Notes on Braving the New World (February 7th, 2005)
Chapter 6 –Classical Liberalism and Civil Society (Loren
Lomasky)—
Should the state regularize prostitution, drug use, define
marriage in a given way, what would be your response?
Where does individual freedom begin and end?
The principle liberal idea/ideal: individual persons have a
right not to be interfered with in their decisions about the
kind of life they wish to lead.
Do people know what is good for them? Do we all have the
same notion of what is harmful for others? Does liberalism
require a tacit consensus about what is good and what is
bad as far as limits of freedom are concerned?
Secondly, does liberalism then pursue individualistic ends
at the expense of familial, communal, religious ties, etc.?
What is the liberal response to such an accusation? They
argue that they regard the individual ‘embedded’, but they
do not impose upon the individual what forms of
embeddedness they should choose or embrace.
Classical liberalism is the theory of ‘minimal state, to
protect individual rights against ‘interna;’ or ‘external’
aggressors. It also offers a detailed account of political
justice built upon the premise of toleration of [religious and
other kinds of] difference. It refrains, at the outset, from the
prescription of a specific form of a good life. These ideals
can be read as lack of broader concerns for the society and
decentralization of questions of choice towards ‘common
good’. However, liberalism argues that individuals are the
fundamental bearers of moral status and they do not need
the community to impose upon them. Liberalism thus
believes in only two tenets, liberty, and, our equality to
enjoy that liberty.
How do we define rights? Life, liberty, and property are the
three most traditional cannons of liberalism. These are
defined in a negative way as they should NOT be interfered
with. Thus, traditional liberalism does not endorse positive
rights. Liberal individuals are thus sometimes characterised
as ‘minisovereigns’, normatively separated from each
other, only coming together if they have an overlapping
interest, and prescribing to a minimalistic account of
‘recommended forms of human sociability’. They are social
beings, but their sociality should not take away their
autonomy. Associations and forms of social behaviour is
key to the liberal ideal, but it is secondary importance to the
autonomy of the individual.
The key line of criticism against liberalism comes in the
form of the assertion that there are always power politics in
society and we are not starting from a point of equality.
Thus, remedial measures need to be taken to bring
everyone to the same level to enjoy the liberties purported
by liberalism.
There is also difference of opinion among liberal theorists
about the origin and nature of rights and liberties. Some
emphasise natural rights, others privilege the notion of
utility, yet others believe in the formation of a liberal
community by choice and human effort—known as the
social contract theory--. They also do not deny the inherent
‘partiality’ of individuals. Rights, in this sense, provide the
individual immunity from imposition upon them larger
forms of moral dictates that may limit their choice.
Liberalism thus also have serious problems with
majoritarianism. They favour voluntaristic associations and
forms of negotiation rather than set principles of political
conduct.
Would it be true that if people are simply left alone, they
would live happily ever after? What about the welfare state
and its redistributionist policies? What about intervention
when states or groups commit crimes against innocent
civilians?
Critics of liberalism, however, are more worried about the
limitation of capitalism and its global mindset than the
limitations proposed by the liberals upon the state.
Capitalist economics, they argue, robs people of their
individuality and of their sense of self-worth and value and
liberalism is blind to such concerns. Other critics, mainly of
communitarian persuasion, believe that there is something
inherently good and solid about communal values that need
to be protected and cherished as much as individual rights.
This latter discourse is accommodated within liberalism
under the heading of ‘group rights’.
The remaining question is, is the liberal ethos equally
hospitable to both market and non-market oriented conduct
and forms of association? Or is it simply an anecdote to
capitalist mode of thinking?
Chapter 7: Conservatism (Gerald Owen)
Are there still conservatives? What separates them from
reformers, neoliberals, third-way labour, new social
democrats?
--belief in the status quo and traditions
--adversity towards change
--a temperament of caution
--emphasis on communal norms and values and their
protection
--plutocracy
--evolution rather than revolution approach to politics
--belief in natural law and order
--propensity to support nationalism/patriotism
--gusto and a strong sense of populist support (they
represent the ordinary people although they themselves
hardly have ordinary origins)
--a mixed regime, favourin protection of past remnants
--very limited reliance on state intervention to protect the
vulnerable
--organic sense of society
--emphasis on purity of politics, norms, communities, etc.
By and large, it has been and remains as a reactionary
ideology and it is flexible and can accommodate other
ideologies as a survival strategy.
Is it a political persuasion rather than a clear cut ideology?