Sargon: Five False Assumptions of Liberalism
(www.lotuseaters.com)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
He's coming around slowly, but surely.
Spez: This spurred an interview with Carl by Auron.
He drifts a little further right every year.
He'll be a full on tradcon before long.
I was with him there for a long time. However in talking about systems and politics, the one thing underpinning it all is biology. Once you really internalize the biological issues of modern society, then there is no turning back into a moderate.
Did he used to be leftist or something? I just started listening to their podcast and he said something like that.
He was one of those who back in the mid-2010s called himself a "classical liberal," but he's gone on a bit of a philosophical journey since then. My major bone of contention with him was his embrace of utilitarianism, so I was glad to hear him come out recently and basically renounce that.
Sounds like someone just drifting in the tide.
When society is caught in a rip current this powerful, making it anywhere at all is a victory.
He used to consider himself a "classical liberal" and still says he "defaults" to that position but no longer considers that a hard philosophical position.
Reading between the lines, I think he's looking for pragmatic ways to make classical liberal assumptions hold to the maximum extent possible.
I think he's developed a much more complete world view where freedom has to be accompanied by responsibility. The free-er you are, the more responsible you are for maintaining your own moral standards.
The next step is understanding who can thrive under freedom… and who cannot.
That's a really good point. Some people are definitely sheep that need to be led, and most of it because they were never made to grow up in a nanny-state society.
He's also pointed out that you're never really free from hierarchy or responsibility. As a "free man" he's obligated to his wife, children, and community.
And they are obligated to you. Well said.
I'm listening to bits and pieces of it, but so far it's a good exposition of his points from the article.
Classical Liberalism only works when you have a culturally homogenous society.
Correct. If you're going to make it work, you need a sort of "right wing 'classical liberalism'" that is capable of maintaining the population necessary to make classical liberalism's assumptions hold.
A state without borders isn't a state at all. I refer not only the US's porous border but also to reckless free trade policy and the primary allegiance shared by many to a foreign state, or even to a vague idea of humanity-as-a-state. Something has to bind a people. They have to be able to identify their own to maintain cohesion.
Even that isn't enough in my opinion. Not only a homogenous society but a ethno/racial state that explictly bans outsider ethinics & races from power.
It must also be a patriarchy, explictly banning women from power.
While Classical Liberalism has to allow freedom of religion, it must not go all in on secularism. There should be a state religion in a nation's constitution while allowing freedom of religion to the citicizens, this establishes the religious ethos of the state and helps keep out secular philophies that are basically religions in their own right (Marxism, "Following The Science", etc.)
There should be seperation of powers, and checks & balances similar to the United States government, though I would argue even the USA needs even more checks & balances than it already has. And this leads to neatly to my last point.
There should be an electoral college for all 3 major executive offices, meaning the presidency on the federal level, governorships on the state level and mayors on the local level. If an electoral college is needed on the federal level to keep highly populated states from running roughshod over the rights of other states, then an electoral college is needed on the state level to keep highly populated localities from running roughshod over the rights of the whole state and localities need an electoral college to keep highly populated semi-localities from running roughshod over the rights of the whole locality. It is absolutely dumb to argue for the need of a republic to hold back the worst tendences of democracy on the federal level, but then ignore that for the state level & local level.
What's a semi-locality?
An indivdiual area of a locality. Which I know can sound weird, cause alot of localities are small and it seems odd to divide them. But think about places like New York City or Chicago, big localities with many different semi-localities.
mr. liberalist