|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sounds good. Though it should be noted that people are always motivated by self-interest instead of usually.
I think the jury of neuroscientists is still out on that. There are certainly convincing arguments for it.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not sure what they're going for here. I do not believe that people have a right to "use of reason", "respect of others' choices and decisions", or "political equality" (whatever that is). "Rights" are things that individuals have between themselves and the government. Like I have the right for government to not tell me what I can or cannot say.
The interaction between individual and individual regarding rights like speech is super complex. The quoted tenet goes far enough to say that the rights are between individual and individual instead of between individual and government. The tenet implies that I can stop you from saying something I don't want you to say. This is antithetical to what the "rights" really are.
I would think these are originally meant to more describe the interactions between the government and the people. Liberalism is a political ideology rather than a moral guideline, though I'm sure in many cases there's overlap. Freedom of speech means that you have a right to say anything you want that is not specifically made illegal (libel, slander, property rights etc), without fear of prosecution or censorship. It definitely does not mean that individuals have a right to stop others from exercising their right. They are not mandated to like what is said, and they do have a right to respond and criticize.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Same as the above, and I'll add that, it's the government that has to respect your religious practice, not me. I can disrespect your religion as much as I want. The only thing I can't do is obstruct your private property that you use to practice your religion.
Exactly. These are about the interactions with the government. It means that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers of other faiths. I don't know what they mean about individuals respecting other people's religion, but I think it just boils down to them having a right to practice their beliefs, which would perhaps restrict you from obstructing that. I know many countries have limitations to freedom of speech when it comes to disrespecting religion. In the US defamation (including libel and slander) is not protected by the 1st amendment, so that would for example limit your right to disrespect someone's religion.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't see anything concrete here.
I think the key here is democracy, over monarchy and other forms of government. Remember these were thought up in the 17th and 18th century.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Rights of individuals and majority rule are contradictions in terms. This contradiction in terms is very difficult to solve for, because that which government has power to intervene on is not a "right" anymore and becomes about majority rule (when democratic). The only way I can think of to solve this problem is to prohibit government intervention into the space itself. That creates rights for individuals that cannot be overturned by a majority.
Sure.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm down with less (*fewer) restrictions on how people use their private property, but not down with government encouraging it. Government should stay out of it, not select any winners or losers.
I would say that a free market economy implies competition, but not equal opportunity for all. Equal opportunity is a not a reasonable thing, it's not real, it's not something that would benefit people to pursue. A free market economy instead implies optimal opportunity given individual circumstances. And those will never be equal nor should we want them to be.
It means the right to own property, not what people should or can do with it. Government selecting winners and losers is certainly not a liberalist tenet, I'm not sure it's anyone's apart from corporate lobbyists. I don't think John Locke had in mind the government enforcing equal opportunity to all, that would certainly not be reasonable. I think he meant ensuring that the government treats everyone equally, not favoring anyone, thereby defending equal opportunity.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This tenet states that people are the same then states ways people are not the same.
I don't think things like differences in cultures are throwaways. They're big, big deals.
I'll add that this last tenet shines of the core mistake that characterizes "the left" well these days: the idea that people are fundamentally good. No, people are not fundamentally good. Some people will give you the shirt off their backs, others will stab you in the back. Some cultures will revert you to the stone age, others will take you to the moon.
It's kind of like saying the black and white rooks in chess are the same, except for the color. It definitely doesn't state that cultural differences are throwaways, or that people are fundamentally good.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thanks for the list.
No problem, I think this was a fun exercise. The liberal values are what made America, you guys have literally been the champion of liberalism for a couple centuries. That's why it's curious to note the recent backlash against it (or rather some modern bastardized definition of it) there. I think if I had posted that list under the heading the tenets of free market capitalism or something, you would have found far less to criticize in them. It seems like you're more trying to attack some idea of liberalism you have than what is actually written.
|
Reply With Quote
