While reading your essay on liberality, I couldn't help but to compare what used to be called liberalism with the current version referred to as progressivism. Not much in common, same high standards expressed with words belied by hypocritical behavior. Some example: DNC sues to keep Kennedy off the ballot, then when he removes his name in 10 states sues to put it back because that might help them. Picks a candidate in a bacroom deal who has never won a single primary delegate while claiming to save Democracy.
Rank and file follow along voting their illusions, not realizing how far left from those illusions the party has gone. A candidate who may be historic if that is in fact a valid qualifier, while the running mate signed a bill allowing the state to pursue transgender surgery for minors opposed by that child's parents.
Old liberalism supported equality of opportunity, new liberalism wants equity of outcome, meritocracy be damned.
Sorry to go political on what was a well written theoretical essay.
This post was harder to understand than your norm. I struggled to interpret some sentences e.g. "The problem is not just that issues regarding which liberal norms require tolerance are often in fact not directly relevant to their decisions." The points you raise felt disconnected, with some feeling like they were unjustified. E.g. when I read "we now favor democracy over other forms of governance, for most types of orgs", I didn't know what you meant until I recalled "Yay Parliaments".
I suppose liberal comes from latin "homo liber"; free man. Liber is a book and has nothing to do not with free which would be gratis. A man of the book,that in English we translate as
free man" was originally only an educated man of property. Gradually one could earn homo liber status if one served out a military career when property was the "gold watch" of retiring with twenty + years.
In medieval days a homo liber, or liber "free man" was one who held slaves, or conquered others . Charlemagne, for instance, after gaining a considerable amount of conquered lands where he enforced rigid papist christianity he became holy roman emperor. When Pope Leo III acknowledged Charlemagne to be Holy Roman Emperor, Pope Leo III wrote "deo libere imperare elegit homines" (man chosen by God to rule others as a free man.)
In the development of the Eng. language liberal took on both positive and negative connotations. i.e/., the man gave liberally to others; or the man took liberally from others. In shakespeare we see a liberal woman as a prostitute. But usually misinterpreted today, in Much Ado Abut Nothing when Shakespeare writes""a liberal villaine" who "hath ... confest his vile encounters", in his using the common parlance for having raped a woman.
Today the Liberal party of England does espouse the free market and limited govt. policies you ascribe to American Libertarians.
Liberal, therefore is of questionable meaning and can sometimes mean amongst contemporary Am, Liberals to force certain policies upon everyone for the benefit of all; or to propose more benign behavioral policies designed to give a wider utilitarian benefit.
It seems weird to call banning incest suppressing the family. I agree with your general analysis though in the effects. There's always more to read into but obviously I'm curious how you'd say that we are becoming less liberal. It wouldn't be we are becoming more incestuous and I get the general perspective I just mean the mechanism. It almost sounds like mechanisms aren't actually mechanisms if something else dictates liberality.
hypothetical way. I enjoyed it. Problem is, that as a society electronic media has had a negative influence on the ability to read and comprehend essays of any length...to much work, but some ideas are just to complex for sound bytes.
While reading your essay on liberality, I couldn't help but to compare what used to be called liberalism with the current version referred to as progressivism. Not much in common, same high standards expressed with words belied by hypocritical behavior. Some example: DNC sues to keep Kennedy off the ballot, then when he removes his name in 10 states sues to put it back because that might help them. Picks a candidate in a bacroom deal who has never won a single primary delegate while claiming to save Democracy.
Rank and file follow along voting their illusions, not realizing how far left from those illusions the party has gone. A candidate who may be historic if that is in fact a valid qualifier, while the running mate signed a bill allowing the state to pursue transgender surgery for minors opposed by that child's parents.
Old liberalism supported equality of opportunity, new liberalism wants equity of outcome, meritocracy be damned.
Sorry to go political on what was a well written theoretical essay.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
I suspect this post was unusually poorly written, seeing as yours is the only comment. I've just confused most others.
This post was harder to understand than your norm. I struggled to interpret some sentences e.g. "The problem is not just that issues regarding which liberal norms require tolerance are often in fact not directly relevant to their decisions." The points you raise felt disconnected, with some feeling like they were unjustified. E.g. when I read "we now favor democracy over other forms of governance, for most types of orgs", I didn't know what you meant until I recalled "Yay Parliaments".
Typo: "conceepts"
I suppose liberal comes from latin "homo liber"; free man. Liber is a book and has nothing to do not with free which would be gratis. A man of the book,that in English we translate as
free man" was originally only an educated man of property. Gradually one could earn homo liber status if one served out a military career when property was the "gold watch" of retiring with twenty + years.
In medieval days a homo liber, or liber "free man" was one who held slaves, or conquered others . Charlemagne, for instance, after gaining a considerable amount of conquered lands where he enforced rigid papist christianity he became holy roman emperor. When Pope Leo III acknowledged Charlemagne to be Holy Roman Emperor, Pope Leo III wrote "deo libere imperare elegit homines" (man chosen by God to rule others as a free man.)
In the development of the Eng. language liberal took on both positive and negative connotations. i.e/., the man gave liberally to others; or the man took liberally from others. In shakespeare we see a liberal woman as a prostitute. But usually misinterpreted today, in Much Ado Abut Nothing when Shakespeare writes""a liberal villaine" who "hath ... confest his vile encounters", in his using the common parlance for having raped a woman.
Today the Liberal party of England does espouse the free market and limited govt. policies you ascribe to American Libertarians.
Liberal, therefore is of questionable meaning and can sometimes mean amongst contemporary Am, Liberals to force certain policies upon everyone for the benefit of all; or to propose more benign behavioral policies designed to give a wider utilitarian benefit.
It seems weird to call banning incest suppressing the family. I agree with your general analysis though in the effects. There's always more to read into but obviously I'm curious how you'd say that we are becoming less liberal. It wouldn't be we are becoming more incestuous and I get the general perspective I just mean the mechanism. It almost sounds like mechanisms aren't actually mechanisms if something else dictates liberality.
Also great article, sorry ppl are advertising their channels.
you made me think in a
hypothetical way. I enjoyed it. Problem is, that as a society electronic media has had a negative influence on the ability to read and comprehend essays of any length...to much work, but some ideas are just to complex for sound bytes.
Dick Minnis removingthecataract.substack.com
Still is. :)