I’ll have to read that Cofnas paper. I’ve had similar thoughts. We have less liberty and more social dysfunction because of an unwillingness to legally discriminate on the basis of certain traits. For example, no guns or drugs if you’re under 80 IQ might be a good rule, but high IQ people can have more freedom. Or maybe no guns if you’re an 18-27 year old male.
One point that I find frustrating is that people are very willing to draw a line at 16/18/21 and restrict legal rights on the basis of cognitive ability but they don’t even think it’s worthwhile to test the actual person. These distributions overlap massively. The arguments that progressives typically make about group discrimination apply to children. Basing everything on IQ or tests might be too far but the current arrangement seems unjust to me. Especially school.
Bo, maybe your personal tortured relationship with religion matters less than the relationship 99 other people have with it. Staying within your liberal frame of "what religion is the best fit for me" you can change it slightly to "How can I best help my neighbor's religion". There are different types of people and some really resonate with mythic and supernatural relationships with religions. And if you look back in our history there are many intellectuals with much different relationships with God and religion that where nonetheless parts of the broader religious community.
There was a framing to "what do you want, Monarchy?" that I find interesting. It seems to hint at a "we need a solution that will work for everyone and make everything better." A different framing is wanting a solution for ~20% of people that can live better intergenerational lives if they collectivize and build their own institutions that stand between them and other outsider institutions.
I think the move away from classical liberalism in many corners of the political right is actually quite troubling. Part of the trouble is how it is now being characterized as some kind of "culture-less culture", or a universal solvent that dissolves culture. It is as if classical liberalism were defined by, or inexorably tended toward, the Tocquevillian dystopia of a society composed of atomized individuals overseen by the state. Although there is that trend going on now to be sure, it is by no means an intrinsic feature, and historical contingency could have seen things play out differently. Or perhaps the story of classical liberalism isn't over, and we are pronouncing an early death when this is more of an interlude? Who knows...
But do we really want to do away with classical liberal principles like voluntary association, free speech, rule of law, and the general presumption that the state stays out of your business unless there is a compelling need to interfere? One need not be a naive libertarian to appreciate this, I think.
I’ll have to read that Cofnas paper. I’ve had similar thoughts. We have less liberty and more social dysfunction because of an unwillingness to legally discriminate on the basis of certain traits. For example, no guns or drugs if you’re under 80 IQ might be a good rule, but high IQ people can have more freedom. Or maybe no guns if you’re an 18-27 year old male.
One point that I find frustrating is that people are very willing to draw a line at 16/18/21 and restrict legal rights on the basis of cognitive ability but they don’t even think it’s worthwhile to test the actual person. These distributions overlap massively. The arguments that progressives typically make about group discrimination apply to children. Basing everything on IQ or tests might be too far but the current arrangement seems unjust to me. Especially school.
Bo, maybe your personal tortured relationship with religion matters less than the relationship 99 other people have with it. Staying within your liberal frame of "what religion is the best fit for me" you can change it slightly to "How can I best help my neighbor's religion". There are different types of people and some really resonate with mythic and supernatural relationships with religions. And if you look back in our history there are many intellectuals with much different relationships with God and religion that where nonetheless parts of the broader religious community.
There was a framing to "what do you want, Monarchy?" that I find interesting. It seems to hint at a "we need a solution that will work for everyone and make everything better." A different framing is wanting a solution for ~20% of people that can live better intergenerational lives if they collectivize and build their own institutions that stand between them and other outsider institutions.
Audio issue at 56 min
Great conversation as always.
I think the move away from classical liberalism in many corners of the political right is actually quite troubling. Part of the trouble is how it is now being characterized as some kind of "culture-less culture", or a universal solvent that dissolves culture. It is as if classical liberalism were defined by, or inexorably tended toward, the Tocquevillian dystopia of a society composed of atomized individuals overseen by the state. Although there is that trend going on now to be sure, it is by no means an intrinsic feature, and historical contingency could have seen things play out differently. Or perhaps the story of classical liberalism isn't over, and we are pronouncing an early death when this is more of an interlude? Who knows...
But do we really want to do away with classical liberal principles like voluntary association, free speech, rule of law, and the general presumption that the state stays out of your business unless there is a compelling need to interfere? One need not be a naive libertarian to appreciate this, I think.