I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
If you click on the date of the post (upper right corner of the box), your window will go to the URL for that post. You can then copy the URL and put it in a link.
Two things to note: First, if the post was posted on the same day that you’re posting, you’ll see a time instead of a date. That’s still what you click on. (And remember the time/date is determined by where you are. Someone elsewhere in the world may see something different. If, when a post was posted, it was May 5 where you are, but it was still May 4 where another shipmate is, you’re going to see the date as May 5 while they’ll see it as May 4.)
And second, at least on Apple products, if I right click on the date to open in a new tab, I get taken to the top of the page the post is on rather than to the post itself. But the URL is still the URL for the specific post and should still work if put in a link.
And have they flourished in terms of workers' rights, conditions, hours or pay?
Well. Standards of living have increased enormously since I was a kid growing up in South East Asia. (About 40 years ago). Everyone used to have maid servants to help with cooking and house work etc. Now only the rich can afford them.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
19th century liberalism was compounded of two strands, an economic liberalism with no government-enforced monopolies, free trade, etc; and a liberalism of rights, comprising freedom of conscience, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and so on.
Modern libertarianism maybe still combines the two. Modern liberalism tends more to the four freedoms approach to liberty: freedom of worship or conscience, freedom of speech, freedom from want, freedom from fear.
Freedom of speech is a tricky one. In most jurisdictions there is no right to tell damaging lies about other people, or at least not if the other people can afford libel lawyers; and people don't generally think of that as authoritarian. That said, anti-libel laws can be and are abused by people who can afford to threaten law suits.
Freedom of speech is indeed a tricky one. It's the hot button issue.
And have they flourished in terms of workers' rights, conditions, hours or pay?
Well. Standards of living have increased enormously since I was a kid growing up in South East Asia. (About 40 years ago). Everyone used to have maid servants to help with cooking and house work etc. Now only the rich can afford them.
Can you explain how the first statement is supported by the second? Normally something that everyone used to be able to afford becoming the preserve of the rich only is a sign of declining living standards for the majority.
Although your "everyone" there would appear to exclude the maid servants themselves.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
I think you're confusing liberal democracy with libertarianism. If a democratically elected government imposes regulations then those regulations form part of liberal democracy, barring any regulations that strike directly at the heart of liberalism, unless those regulations are inherently illiberal.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
If you click on the date of the post (upper right corner of the box), your window will go to the URL for that post. You can then copy the URL and put it in a link.
Two things to note: First, if the post was posted on the same day that you’re posting, you’ll see a time instead of a date. That’s still what you click on. (And remember the time/date is determined by where you are. Someone elsewhere in the world may see something different. If, when a post was posted, it was May 5 where you are, but it was still May 4 where another shipmate is, you’re going to see the date as May 5 while they’ll see it as May 4.)
And second, at least on Apple products, if I right click on the date to open in a new tab, I get taken to the top of the page the post is on rather than to the post itself. But the URL is still the URL for the specific post and should still work if put in a link.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
I think you're confusing liberal democracy with libertarianism. If a democratically elected government imposes regulations then those regulations form part of liberal democracy, barring any regulations that strike directly at the heart of liberalism, unless those regulations are inherently illiberal.
Again this comes down to definitions doesn't it? As always?
My understanding of a liberal democracy was the a government was always limited, especially in terms of civil rights. That was the point. Freedom in general as @Dafyd mentions above.
But yes you're right as I've also said above, if the government is elected to do certain things that constrain freedoms then indeed it would be operating under its mandate.
But when do things become illiberal as you say? It seems to be a fine line that the article I mentioned in the OP is taking about, both from the left and the right.
"Democratic backsliding" seems to be the term these days and is being applied to a number of countries that are in theory, liberal democracies.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
I think you're confusing liberal democracy with libertarianism. If a democratically elected government imposes regulations then those regulations form part of liberal democracy, barring any regulations that strike directly at the heart of liberalism, unless those regulations are inherently illiberal.
Again this comes down to definitions doesn't it? As always?
My understanding of a liberal democracy was the a government was always limited, especially in terms of civil rights. That was the point. Freedom in general as @Dafyd mentions above.
But yes you're right as I've also said above, if the government is elected to do certain things that constrain freedoms then indeed it would be operating under its mandate.
But when do things become illiberal as you say? It seems to be a fine line that the article I mentioned in the OP is taking about, both from the left and the right.
"Democratic backsliding" seems to be the term these days and is being applied to a number of countries that are in theory, liberal democracies.
A regulation that, for example, you cannot force someone to work 80 hours for tuppence an hour and insist they buy all their groceries from a shop you own is decidedly liberal - the freedom you are denying a would-be exploitative employer is less than the freedom you are granting potential employees from effective slavery.
Illiberal might be, for example, banning a particular religion from building places of worship on the grounds of their belonging to that religion.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
Only if you are a libertarian (in which case you don't believe in liberal democracy so-called anyway).
Another significant aspect is inequality. But I do think it's the end of the line for liberalism, and about time. Roll on post-liberalism (if we're lucky).
Since you appear to be welcoming this, what exactly do you mean by liberalism in this case? I know there are some differences in meaning, depending on where in the world one is located. How would you distinguish it from “liberal democracy“ or for that matter “liberal politics“ as understood in the United States (liberal as contrasted with conservative)?
"Liberal" and "democracy" are two different things. Democracy isn't inherent to liberalism - it's more-or-less compatible, but the combination has given rise to a particular conception of what modern societies look like, and how they function.
My understanding is that there's a distinction between social liberalism and classical liberalism, in that social liberalism allows for more government intervention.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience. My guess is that it's a corrective to historically draconian punishments for saying the wrong thing about the wrong person at the wrong time.
Also, returning to individualism, modern libel laws illustrate to me the extent to which freedom of speech has become wrapped up in an ideological expression of individualism.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing
So what, you think everyone would be better off and happier if they were only allowed to say the things the government permits them to say?
I think you’re overstating the case, Marvin, and the purpose and intent of what is said must be considered. At the very minimum, inflammatory and hateful speech must be prohibited and falsehoods, like shouting “Fire” in the cinema when there is no fire cannot be allowed.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing
So what, you think everyone would be better off and happier if they were only allowed to say the things the government permits them to say?
Assuming society needs a centralised form of government, why would it need to get involved in the mediation of speech?
I think this place is a fairly straightforward example of a community where freedom of speech is curtailed for the common good.
Representative government within a multiparty system
Rule of Law
Separation of powers to limit government
Protection of rights and civil liberties
See, this I definitely believe in. Is also the definition of “liberal democracy” that I’m used to. I absolutely do not want us (the countries that have it) to lose that.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience.
OK, so what are you thinking of as the prevailing view and what are you talking about with it being inane?
“Liberal” (and I’m still not sure what you mean by that) and “democracy” are indeed not automatically conjoined—which is why a good combination of the two is, I believe, a good thing. There can be mob rule which is decidedly illiberal, for example, which is why having strong laws preventing certain things (the majority legally oppressing a minority group, for instance, or torturing prisoners of war, etc.) is a good idea—even if a majority of voters wanted to go down that path.
C. S. Lewis said that he was a democrat (in the sense of democracy) not because everyone was so good and wise they deserved a share in the government (he said he wasn’t sure he even deserved to run a hen-house), but that all of us were so fallen that no one could be trusted with absolute power. I agree with that. Democracy as, not an intrinsic good like food, but a corrective, like medicine.
Of course we’re also dealing with concentrations of power in terms of wealth, whether in individuals or corporations, and how to deal with that while preserving human rights and freedoms (in at least one sense of “liberal,” but not necessarily all) is one of the things which can be tricky.
I also believe that, while there are important issues related to the “common good,” how far the government should or should not, or even should be allowed or disallowed to intervene, and in what ways, can also be tricky (as I’ve said on the tobacco thread).
I’m tempted to say that we currently face at least two perils (in my view) on both the “right” and the “left” in terms of dangers to liberty, freedom, and rights, but again, that doesn’t mean that “common good” issues are irrelevant. Perhaps it’s like another passage of Lewis’ — that the devil likes to send us errors in opposing pairs, to rely on our dislike of one to send us rushing into the other.
We are back in the same thing as before - individual vs collective freedoms. No one must restrict my freedom to fuck things up for everyone, because my individual precious freedom is the most important thing in the world ever. Because it is. So there.
I guess it depends on whether you think the “collective freedoms” will be ones with which you agree or not, especially if you’ll have sacrificed the “individual freedom” to openly disagree with what they are.
To take just one example: a century or so ago, the “individual freedoms” side of the coin was the one arguing that homosexuality should be legal, and ever since then the individual freedom to love whomever you wish has become more and more recognised in law, regardless of those who believe that it’s to the detriment of society as a whole.
Individual freedoms are what allow people to deviate from societal norms without being punished for it. I’ve always thought that was a good thing in and of itself. These days it feels like a lot of the people I thought were with me in opposing punishing people for deviating from the norm were actually in favour of doing so, they just wanted to change the norm to something more to their liking. It’s disappointing.
When the persecution or scapegoating of a group is stopped that gives a collective freedom - freedom for that whole group. It's more than individual freedom, it covers everybody affected in that class or group. It's not something individuals have to apply for or ask for an exception for.
Stopping the persecution or scapegoating of marginalised groups is a group thing but it also increases freedom for individuals within the targeted groups.
However there's a counter- movement where people want the scapegoating and harming of groups to continue or restart by crying 'individual freedom' to persecute and representing persecuting as a protected characteristic and persecutory speech as 'free speech'.
This actually affects the freedom and well being of lots of people- entire groups are targeted by such people who often align with very powerful and moneyed persecuting interests and the whole time they cry about 'individual freedom' when they are either creating or sustaining conditions where many individuals are going to get robbed of their freedom and pursuit of happiness just because of which groups they happen innocently to be born into or circumstances they cannot prevent.
And such folk obsessed with 'individual freedom' frequently cry up a storm about 'government' - usually conveniently forgetting where their clean water, clean air, work regulations, consumer regulations, public health and other infrastructure come from - you know - all the reasons we're not living in the proverbial nasty short and brutish 'state of nature' - because either they dont want to pay taxes so everyone can have both nice and essential things or because it's spoiling their fun and sense of superiority by hindering their persecution of whatever group they think it's their God given right to persecute or look down on.
Changing the norm to free more and more groups of people is good. Crying 'individual freedom' to bring back the persecuting and harming and neglecting that harms so many people, not so much.
My freedom depends on others and depends on the health and attitudes of the society I live in - its infrastructure and the way it takes care of its people. There's no such thing as individual freedom worth having without social responsibility and thinking of others and their well being. The two are intimately linked but individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
I think you're confusing liberal democracy with libertarianism. If a democratically elected government imposes regulations then those regulations form part of liberal democracy, barring any regulations that strike directly at the heart of liberalism, unless those regulations are inherently illiberal.
Again this comes down to definitions doesn't it? As always?
My understanding of a liberal democracy was the a government was always limited, especially in terms of civil rights. That was the point. Freedom in general as @Dafyd mentions above.
But yes you're right as I've also said above, if the government is elected to do certain things that constrain freedoms then indeed it would be operating under its mandate.
But when do things become illiberal as you say? It seems to be a fine line that the article I mentioned in the OP is taking about, both from the left and the right.
"Democratic backsliding" seems to be the term these days and is being applied to a number of countries that are in theory, liberal democracies.
A regulation that, for example, you cannot force someone to work 80 hours for tuppence an hour and insist they buy all their groceries from a shop you own is decidedly liberal - the freedom you are denying a would-be exploitative employer is less than the freedom you are granting potential employees from effective slavery.
Illiberal might be, for example, banning a particular religion from building places of worship on the grounds of their belonging to that religion.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
Only if you are a libertarian (in which case you don't believe in liberal democracy so-called anyway).
No. Liberal democracy believes in the limitation of government on personal freedoms.
C. S. Lewis said that he was a democrat (in the sense of democracy) not because everyone was so good and wise they deserved a share in the government (he said he wasn’t sure he even deserved to run a hen-house), but that all of us were so fallen that no one could be trusted with absolute power. I agree with that. Democracy as, not an intrinsic good like food, but a corrective, like medicine
Another significant aspect is inequality. But I do think it's the end of the line for liberalism, and about time. Roll on post-liberalism (if we're lucky).
Since you appear to be welcoming this, what exactly do you mean by liberalism in this case? I know there are some differences in meaning, depending on where in the world one is located. How would you distinguish it from “liberal democracy“ or for that matter “liberal politics“ as understood in the United States (liberal as contrasted with conservative)?
"Liberal" and "democracy" are two different things. Democracy isn't inherent to liberalism - it's more-or-less compatible, but the combination has given rise to a particular conception of what modern societies look like, and how they function.
My understanding is that there's a distinction between social liberalism and classical liberalism, in that social liberalism allows for more government intervention.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience. My guess is that it's a corrective to historically draconian punishments for saying the wrong thing about the wrong person at the wrong time.
Also, returning to individualism, modern libel laws illustrate to me the extent to which freedom of speech has become wrapped up in an ideological expression of individualism.
If you're moving toward the "common good", in restricting Freedoms, you are naturally moving away from a liberal democracy. Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Like I said, this happens both on the left and the right. The extremes of which are communism ( on the left) and facism ( on the right). But really, they're the same thing pretty much.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing
So what, you think everyone would be better off and happier if they were only allowed to say the things the government permits them to say?
Assuming society needs a centralised form of government, why would it need to get involved in the mediation of speech?
I think this place is a fairly straightforward example of a community where freedom of speech is curtailed for the common good.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment.
Another significant aspect is inequality. But I do think it's the end of the line for liberalism, and about time. Roll on post-liberalism (if we're lucky).
Since you appear to be welcoming this, what exactly do you mean by liberalism in this case? I know there are some differences in meaning, depending on where in the world one is located. How would you distinguish it from “liberal democracy“ or for that matter “liberal politics“ as understood in the United States (liberal as contrasted with conservative)?
"Liberal" and "democracy" are two different things. Democracy isn't inherent to liberalism - it's more-or-less compatible, but the combination has given rise to a particular conception of what modern societies look like, and how they function.
My understanding is that there's a distinction between social liberalism and classical liberalism, in that social liberalism allows for more government intervention.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience. My guess is that it's a corrective to historically draconian punishments for saying the wrong thing about the wrong person at the wrong time.
Also, returning to individualism, modern libel laws illustrate to me the extent to which freedom of speech has become wrapped up in an ideological expression of individualism.
If you're moving toward the "common good", in restricting Freedoms, you are naturally moving away from a liberal democracy. Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Like I said, this happens both on the left and the right. The extremes of which are communism ( on the left) and facism ( on the right). But really, they're the same thing pretty much.
I don't think you really understand the history and development of liberal democracy. Nobody, including John Stuart Mill, ever described a state where there are no boundaries to behaviour. Therefore the discussion is not whether there are any in a liberal democracy but where the lines should be drawn.
The way you frame the discussion is incredibly disingenuous.
But you're keen for more taxes on the wealthy, maybe UBI and government control on the press.
Can you point to where @Arethosemyfeet advocating government controlling the press? But perhaps this is a reading where any regulation at all is control, and it's now illegal to make plans with your friends.
I don't know how to link to a post. Further up on May 5th.
More regulation is fine if that's what you want. You just have to realise you're moving away from a liberal democracy.
You don't have to realise anything of the sort, unless you believe the only possible concentrations of power worth worrying about is the government.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
Only if you are a libertarian (in which case you don't believe in liberal democracy so-called anyway).
No. Liberal democracy believes in the limitation of government on personal freedoms.
Private persons don't have an inherent right to a megaphone of infinite size. As @Basketactortale says above, your ideas of liberalism and liberal democracy seem incoherent.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
For example in a practical example, in a theoretical conference someone is thrown out for saying publicly that women should not be accepted as professional equals because they are only there for DEI, they are incompetent and anyway reduce opportunities for talented white men.
It is not "illiberal" to refuse to tolerate this kind of bigotry.
And yes, this is a situation I have actually witnessed.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Ok fine. Please go to Germany and tell them that their laws against anti-Nazi symbols and phrases means that somehow they're not a liberal democracy.
These things protect liberal democracy, they do not undermine it.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Ok fine. Please go to Germany and tell them that their laws against anti-Nazi symbols and phrases means that somehow they're not a liberal democracy.
I could do so without lying, certainly.
Freedom of speech (as long as you have the right ideas) is, for me, in the same category as freedom to love who you want (as long as they’re the right sex) or freedom to choose any colour (as long as it’s black). Which is to say, not freedom at all.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Ok fine. Please go to Germany and tell them that their laws against anti-Nazi symbols and phrases means that somehow they're not a liberal democracy.
I could do so without lying, certainly.
Freedom of speech (as long as you have the right ideas) is, for me, in the same category as freedom to love who you want (as long as they’re the right sex) or freedom to choose any colour (as long as it’s black). Which is to say, not freedom at all.
Banning Nazism is, in that analogy, akin to laws against incest and child marriage.
There's three aspects of freedom of speech. One is political: the right to criticise the government or check the government's statements or otherwise speak truth to and about power without reprisal.
The other two are communal: the right to offer, defend, or criticise any opinions or hypotheses; and the right of all people to participate in debates about those opinions. The problem we're dealing with here comes when some participants offer opinions that other participants should be effectively excluded from debate - especially on the basis of identity rather than opinion.
@WhimsicalChristian I'm surprised by your statement that the Enlightenment was wrong despite the fact that you claim to be very much in favour of liberal democracy - which very much has the Enlightenment as a parent. Surely if you believe that people are inherently not decent, you shouldn't trust them with a more libertarian form of government? I don't believe that but I'm just following the logic of your argument. I don't think you can get liberal democracies without the Enlightenment.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom. For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Ok fine. Please go to Germany and tell them that their laws against anti-Nazi symbols and phrases means that somehow they're not a liberal democracy.
I could do so without lying, certainly.
Freedom of speech (as long as you have the right ideas) is, for me, in the same category as freedom to love who you want (as long as they’re the right sex) or freedom to choose any colour (as long as it’s black). Which is to say, not freedom at all.
@Marvin the Martian, I’m not aware of any country, liberal democracy or otherwise, that has absolute, completely unfettered freedom of speech. Even in the US, where freedom of speech is viewed as one of the most fundamental rights and is constitutionally protected, there are limits and there is speech that is deemed outside constitutional protection. As far as I know, the question is always where the line should be drawn, not whether there should be a line to start with.
Is it your position that there should never be any lines at all? Is there any country you can point to as an example of a liberal democracy that in your opinion “does” free speech correctly?
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Ok fine. Please go to Germany and tell them that their laws against anti-Nazi symbols and phrases means that somehow they're not a liberal democracy.
I could do so without lying, certainly.
Freedom of speech (as long as you have the right ideas) is, for me, in the same category as freedom to love who you want (as long as they’re the right sex) or freedom to choose any colour (as long as it’s black). Which is to say, not freedom at all.
I'm going to have to stop reading this because your incoherence is making me angry.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
That’s what I mean by freedom of speech.
Look, we’ve got to have laws, or society just won’t function. But the only fair way to create those laws in a free society is via democratic means whereby everyone is free to state their case, and whichever case wins the day via a free and fair election becomes the law. But - and this is the important bit - that process never stops. Everybody stays free to state their case, and we hold regular elections so that changes in societal opinion can become reflected in the law. Nobody gets to decide that once they’ve got the laws they want in place then the freedoms and processes that enabled them to do so should just be removed so that nobody can ever change those laws again. It’s wrong when they try to do it by getting rid of the free and fair elections, and it’s also wrong when they try to do it by getting rid of the freedom for everybody to state their case in the first place.
So, for example, I don’t think people should be able to discriminate against other people on the basis of [protected characteristic], because that is against the laws that we as a society have decided to live by. But I do think they should be free to state their belief that those laws are wrong, to campaign for their repeal, and to put that option to the electorate at elections.
And, frankly, I hope not one other person votes for them or their twisted, hate-filled agenda, against which I will gladly campaign. But that’s not the same as thinking it should be banned or prevented from appearing on the ballot paper at all.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
But it's a difference without a distinction, in practice. It's not just about a difference of opinion but people seeking to harm others in material ways.
Comments
Two things to note: First, if the post was posted on the same day that you’re posting, you’ll see a time instead of a date. That’s still what you click on. (And remember the time/date is determined by where you are. Someone elsewhere in the world may see something different. If, when a post was posted, it was May 5 where you are, but it was still May 4 where another shipmate is, you’re going to see the date as May 5 while they’ll see it as May 4.)
And second, at least on Apple products, if I right click on the date to open in a new tab, I get taken to the top of the page the post is on rather than to the post itself. But the URL is still the URL for the specific post and should still work if put in a link.
/Tangent
Well. Standards of living have increased enormously since I was a kid growing up in South East Asia. (About 40 years ago). Everyone used to have maid servants to help with cooking and house work etc. Now only the rich can afford them.
Well that's precisely what a stear away from liberal democracy is, be it left or right.
Freedom of speech is indeed a tricky one. It's the hot button issue.
Can you explain how the first statement is supported by the second? Normally something that everyone used to be able to afford becoming the preserve of the rich only is a sign of declining living standards for the majority.
Although your "everyone" there would appear to exclude the maid servants themselves.
Having maid servants isn't generally considered an "essential" so I'm not sure it would count as a decline in living standards.
I think you're confusing liberal democracy with libertarianism. If a democratically elected government imposes regulations then those regulations form part of liberal democracy, barring any regulations that strike directly at the heart of liberalism, unless those regulations are inherently illiberal.
Thank you @Nick Tamen
Again this comes down to definitions doesn't it? As always?
My understanding of a liberal democracy was the a government was always limited, especially in terms of civil rights. That was the point. Freedom in general as @Dafyd mentions above.
But yes you're right as I've also said above, if the government is elected to do certain things that constrain freedoms then indeed it would be operating under its mandate.
But when do things become illiberal as you say? It seems to be a fine line that the article I mentioned in the OP is taking about, both from the left and the right.
"Democratic backsliding" seems to be the term these days and is being applied to a number of countries that are in theory, liberal democracies.
A regulation that, for example, you cannot force someone to work 80 hours for tuppence an hour and insist they buy all their groceries from a shop you own is decidedly liberal - the freedom you are denying a would-be exploitative employer is less than the freedom you are granting potential employees from effective slavery.
Illiberal might be, for example, banning a particular religion from building places of worship on the grounds of their belonging to that religion.
That’s an interesting way of looking at it.
How do we know the maid servants' living conditions have improved?
Indeed. Luxuries - ie non-essentials - are the first thing people cut down on when feeling the pinch. They're quite a sensitive barometer.
Only if you are a libertarian (in which case you don't believe in liberal democracy so-called anyway).
My understanding is that there's a distinction between social liberalism and classical liberalism, in that social liberalism allows for more government intervention.
Just addressing freedom of speech, I find the concept underlying the prevailing view somewhat inane, and not inherently compatible with promoting the common good or flourishing, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing (which is all of us) knows from experience. My guess is that it's a corrective to historically draconian punishments for saying the wrong thing about the wrong person at the wrong time.
Also, returning to individualism, modern libel laws illustrate to me the extent to which freedom of speech has become wrapped up in an ideological expression of individualism.
So what, you think everyone would be better off and happier if they were only allowed to say the things the government permits them to say?
I strongly disagree.
I think this place is a fairly straightforward example of a community where freedom of speech is curtailed for the common good.
Including the good of all those who have been banned or who have left because of moderation policy?
If your definition of common good only includes those who agree with you then it’s not exactly “common”, is it?
If you want to talk about the Ship's moderation policy, take it to the Styx please.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
See, this I definitely believe in. Is also the definition of “liberal democracy” that I’m used to. I absolutely do not want us (the countries that have it) to lose that.
OK, so what are you thinking of as the prevailing view and what are you talking about with it being inane?
“Liberal” (and I’m still not sure what you mean by that) and “democracy” are indeed not automatically conjoined—which is why a good combination of the two is, I believe, a good thing. There can be mob rule which is decidedly illiberal, for example, which is why having strong laws preventing certain things (the majority legally oppressing a minority group, for instance, or torturing prisoners of war, etc.) is a good idea—even if a majority of voters wanted to go down that path.
C. S. Lewis said that he was a democrat (in the sense of democracy) not because everyone was so good and wise they deserved a share in the government (he said he wasn’t sure he even deserved to run a hen-house), but that all of us were so fallen that no one could be trusted with absolute power. I agree with that. Democracy as, not an intrinsic good like food, but a corrective, like medicine.
Of course we’re also dealing with concentrations of power in terms of wealth, whether in individuals or corporations, and how to deal with that while preserving human rights and freedoms (in at least one sense of “liberal,” but not necessarily all) is one of the things which can be tricky.
I also believe that, while there are important issues related to the “common good,” how far the government should or should not, or even should be allowed or disallowed to intervene, and in what ways, can also be tricky (as I’ve said on the tobacco thread).
I’m tempted to say that we currently face at least two perils (in my view) on both the “right” and the “left” in terms of dangers to liberty, freedom, and rights, but again, that doesn’t mean that “common good” issues are irrelevant. Perhaps it’s like another passage of Lewis’ — that the devil likes to send us errors in opposing pairs, to rely on our dislike of one to send us rushing into the other.
To take just one example: a century or so ago, the “individual freedoms” side of the coin was the one arguing that homosexuality should be legal, and ever since then the individual freedom to love whomever you wish has become more and more recognised in law, regardless of those who believe that it’s to the detriment of society as a whole.
Individual freedoms are what allow people to deviate from societal norms without being punished for it. I’ve always thought that was a good thing in and of itself. These days it feels like a lot of the people I thought were with me in opposing punishing people for deviating from the norm were actually in favour of doing so, they just wanted to change the norm to something more to their liking. It’s disappointing.
Stopping the persecution or scapegoating of marginalised groups is a group thing but it also increases freedom for individuals within the targeted groups.
However there's a counter- movement where people want the scapegoating and harming of groups to continue or restart by crying 'individual freedom' to persecute and representing persecuting as a protected characteristic and persecutory speech as 'free speech'.
This actually affects the freedom and well being of lots of people- entire groups are targeted by such people who often align with very powerful and moneyed persecuting interests and the whole time they cry about 'individual freedom' when they are either creating or sustaining conditions where many individuals are going to get robbed of their freedom and pursuit of happiness just because of which groups they happen innocently to be born into or circumstances they cannot prevent.
And such folk obsessed with 'individual freedom' frequently cry up a storm about 'government' - usually conveniently forgetting where their clean water, clean air, work regulations, consumer regulations, public health and other infrastructure come from - you know - all the reasons we're not living in the proverbial nasty short and brutish 'state of nature' - because either they dont want to pay taxes so everyone can have both nice and essential things or because it's spoiling their fun and sense of superiority by hindering their persecution of whatever group they think it's their God given right to persecute or look down on.
Changing the norm to free more and more groups of people is good. Crying 'individual freedom' to bring back the persecuting and harming and neglecting that harms so many people, not so much.
My freedom depends on others and depends on the health and attitudes of the society I live in - its infrastructure and the way it takes care of its people. There's no such thing as individual freedom worth having without social responsibility and thinking of others and their well being. The two are intimately linked but individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Or an illiberal policy might be banning smoking
No. Liberal democracy believes in the limitation of government on personal freedoms.
The point is they are no longer maid servants for everyday households. The role was generally taken on by the poor so they could earn a wage.
They no longer do that. They have other means of employment because of the rise of the middle class due to economic prosperity.
I didn't know that. What a legend.
If you're moving toward the "common good", in restricting Freedoms, you are naturally moving away from a liberal democracy. Because you are defining what the "common good" is and forcing others to comply with your views.
Like I said, this happens both on the left and the right. The extremes of which are communism ( on the left) and facism ( on the right). But really, they're the same thing pretty much.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment.
I don't think you really understand the history and development of liberal democracy. Nobody, including John Stuart Mill, ever described a state where there are no boundaries to behaviour. Therefore the discussion is not whether there are any in a liberal democracy but where the lines should be drawn.
The way you frame the discussion is incredibly disingenuous.
Private persons don't have an inherent right to a megaphone of infinite size. As @Basketactortale says above, your ideas of liberalism and liberal democracy seem incoherent.
Yes, exactly. And when anyone else does exactly the same thing (with a different definition of “common good”, of course) they cry fascism, authoritarianism, persecution.
No. Theres a dramatic difference on the one hand of a group who are interested in limiting others options and freedom; and on the other hand limiting people who want to limit others freedom.
Pretending that these are the same is also disingenuous.
It is not "illiberal" to refuse to tolerate this kind of bigotry.
And yes, this is a situation I have actually witnessed.
Not allowing people to openly state what they believe and/or seek to convince or persuade others to agree with them IS limiting their freedom, and in a far more fundamental way than simply making certain acts or actions illegal, because in the latter case the people affected are at least free to campaign for the laws to be changed.
Ok fine. Please go to Germany and tell them that their laws against anti-Nazi symbols and phrases means that somehow they're not a liberal democracy.
These things protect liberal democracy, they do not undermine it.
I could do so without lying, certainly.
Freedom of speech (as long as you have the right ideas) is, for me, in the same category as freedom to love who you want (as long as they’re the right sex) or freedom to choose any colour (as long as it’s black). Which is to say, not freedom at all.
Banning Nazism is, in that analogy, akin to laws against incest and child marriage.
The other two are communal: the right to offer, defend, or criticise any opinions or hypotheses; and the right of all people to participate in debates about those opinions. The problem we're dealing with here comes when some participants offer opinions that other participants should be effectively excluded from debate - especially on the basis of identity rather than opinion.
Caring for others naturally limits our (general our) freedom. For instance, some people cannot be named in news articles for legal reasons - for example, to protect the anonymity of domestic abuse victims. Should a newspaper editor be able to endanger a domestic abuse victim by publishing their name?
Is it your position that there should never be any lines at all? Is there any country you can point to as an example of a liberal democracy that in your opinion “does” free speech correctly?
I'm going to have to stop reading this because your incoherence is making me angry.
That’s as maybe, but I don’t think people should be forced to care for others whether they want to or not.
Not while it’s against the law, no. But I certainly think that in a free and democratic society they should be able to campaign for that law to be changed or repealed, and if enough people agree then it shall be so.
That’s what I mean by freedom of speech.
Look, we’ve got to have laws, or society just won’t function. But the only fair way to create those laws in a free society is via democratic means whereby everyone is free to state their case, and whichever case wins the day via a free and fair election becomes the law. But - and this is the important bit - that process never stops. Everybody stays free to state their case, and we hold regular elections so that changes in societal opinion can become reflected in the law. Nobody gets to decide that once they’ve got the laws they want in place then the freedoms and processes that enabled them to do so should just be removed so that nobody can ever change those laws again. It’s wrong when they try to do it by getting rid of the free and fair elections, and it’s also wrong when they try to do it by getting rid of the freedom for everybody to state their case in the first place.
And, frankly, I hope not one other person votes for them or their twisted, hate-filled agenda, against which I will gladly campaign. But that’s not the same as thinking it should be banned or prevented from appearing on the ballot paper at all.
But do *you* think that law should be repealed? It clearly infringes on the freedom of speech of the newspaper editor, after all.
Did you miss the rest of my post, where I explained the difference?
But it's a difference without a distinction, in practice. It's not just about a difference of opinion but people seeking to harm others in material ways.