Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
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!
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!
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!