This essay is the first in a projected multi-part series on the nature and meaning of a free society. More specifically, my goal is to recover, reclaim, refortify, and restore the principles and institutions of what I variously call Enlightenment liberalism, Lockean liberalism, classical liberalism, the founders’ liberalism, the old liberalism, or true liberalism. By “true” liberalism, I am obviously suggesting that there is a false liberalism masquerading for the real thing.
There is a basic inconsistency in these "postmodern" pundits: They say there are no absolutes; but they proclaim their ideas as though they are absolute truths, and anyone who does not accept them is a pariah. They say there is no such thing as good or evil; but if you cross them, they declare you evil. They are unable to live by their own doctrines, which is a pretty good indicator that their doctrines are false.
Brad, I'm looking forward to this series. You say in the introduction "In the end, I am offering an exhortation and defense of the true liberal ideal." The true liberal ideal primarily needs championing, not defending. This may on the surface be a minor detail but I think it's an important strategic distinction as we need to play offense (=champion) to win this war. It's the enemies of the true liberal ideal that should be on the defense, having a ~6,000 year miserable track record of collectivism to answer for, whether of the welfare statist, authoritarian, or totalitarian kind. Cheers!
Looking forward to the series. I heard you were writing a follow up to America's Revolutionary Mind. I bought a copy when that one came out and was looking for the next. I understood it was going to be on the Constitution. True?
Thanks, Brad, a great essay. Please channel your insights to Judge Narragansett in Galt's Gulch. Last I heard, he was re-writing the Constitution. He could use your help.
>Postmodern (non-Nietzschean) nihilism is the cultural means by which the political goal of socialism is to be achieved
Yaron Brook recently said that Leftists are not communists, but nihilists. I think that communism is a means to nihilism. They hate reality and retreat to an impossible mystical ideal. When it fails, their nihilism will be obvious even to them.
> American intellectuals turned against the principles of the Declaration of Independence in the five decades between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of World War I.
In Sweet Land Of Lliberty, Objectivist(?) HM Holzer says the Supreme Court rejected individualism for collectivism very soon after the Constitution was accepted.
> Maybe—just maybe—the founders’ mistake was to think such truths are self-evident.
In your Am Rev Mind, you said that self-evident truths in the Enlightenment were relative to an intellectual context. OK, that has some validity. But re Aristotelian self-evidence of perception, this is a confusing use of the self-evident. Now you accept Aristotle's basic self-evidence. Plea
"I should like to begin the process of reconsidering and rebuilding those principles and institutions in order to complete philosophically the political revolution of 1776. This is my goal."
Regarding the reactionary theory that what we have is the ultimate harvest of the Enlightenment rather than a digression from it: I want very much to believe that, but can’t help noticing that you vigorously *deny* that claim, but do not (yet?) *rebut* it. I hope to see something more substantive later.
Our greatest good used to be that we were all free to pursue our own greatest good within the broad constraints of the law. But now, our greatest good is supposedly in adhering to authoritarian pronouncements by the state in order to 'stay safe.'
It's the same thing with climate change: this is essentially pseudoscience yet it's being used to justify necessary state control.
We're headed towards totalitarianism justified by necessary actions to stay safe from climate catastrophe (which change leads, supposedly, to the emergence of new diseases.) How will we avoid this? My answer is that we must understand that there's no climate emergency at all. This isn't unrelated to your concerns: we can have all the philosophy and reason and logic we want to but if people believe the planet will burn up without necessary state dictates, then we can throw philosophy out the window. Stay safe will be the order of the day.
In my view, this would mean that true science had been usurped and replaced by narrative, and this narrative is then used to empower the state. If we then have a system of track-and-trace akin to the Chinese social credit system-- in order to ensure that we're all good climate citizens-- where would we be? Many, many people believe that such things aren't fantasy at all, but necessary.
Climate change theory is actually at the very heart of current questions about the stature of the state and the necessity for individual submission to the state, and about collectivism.
There is a basic inconsistency in these "postmodern" pundits: They say there are no absolutes; but they proclaim their ideas as though they are absolute truths, and anyone who does not accept them is a pariah. They say there is no such thing as good or evil; but if you cross them, they declare you evil. They are unable to live by their own doctrines, which is a pretty good indicator that their doctrines are false.
Brad, I'm looking forward to this series. You say in the introduction "In the end, I am offering an exhortation and defense of the true liberal ideal." The true liberal ideal primarily needs championing, not defending. This may on the surface be a minor detail but I think it's an important strategic distinction as we need to play offense (=champion) to win this war. It's the enemies of the true liberal ideal that should be on the defense, having a ~6,000 year miserable track record of collectivism to answer for, whether of the welfare statist, authoritarian, or totalitarian kind. Cheers!
Looking forward to the series. I heard you were writing a follow up to America's Revolutionary Mind. I bought a copy when that one came out and was looking for the next. I understood it was going to be on the Constitution. True?
Thanks, Brad, a great essay. Please channel your insights to Judge Narragansett in Galt's Gulch. Last I heard, he was re-writing the Constitution. He could use your help.
Well, OK, Brad, you have my attention. Go for it!
Well said. Keep these coming.
>Postmodern (non-Nietzschean) nihilism is the cultural means by which the political goal of socialism is to be achieved
Yaron Brook recently said that Leftists are not communists, but nihilists. I think that communism is a means to nihilism. They hate reality and retreat to an impossible mystical ideal. When it fails, their nihilism will be obvious even to them.
> American intellectuals turned against the principles of the Declaration of Independence in the five decades between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of World War I.
In Sweet Land Of Lliberty, Objectivist(?) HM Holzer says the Supreme Court rejected individualism for collectivism very soon after the Constitution was accepted.
> truth is relative to time and place
Time and place are relative to reality as a whole. End of Postmodernism.
So is self-evidence relative to an intellectual context, re your ARM, or the sensory self-evidence of Rand. Or both, as, I believe, in Aristotle?
> Maybe—just maybe—the founders’ mistake was to think such truths are self-evident.
In your Am Rev Mind, you said that self-evident truths in the Enlightenment were relative to an intellectual context. OK, that has some validity. But re Aristotelian self-evidence of perception, this is a confusing use of the self-evident. Now you accept Aristotle's basic self-evidence. Plea
"I should like to begin the process of reconsidering and rebuilding those principles and institutions in order to complete philosophically the political revolution of 1776. This is my goal."
Regarding the reactionary theory that what we have is the ultimate harvest of the Enlightenment rather than a digression from it: I want very much to believe that, but can’t help noticing that you vigorously *deny* that claim, but do not (yet?) *rebut* it. I hope to see something more substantive later.
Thank you!
Our greatest good used to be that we were all free to pursue our own greatest good within the broad constraints of the law. But now, our greatest good is supposedly in adhering to authoritarian pronouncements by the state in order to 'stay safe.'
It's be nice to see some of this analysis tied in to what's happening in the medical field as explained by such folks as The Midwestern Doctor, and how 'stay safe' is being used to convince us that the state must have supremacy over the individual. https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-story-behind-sudden-death-syndromes?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F76762071-a-midwestern-doctor&utm_medium=reader2
It's the same thing with climate change: this is essentially pseudoscience yet it's being used to justify necessary state control.
We're headed towards totalitarianism justified by necessary actions to stay safe from climate catastrophe (which change leads, supposedly, to the emergence of new diseases.) How will we avoid this? My answer is that we must understand that there's no climate emergency at all. This isn't unrelated to your concerns: we can have all the philosophy and reason and logic we want to but if people believe the planet will burn up without necessary state dictates, then we can throw philosophy out the window. Stay safe will be the order of the day.
In my view, this would mean that true science had been usurped and replaced by narrative, and this narrative is then used to empower the state. If we then have a system of track-and-trace akin to the Chinese social credit system-- in order to ensure that we're all good climate citizens-- where would we be? Many, many people believe that such things aren't fantasy at all, but necessary.
Climate change theory is actually at the very heart of current questions about the stature of the state and the necessity for individual submission to the state, and about collectivism.