illiberal progressive in the past. I feel the illiberalness comes from a sense of danger. It had felt like the world was turning upside down, and I was morally obligated to fight for happiness and safety. A very Hobbesian "a war of all against all" feeling. I got out of the hole only when I realized that sustainable happiness can be attained without sacrificing others. It was really a big, life changing recognition.

Ericson2314 5y ago

The fundamental problem of Liberalism is that it thinks the world is far more stateless than it actually is. I guess the idea was knocking down feudalism would make everything liquid and fast converging? Orthodox economics = equilibrium theory only bakes in the problem by definition. We now know empiricly that this stuff is not true. This pulls out the rug from under so many of Liberalism's precepts, and yet Liberalism hasn't adjusted.

zepto 5y ago
> The fundamental problem of Liberalism is that it thinks the world is far more stateless than it actually is. This is vague and untestable. You could literally make this claim against any ideology and we wouldn’t be able to ascertain a truth value.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  What part? That liberalism assumes more statelessness than reality? Or that this is it's fundamental issue? For the former, we have tons of evidence: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/12/11/centuries-later-jesuit-missions-south-america-are-still-strengthening https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/12/11/... https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28979/w28979.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28979/w289... I recall something also about the persistence of Roman settlement patterns in France vs Britain proving to be a disadvantage in the early modern era when ocean-based commerce became so important. Whether it's "equal opportunity vs equal outcome", liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically. When there's an emphasis on rules-based systems, it assumes there is some sort of quorum of those playing by the rules and others will have to join the fold. When there's a belief that competition could sustain itself, we're simply requirements the needs of equilibrium theory back into our assumptions. Rather than being elastic and in balance, the world is much more plastic and constantly rebalancing, with the former masking the latter. There is still much of liberalism to be admired, but it should be saved for the "victory lap". Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

>> The best way to navigate disruptive change in a divided world is through a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets and limited government. Woa, hold horses! "Open markets and limited government"? That's libertarianism not liberalism. As sooome kind of liberal, I parse "open markets" as "no rights for workers, no-holds-barred environmental destruction by industry"; and whenever I read "limited government" I hear "less power to voters". That is not liberalism. I don't know what liberalism is, though I know it when I see it, but I'm sure that the highest ideals associated with liberalism should be humanitarian ideals, not economic ideals. Human rights legislation, free education and healthcare, policies driven by quality of life indicators, that sounds like liberalism. Free market economics and industry deregulation? Not so much.