"Classical Liberals"

[Swammerdami]

The "liberal" vs "liberal" issues under debate in this thread — including equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome — were being discussed in the early 18th century.

Are the following prescriptions for helping the hungry poor a fair example of the difference in thinking between Classical Liberals and Progressive Liberals? :— Progressives would tax the rich so government can help the poor. Classicals want to minimize government so would depend on private charity or human instincts to feed the hungry.

In Kandiaronk's utopia — where it is inconceivable that the hungry wouldn't be fed — there is wealth inequality, but the means of production are community-owned. Thus people can be somewhat rich, but cannot amass great power. In Kandiaronk's view. it is money and the amassing of great power which ruin the humane feelings of freedom and generosity.

I have started reading The Dawn of Everything / A New History of Humanity by Davids Graeber and Wengrow. I'm reading it slowly to savour it. The book offers its own look at the "Age of Enlightenment" associated with Classical Liberalism. Checking the index, I see very scant mention of Locke, Smith or any of the "big names" in Enlightenment except Rousseau. But the book gives great attention to Kandiaronk, a Chief of the Huron Amerindians. He was so respected as thinker and orator that during the 1690's he frequently dined with the French Governor of Quebec. His thinking was published by Lahontan (a French nobleman); these books became best-sellers. (Just as Galileo did in his Dialog on heliocentrism, Lahontan set his books as dialogs between Kandiaronk and himself to distance himself from heretical thought.)

Voltaire's L'Ingénu built on Lahontan's Kandiaronk, using a fictional French-Huron half-breed to ridicule French government and church.

Early in their discussion of Kandiaronk, the Davids review the notion of "schismogenesis." I was intrigued by the following, and wondered if it might often apply to me!

Imagine two people getting into an argument about some minor political disagreement but, after an hour, ending up taking positions so intransigent that they find themselves on completely opposite sides of some ideological divide — even taking extreme positions they would never embrace under ordinary circumstances, just to show how much they completely reject the other’s points. They start out as moderate social democrats of slightly different flavours; before a few heated hours are over, one has somehow become a Leninist, the other an advocate of the ideas of Milton Friedman.

Some debates steer in the opposite way: a flaming right-winger pretending to have moderate social democrat views. But two moderates disagreeing over a detail until they appear on opposite sides of the political divide resonates too! I suspect some posts by me could be found approaching Leninist and others Friedmanist!

 

[Trausti]

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".

Exactly! Creating a level playing field ensures equality of opportunity. It does not ensure equality of outcomes, nor is it meant to.

The problem comes when inequality of outcome is used as proof of inequality of opportunity.

Inequality of opportunity is statistically linked with inequality of outcome, and not just in the field of education.

No matter how much opportunity you give, few, if any, of us can run faster than Usain Bolt.

 

[Trausti]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

How do you come up with such inanity?

You apparently believe in inherited guilt.

That inane strawman does not answer my question unless you are claiming you have a genetic predisposition to inanities.

Please explain why that’s a good thing.

I don’t know why anyone would think that nor why anyone thinks it has anything to do with AA.

It is you, not me, who seems to advocate that skin hue should determine privileges in society. The rest us say treat everyone as individuals.

 

[laughing dog]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

How do you come up with such inanity?

You apparently believe in inherited guilt.

That inane strawman does not answer my question unless you are claiming you have a genetic predisposition to inanities.

Please explain why that’s a good thing.

I don’t know why anyone would think that nor why anyone thinks it has anything to do with AA.

It is you, not me, who seems to advocate that skin hue should determine privileges in society. The rest us say treat everyone as individuals.

Not only is that wrong, but completely unresponsive to the issue of inherited guilt and its relationship to AA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The beneficiaries are not the victims.

Nonsense.

Who?

The one getting an advantage in college and medical school admissions haven't been denied admissions previously.

So?

Don't say "blacks"--that's a group.

So?

In other words, you have no defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize those different starting blocks are simply compensation for the inherent issue of the curvature of the track? You don't see varying starting blocks on a straight track. They are compensating for the very issue created by the track, not for any outside supposed discrimination.

Yes, I do. Those different starting blocks are compensation for the inherent issue of the curvature of the track. That's the analogy.

The track they created. They're undoing the issue they caused. A clearly measured issue.

The universities didn't cause any differences in society, nor can those differences be clearly measured. Basically all attempts to measure it do a truly horrible job of accounting for confounding factors.

 

[Trausti]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

How do you come up with such inanity?

You apparently believe in inherited guilt.

That inane strawman does not answer my question unless you are claiming you have a genetic predisposition to inanities.

Please explain why that’s a good thing.

I don’t know why anyone would think that nor why anyone thinks it has anything to do with AA.

It is you, not me, who seems to advocate that skin hue should determine privileges in society. The rest us say treat everyone as individuals.

Not only is that wrong, but completely unresponsive to the issue of inherited guilt and its relationship to AA.

AA treats people differently because of the color of their skin. But you knew that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".

Exactly! Creating a level playing field ensures equality of opportunity. It does not ensure equality of outcomes, nor is it meant to.

The problem comes when inequality of outcome is used as proof of inequality of opportunity.

Inequality of opportunity is statistically linked with inequality of outcome, and not just in the field of education.

Which does not prove inequality of outcome is caused by inequality of opportunity. Nor does it prove that inequality of opportunity is caused by factors under government control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not only is that wrong, but completely unresponsive to the issue of inherited guilt and its relationship to AA.

Our Constitution prohibits inherited guilt.

 

[Jarhyn]

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".

Exactly! Creating a level playing field ensures equality of opportunity. It does not ensure equality of outcomes, nor is it meant to.

The problem comes when inequality of outcome is used as proof of inequality of opportunity.

Inequality of opportunity is statistically linked with inequality of outcome, and not just in the field of education.

Which does not prove inequality of outcome is caused by inequality of opportunity. Nor does it prove that inequality of opportunity is caused by factors under government control.

Some of the inequality of opportunity is feeding inequality of outcome. Do you really think I would be where and what I am today if I had stayed in a pit of squalor? No! I would be DEAD! Or brain damaged. Or abused like my brother was.

I would have been a broken, drooling husk... Or something far more dangerous and evil.

That opportunity, for me as an adoptable infant, was provided specifically because of government intervention and child protective services. Which is a factor under government control.

I have at least one data point that says you are wrong.

Many other kids avoided similar fates because at least the government lifted them up a little.

 

[laughing dog]

The beneficiaries are not the victims.

Nonsense.

Who?

The one getting an advantage in college and medical school admissions haven't been denied admissions previously.

So?

Don't say "blacks"--that's a group.

So?

In other words, you have no defense.

On the contrary, your claim that benefiaries of AA are not necessarily victims of racism is idiotic.

 

[laughing dog]

Not only is that wrong, but completely unresponsive to the issue of inherited guilt and its relationship to AA.

Our Constitution prohibits inherited guilt.

Why are you and Trausti babbling about inherited guilt?

 

[laughing dog]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

How do you come up with such inanity?

You apparently believe in inherited guilt.

That inane strawman does not answer my question unless you are claiming you have a genetic predisposition to inanities.

Please explain why that’s a good thing.

I don’t know why anyone would think that nor why anyone thinks it has anything to do with AA.

It is you, not me, who seems to advocate that skin hue should determine privileges in society. The rest us say treat everyone as individuals.

Not only is that wrong, but completely unresponsive to the issue of inherited guilt and its relationship to AA.

AA treats people differently because of the color of their skin. But you knew that.

Still waiting to you to connect how what the fuck that has to do with inherited guilt. And then add how AA determines privilege in society.

 

[bilby]

Not only is that wrong, but completely unresponsive to the issue of inherited guilt and its relationship to AA.

Our Constitution prohibits inherited guilt.

That's hardly shocking for a document outlining how a nation of slaveowners and their property would be constituted.

The thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth afterthoughts notwithstanding, it's hardly an exemplar of the moral treatment of all humans, and was certainly written with the idea in mind that some humans in the USA didn't count as people. Maybe 3/5 of a person.

 

[Derec]

Our Constitution prohibits inherited guilt.

That's hardly shocking for a document outlining how a nation of slaveowners and their property would be constituted.

Are you suggesting "inherited guilt" is somehow a good or moral thing?

And do you hold that value universally, or just in regard to white people?

 

[Derec]

I argued that classical liberalism was a progressive force at the time when it opposed formal privileges determined by birth and divine right that were in effect, but now it is a conservative one because it resists going beyond the point it has fought for and largely achieved in some countries: equality before the law for everyone.

"Going beyond" in this case is going backward, i.e. putting groups above individuals again. So-called "modern liberalism" is rather reactionary in that regard.

 

[Trausti]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

How do you come up with such inanity?

You apparently believe in inherited guilt.

That inane strawman does not answer my question unless you are claiming you have a genetic predisposition to inanities.

Please explain why that’s a good thing.

I don’t know why anyone would think that nor why anyone thinks it has anything to do with AA.

It is you, not me, who seems to advocate that skin hue should determine privileges in society. The rest us say treat everyone as individuals.

Not only is that wrong, but completely unresponsive to the issue of inherited guilt and its relationship to AA.

AA treats people differently because of the color of their skin. But you knew that.

Still waiting to you to connect how what the fuck that has to do with inherited guilt. And then add how AA determines privilege in society.

Que pasa? AA treats people differently based on skin color and you don't think that has anything to do with inherited guilt or societal privilege?

 

[Trausti]

I argued that classical liberalism was a progressive force at the time when it opposed formal privileges determined by birth and divine right that were in effect, but now it is a conservative one because it resists going beyond the point it has fought for and largely achieved in some countries: equality before the law for everyone.

"Going beyond" in this case is going backward, i.e. putting groups above individuals again. So-called "modern liberalism" is rather reactionary in that regard.

Probably correct to say that any political theory that negates the individual in favor of groups in inherently anti-liberal.

 

[Hermit]

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".

Exactly! Creating a level playing field ensures equality of opportunity. It does not ensure equality of outcomes, nor is it meant to.

The problem comes when inequality of outcome is used as proof of inequality of opportunity.

Inequality of opportunity is statistically linked with inequality of outcome, and not just in the field of education.

No matter how much opportunity you give, few, if any, of us can run faster than Usain Bolt.

 

[Hermit]

You realize those different starting blocks are simply compensation for the inherent issue of the curvature of the track? You don't see varying starting blocks on a straight track. They are compensating for the very issue created by the track, not for any outside supposed discrimination.

Yes, I do. Those different starting blocks are compensation for the inherent issue of the curvature of the track. That's the analogy.

The track they created. They're undoing the issue they caused. A clearly measured issue.

The universities didn't cause any differences in society, nor can those differences be clearly measured. Basically all attempts to measure it do a truly horrible job of accounting for confounding factors.

OK, so just drop the idea of creating level playing fields, right?