User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The Myth of Liberalism

  1. #1
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    The Myth of Liberalism

    Continuing with the irrationality of liberalism, what looks like an interesting book, The Myth of Liberalism. With consideration that contemptory liberalism and conservatism are both liberal, it makes more sense.

    When I first looked into this insightful book of John Safranek titled The Myth of Liberalism, I was struck by the introductory sentence that he cites from Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. It is indeed one of those short, pithy statements that tells us, in a few words, what the book is about. In reflecting back over these lines, we realize that what is laid down for our consideration is the basis for the truth of what is proposed. It does explain what our contemporaries are systematically determined to impose on our private and public lives. The book explains how, in their own minds at least, contemporary scholars and jurists justify what they relentlessly promote. Yet, what they present and argue—this is the book’s value—cannot really be valid. The book goes into great detail to explain why no settled proof of liberal propositions is ever found.

    This book essentially maintains that the many sequential “justifications” of contemporary liberalism, on careful examination, are simply incoherent. Their basic “self-evident” propositions always require corrections. These recurrent flaws make the justifications less than evident, self or otherwise. They cannot sustain themselves before reason, whatever rationale that they offer for their on-going claim that they do make sense, at least to themselves. Indeed—and this is what the book is about—the ever new “reasons,” designed to replace or supplement the previous inadequate ones, are also continually rejected as inconsistent with reason. Each last “reason given” could not itself be substantiated.

    ...The initial passage from Hegel reads as follows: “The right of the subject’s particularity, his right to be satisfied, or, in other words, the right of subjective freedom, is the pivot and center of the difference between antiquity and modern times.” What does this sentence tell us? First, we are each subjects. We are each “particular,” not generic, beings. So far, Aquinas would have no problem with Hegel’s formulation. The word “right” means that our particularity belongs solely to us; no one, not even God, can interfere with it. We can only give it to ourselves. It is not a gift. It is a “right.” What constitutes the essence or foundation of this “right”?

    A “right” is a claim against others, what they “owe” us because of what we say that we are. We thus have a general “right” to be “satisfied.” If we are not “satisfied,” someone is violating our dignity, our “right” to our unique particularity. The “right” to be satisfied is but another way of saying that we have a “right” to our “subjective freedom.” That is, no one else, nothing else, can interfere with what we freely desire. It is the sole “absolute” in a world of no absolutes. Every moral, political, and social issue comes back to this principle. Desire is what constitutes our “particular” being and grounds our freedom. If we freely “desire” it, we have a “right” to it.

    Finally, we are told that this “subjective freedom” constitutes the difference between classic/medieval and modern times. Classic/medieval freedom was based on reason, logos, not desire, on what is, not on will. Freedom is based on reason, not desire....

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Points: 34,652, Level: 45
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 798
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points
    midcan5's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    71955
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    5,953
    Points
    34,652
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    1,333
    Thanked 2,497x in 1,841 Posts
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That excerpt is an interesting example of word salad and BS, gobbledygook in a word. It is as if you entered a fantasyland in which you create meaning out of concepts that only make sense to the author. What the heck does 'If we freely “desire” it, we have a “right” to it' mean for instance. Is that his liberalism? If so he is alone in the world. And I love sequential 'justifications' that's a real beaut. And corrections ain't a bad thing.

    What you find here is an ideologue who feels it necessary to diminish something he doesn't like, but is too dishonest to just say so in plain English, so you enter a pretend serious place where jargon and shoptalk reign. Check who supports these sites, the Federalist for instance is an Olin dark money creation for conservative lawyers. That would be fine except once you enter, it is required you all sing the same tune.

    One factor today is corporations and the wealthy want control, when they get it they fail as the great depression and great recession demonstrated but even then history gets re-written as it was so quickly after GR. See 'Dark Money'

    https://thefederalist.com/author/john-safranek/


    'Liberalism is not dead – its ideals are more important than ever – but it must change radically to survive in the future'

    http://aeon.co/magazine/society/why-...way-to-govern/


    "All modern markets are the creation of government institutions which provide media of exchange, transparency guarantees, stable real estate and intellectual property, corporate law, courts, etc. Markets are the creatures of government: whining about "intervention" while overlooking "creation" is not seeing the forest for the trees." Mike Huben

    "Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government."

    "The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer


    "Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron
    Wanna make America great, buy American owned, made in the USA, we do. AF Veteran, INFJ-A, I am not PC.

    "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." Voltaire

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to midcan5 For This Useful Post:

    del (06-09-2017)

  5. #3
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by midcan5 View Post
    That excerpt is an interesting example of word salad and BS, gobbledygook in a word. It is as if you entered a fantasyland in which you create meaning out of concepts that only make sense to the author. What the heck does 'If we freely “desire” it, we have a “right” to it' mean for instance. Is that his liberalism? If so he is alone in the world. And I love sequential 'justifications' that's a real beaut. And corrections ain't a bad thing.

    What you find here is an ideologue who feels it necessary to diminish something he doesn't like, but is too dishonest to just say so in plain English, so you enter a pretend serious place where jargon and shoptalk reign. Check who supports these sites, the Federalist for instance is an Olin dark money creation for conservative lawyers. That would be fine except once you enter, it is required you all sing the same tune.

    ...

    Gold star, you're exactly right. It's meaningless as an ideology. It being liberalism. The author was presenting the liberal view in order to criticize it.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts