British common law is much more freedom-based than Napoleonic law - one posits that you can do whatever you want, except for what's illegal, and the latter,... you can only do what we proscribe as being legal. But the anglo liberalism still relied on a certain 'noblesse oblige' of moral behaviour supporting a foundation of civil society. Post that, we now have decaying structures of amoral ambiguity and lesser / darker objectives.
Liberalism is a bell curve not a straight line from feudalism to utopia. It peaked in the early 00s. We’ve overshot. This is why end-stage liberalism is a form of conservatism… https://postwokepete.substack.com/p/pragmatic-liberalism
"Two central assumptions have animated liberalism from early modernity onwards: first, that true freedom is freedom from any and all involuntary ties; and, second, that the recognition of the moral equality of all human beings is strictly incompatible with a hierarchically ordered society."
What is this "moral equality of all human beings"? The sadist is morally equal to the saint? The sexually promiscuous is morally equivalent to the monogamous? The murderer is morally equal to the minister? Or is this another way to refer to the "blank slate" fallacy?
I think you can 'steel man' the liberal argument a bit more than this. They would say "do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody". But their definition of hurt is immediate and short-term, and does not include the long-term undermining of the ties and bonds of a healthy society.
Brilliant reposte... I wonder what the answer to this will be.
However, now I'm getting the feeling that both men here are avoiding the brutal truth - there's parts of both in the other, and they hardly can exist without each other, and really dumb people exist.
Thank you all, thanks KK especially for being a conduit for this... I truly can't wait to see the debate.
This is just an aside, but I couldn't help but be struck by the idea that Dr Orr's analysis of freedom requiring limits was an excellent version of the argument for wearing protective masks under certain circumstances.
A thought I hesitated to post, as the topic is so politically freighted it may be asking for trouble even to make the remark.
British common law is much more freedom-based than Napoleonic law - one posits that you can do whatever you want, except for what's illegal, and the latter,... you can only do what we proscribe as being legal. But the anglo liberalism still relied on a certain 'noblesse oblige' of moral behaviour supporting a foundation of civil society. Post that, we now have decaying structures of amoral ambiguity and lesser / darker objectives.
Liberalism is a bell curve not a straight line from feudalism to utopia. It peaked in the early 00s. We’ve overshot. This is why end-stage liberalism is a form of conservatism… https://postwokepete.substack.com/p/pragmatic-liberalism
"Two central assumptions have animated liberalism from early modernity onwards: first, that true freedom is freedom from any and all involuntary ties; and, second, that the recognition of the moral equality of all human beings is strictly incompatible with a hierarchically ordered society."
What is this "moral equality of all human beings"? The sadist is morally equal to the saint? The sexually promiscuous is morally equivalent to the monogamous? The murderer is morally equal to the minister? Or is this another way to refer to the "blank slate" fallacy?
That's certainly where some post-modern philosophers have ended up. "Child sacrifice is OK, because it has meaning for them" sort of thinking.
I think you can 'steel man' the liberal argument a bit more than this. They would say "do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody". But their definition of hurt is immediate and short-term, and does not include the long-term undermining of the ties and bonds of a healthy society.
Brilliant reposte... I wonder what the answer to this will be.
However, now I'm getting the feeling that both men here are avoiding the brutal truth - there's parts of both in the other, and they hardly can exist without each other, and really dumb people exist.
Thank you all, thanks KK especially for being a conduit for this... I truly can't wait to see the debate.
Really enjoying this discussion, thank you.
This is just an aside, but I couldn't help but be struck by the idea that Dr Orr's analysis of freedom requiring limits was an excellent version of the argument for wearing protective masks under certain circumstances.
A thought I hesitated to post, as the topic is so politically freighted it may be asking for trouble even to make the remark.