2 ms·

> liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically. Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply

by 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.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    > Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means. But it's important it converges pretty nicely. That arbitrage slowly lifts the standard of living in all places until past colonializism and slavery no longer matter is fundamental to modern liberalism, hence https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit... > No, you are reading that in. We'll we can agree to disagree here, but let me first clarify what you do think. If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK? Do you think e.g. John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russel would agree with you? > > 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. I am not stating that liberalism isn't good enough. I am not even stating that liberalism isn't ambitious enough "objectively". I am saying that sort of liberalism isn't ambitious enough to maintain popular support. Right or wrong, it will die as the increasingly restless, and sure, illiberal, masses, seek other things. Neoliberalism, was surprisingly successful saying we cannot have certain nice things and narrowing the overtone window (again, I say that independently of whether neoliberalism's claims are true), but it is unsustainable.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK? How is this question relevant?

by zepto 5y ago

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.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  > Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means. But it's important it converges pretty nicely. That arbitrage slowly lifts the standard of living in all places until past colonializism and slavery no longer matter is fundamental to modern liberalism, hence https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit... > No, you are reading that in. We'll we can agree to disagree here, but let me first clarify what you do think. If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK? Do you think e.g. John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russel would agree with you? > > 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. I am not stating that liberalism isn't good enough. I am not even stating that liberalism isn't ambitious enough "objectively". I am saying that sort of liberalism isn't ambitious enough to maintain popular support. Right or wrong, it will die as the increasingly restless, and sure, illiberal, masses, seek other things. Neoliberalism, was surprisingly successful saying we cannot have certain nice things and narrowing the overtone window (again, I say that independently of whether neoliberalism's claims are true), but it is unsustainable.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK? How is this question relevant?