Your three principles of liberalism don’t place any practical restraints on the boundedness of your liberalism, that I can see, since “freedom” needs to be interpreted. For a Muslim, freedom can be the ultimate freedom of heaven that one enjoys after following the Quran. Only a woman who is physically subjugated can ever be truly free. For a fascist, freedom can be the safety from an internal existential threat.
Concretely, liberalism isn’t faced with a serious threat from people who have a slightly different account of natural rights. The threat comes from people on the left who believe that Reason itself is wrought with contradictions and corrupted by power. That people of privilege lack the ability to understand certain moral facts. The threat from the right is the idea that people have proven themselves unable to live well with this much independence, and need to be forced to be good Christians. And an external threat from Islam that wants us to give in completely to the clerics.
I’d want an account of bounded liberalism to provide a practical solution to at least one of these threats.
The boundaries that survive are the ones drawn before the moment they are needed, by people other than the ones they are about to stop. Germany wrote a few articles of its constitution that no majority is allowed to amend, for exactly this reason.
How far ahead of the fight does the line have to be drawn, and by whom, for it still to be there when the fight arrives?
Well said. The fundamental problem with the article is it deliberately whiffs, and quite badly (multiple times) on actually stating what the "bounds" actually are. It just says they exist, or ought to exist, and that people should decide for themselves. That pretty quickly collapses right back to "anything goes," just with extra steps.
I think bounded pluralism is necessary for a society however it doesn’t solve the core problem that the elements of society that are “illiberal” are the ones that actually teach people how to make decisions. Against the goal freedom is mot just making your decisions but making the correct or good decision. This has to be learned through many different institutions. So supplanting societal or communal freedom does a better job of resolving the issues with liberalism.
Collaboration is our superpower as a species. It's lot easier to collaborate if we understand & appreciate our different capabilities, experiences, and values.
Your three principles of liberalism don’t place any practical restraints on the boundedness of your liberalism, that I can see, since “freedom” needs to be interpreted. For a Muslim, freedom can be the ultimate freedom of heaven that one enjoys after following the Quran. Only a woman who is physically subjugated can ever be truly free. For a fascist, freedom can be the safety from an internal existential threat.
Concretely, liberalism isn’t faced with a serious threat from people who have a slightly different account of natural rights. The threat comes from people on the left who believe that Reason itself is wrought with contradictions and corrupted by power. That people of privilege lack the ability to understand certain moral facts. The threat from the right is the idea that people have proven themselves unable to live well with this much independence, and need to be forced to be good Christians. And an external threat from Islam that wants us to give in completely to the clerics.
I’d want an account of bounded liberalism to provide a practical solution to at least one of these threats.
The boundaries that survive are the ones drawn before the moment they are needed, by people other than the ones they are about to stop. Germany wrote a few articles of its constitution that no majority is allowed to amend, for exactly this reason.
How far ahead of the fight does the line have to be drawn, and by whom, for it still to be there when the fight arrives?
Well said. The fundamental problem with the article is it deliberately whiffs, and quite badly (multiple times) on actually stating what the "bounds" actually are. It just says they exist, or ought to exist, and that people should decide for themselves. That pretty quickly collapses right back to "anything goes," just with extra steps.
I think bounded pluralism is necessary for a society however it doesn’t solve the core problem that the elements of society that are “illiberal” are the ones that actually teach people how to make decisions. Against the goal freedom is mot just making your decisions but making the correct or good decision. This has to be learned through many different institutions. So supplanting societal or communal freedom does a better job of resolving the issues with liberalism.
「何でもあり」に堕ちず、 「ここから先は排除する」にも固着せず、 境界を引きながら、その境界さえ疑い続けることは可能か。
さらに言えば、
多元主義とは「多くの答えを許す思想」なのではなく、 自分が引いた境界を永久に正しいと思わないための修行なのではないか。
ここでは、自由主義の問題だったものが、いつの間にか自己の問題へ反転してきます。
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my face."
Collaboration is our superpower as a species. It's lot easier to collaborate if we understand & appreciate our different capabilities, experiences, and values.
"Rough Consensus & Running Code"