5 ms·

> 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 literal

by 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.
- zepto 5y ago
  > liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically. Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply makes the assumption that less liberal systems will be even worse at producing human flourishing. > 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. It does assume that it is in people’s general interests to have some kind of trustworthy system of agreements. As for ‘other people having to join the fold’. Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP. > Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing. This is a complete non-sequitur from your prior statements. The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    > Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply makes the assumption that less liberal systems will be even worse at producing human flourishing. I think that is a modern conservative widening of the goalposts. They were more confident in the past. Such week claims are not going to save liberalism so I suggest a different tack. > Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP. I am not referring to that in particular. I am referring to the narrative behind 2nd-wave colonialism in general, and since then IMF / World Bank insisting on free trade, etc. In a domesticate setting, education is viewed similarly to clean up the bitter deluded masses, "science will defeat religion" type views. Liberalism has always been about taming the wild passions of a vast illiberal other. And to be clear, I would be perfectly happy if education brought patience, science defeated religion, etc. etc., but again empirical reality doesn't make one so hopeful. > The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism. Liberalism has always had a slight utopianist inclination, be it whig history, "the arc of history bends towards Justice", etc. Reform, not revolution, but certainly not accepting the world as it is either. Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology. Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is too tepid and will not save it.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Liberalism has always had a slight utopianist inclination, be it whig history, "the arc of history bends towards Justice", etc. Reform, not revolution, but certainly not accepting the world as it is either. Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means. > Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology. No, you are reading that in. > Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is *too tepid( and will not save it. This is a restatement of the justification for authoritarianism.
      - 5y ago

by zepto 5y ago

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.

zepto 5y ago
> liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically. Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply makes the assumption that less liberal systems will be even worse at producing human flourishing. > 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. It does assume that it is in people’s general interests to have some kind of trustworthy system of agreements. As for ‘other people having to join the fold’. Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP. > Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing. This is a complete non-sequitur from your prior statements. The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  > Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply makes the assumption that less liberal systems will be even worse at producing human flourishing. I think that is a modern conservative widening of the goalposts. They were more confident in the past. Such week claims are not going to save liberalism so I suggest a different tack. > Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP. I am not referring to that in particular. I am referring to the narrative behind 2nd-wave colonialism in general, and since then IMF / World Bank insisting on free trade, etc. In a domesticate setting, education is viewed similarly to clean up the bitter deluded masses, "science will defeat religion" type views. Liberalism has always been about taming the wild passions of a vast illiberal other. And to be clear, I would be perfectly happy if education brought patience, science defeated religion, etc. etc., but again empirical reality doesn't make one so hopeful. > The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism. Liberalism has always had a slight utopianist inclination, be it whig history, "the arc of history bends towards Justice", etc. Reform, not revolution, but certainly not accepting the world as it is either. Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology. Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is too tepid and will not save it.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Liberalism has always had a slight utopianist inclination, be it whig history, "the arc of history bends towards Justice", etc. Reform, not revolution, but certainly not accepting the world as it is either. Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means. > Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology. No, you are reading that in. > Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is *too tepid( and will not save it. This is a restatement of the justification for authoritarianism.
    - 5y ago