Most of that isn't true. Liberalism is neither hostile to social norms nor social expectations. Liberalism only requires that the state is not the imposer of those social expectations by taking the place of god and morality, which it can't be.
Liberalism isn't trying to manifest a civil society and maintain it, it instead allows the civil society to exist without the state seeking to fundamentally destroy it.
Frankly, if you remove the state from imposing the elites moral standards, it means the population's own moral standards will be emergent.
The entire justification for limiting the state stems from it being considered a barrier to individual freedom. If you are seeking to maximize individual freedom, you inevitably end up conflicting with social norms.
Individual freedom from tyranny, not from existence. That's why Rousseau goes off into pure illiberalism when he starts screaming about even bodily constraints of the mind being a form of repression. Liberalism doesn't see gravity as oppression. Individual freedom is what allows you to morally order yourself in the society you are in. Meaning you'll end up co-operating with, or even building, social norms for you and your community. Liberalism allows you to actually engage in a moral order, rather than having a tyrant proscribe morality at the point of a gun, while himself abiding by no morals at all.
What do you do when societal norms are "sexist" and "racist" then, i.e. businesses refusing to have blacks or women or whatever as workers or customers?
What do you do when societal norms are "sexist" and "racist"
No idea what these means. Honestly, it means basically anything.
. businesses refusing to have blacks or women or whatever as workers or customers?
Do something different with your business. This is what happened for centuries before the Civil Rights movement. What would always basically happen is that racial discrimination laws were typically local. They'd be enacted when there was an influx of migrants (of whatever group), and would normally be repealed within 40 years at the local level as those groups had completely integrated by that time.
Yours doesn't serve whites? Great, mine does. If you're my neighbor? I'll tell you that's dumb and silly. If we're good neighbors, and my moral ordering is right, I should be able to convince you something about my moral framework while I'm living it. Especially over the next 4 decades.
Most of that isn't true. Liberalism is neither hostile to social norms nor social expectations. Liberalism only requires that the state is not the imposer of those social expectations by taking the place of god and morality, which it can't be.
Liberalism isn't trying to manifest a civil society and maintain it, it instead allows the civil society to exist without the state seeking to fundamentally destroy it.
Frankly, if you remove the state from imposing the elites moral standards, it means the population's own moral standards will be emergent.
The entire justification for limiting the state stems from it being considered a barrier to individual freedom. If you are seeking to maximize individual freedom, you inevitably end up conflicting with social norms.
Individual freedom from tyranny, not from existence. That's why Rousseau goes off into pure illiberalism when he starts screaming about even bodily constraints of the mind being a form of repression. Liberalism doesn't see gravity as oppression. Individual freedom is what allows you to morally order yourself in the society you are in. Meaning you'll end up co-operating with, or even building, social norms for you and your community. Liberalism allows you to actually engage in a moral order, rather than having a tyrant proscribe morality at the point of a gun, while himself abiding by no morals at all.
K
What do you do when societal norms are "sexist" and "racist" then, i.e. businesses refusing to have blacks or women or whatever as workers or customers?
No idea what these means. Honestly, it means basically anything.
Do something different with your business. This is what happened for centuries before the Civil Rights movement. What would always basically happen is that racial discrimination laws were typically local. They'd be enacted when there was an influx of migrants (of whatever group), and would normally be repealed within 40 years at the local level as those groups had completely integrated by that time.
Yours doesn't serve whites? Great, mine does. If you're my neighbor? I'll tell you that's dumb and silly. If we're good neighbors, and my moral ordering is right, I should be able to convince you something about my moral framework while I'm living it. Especially over the next 4 decades.