When Did Classic Liberalism Die?
Following on the heels of yesterday’s much debated column on the civil war among the Republicans, we clearly had far too many liberals feeling smug and self-satisfied to let it stand. With that in mind, I would like to present the companion piece, published today at Pajamas Media, titled, “The Modern Left Abandons Classic Liberalism.” In this piece I take a look at some of the best, most noble aspects of classic liberalism and the positive impact it has had on American society, as well as how this ideology – when taken to an extreme – can be as bad as any other when it goes totally off the rails.
For those who don’t like to follow links, allow me to include here a brief excerpt to whet your appetite.
I’ve long felt that many of the core tenets of classical liberalism were the better angels which are needed to glare over the shoulder of sound conservatism, preventing the excesses which can result from extremism in either direction. Classic liberalism realizes that there exists a proper function of government to temporarily protect and support the weakest and most vulnerable among us when disaster strikes. It understands that unchecked power can and will be used to the detriment of those who have been historically oppressed without the protection of a big brother. It is willing to open the public purse, where appropriate, to ensure that the needs of the many are met while still providing opportunity for the energetic few. It holds a heartfelt conviction — this one really sticks in the craw of modern conservatives who crow at length about American exceptionalism — that peace is always preferable to war.
Unfortunately, experience has taught us that each philosophy, when taken to the apparently unavoidable, absurd extreme, can turn into a pox upon us all. Each and every time we hand unchecked Washington power to a liberal majority, it winds up being akin to giving the car keys to a drunken teenager. While your noble intentions may have been to ensure that everyone had a good time and an adequate supply of beer, the family car inevitably winds up in the ditch and the best we can hope for is that everyone manages to crawl away without serious injury.
Please take a moment to read the entire column, particularly if you were taking part in yesterday’s debate on conservatism, and continue the discussion here from this reverse angle.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
55 Responses to “When Did Classic Liberalism Die?”
” I have yet to find a “middle class” nation without positive rights(mainly healthcare/educational),
Many people have private education (or home-schooling, as leftist Thom Hartmann has done with at least one child, after moving earlier from public to private education, and still being dissatisfied), and of course most people have private-sector health care, have nothing in this area given to them as a positive “right” (claim or benefit or entitlement).
“I think what DLS wants people to think “
You would be mistaken again, but that's not the first time for my antagonists and critics.
* * *
“You need the implicit guarentee of government/group force to protect a right or it isn't really a right.”
That's not true. The right itself exists independently from any decision to use force to protect it.
“How do I get the gray rectangle behind a block quote, like Leonidas often uses?”
I may be mistaken, but the last time I looked, Disqus has no easily and promptly accessible page or page portion that lists what can be done and how to do it, with comments. (It's a more general topic to what extent the designers of many such technical things are detached from the real world, or socially inept, and are highly impractical or just don't conceive of designing user interfaces with the user in mind!)
So I will take that to mean that you do not have any example countries for me to look at, k.
I disagree.
Try exercising your freedom of speech right now. Go ahead and do it.
See? Exercising your freedom of speech just now didn't require any coercion or threat of coercion on your part.
Now try exercising your right to health care, which in modern day usage implies that you have a right to obtain health care services even if you cannot pay for the services. Just imagine how you would go about exercising this right. You would either have to coerce the health care provider into providing these services, or you would have to have a third party pay for these services under the threat of coercion.
I completely agree with you that rights are theoretical. Obviously, the distinction between negative freedoms and positive freedoms means nothing to a society that does not recognize freedom.
However, assuming that one believes in the abstract concept of freedom, there is a very obvious distinction between negative freedom and positive freedom, and that is that the former does not require coercion or the threat of coercion while the latter does.
You seem preoccupied with the act of government stepping in to protect an individual's rights. I maintain that in the case of negative rights, the government does not step in to give or grant you your rights. It merely protects an existing right. I exercise my negative rights every single day of my life without coercing or threatening coercion towards anyone. It is only in the rare circumstances in which someone is intolerant enough to initiate force against me. It is only at that time–only after someone has initiated force (or threatened the use of force against me) that the government may act.
This is very different from a positive freedom in which someone somewhere must be coerced into sacrificing their negative freedom in order to grant another person's positive freedom.