Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount.
What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately).
Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another.
New individual rights are only found under a greater regime of equality. Our existing rights assume a level of equality which is often overlooked and mostly artificial.
Our state is becoming increasing totalitarian even as our society can be said to be more equal, Liberal and 'Progressive', with more and more 'individual rights'.
Classical Liberalism seems like a pipedream where most of the social contract must necessarily be informal/cultural/traditionalist to avoid the Big State as we increasingly have now. But the value of these informal contracts are not fully appreciated by Classical Liberals. Only under a state where people culturally recogniss some level of natural inequality/hierarchy/cultural normativity can you have those essential 'individual rights' that Classical Liberals so desire. The existence of these rights precludes other newfound rights under the greater Liberal/Egalitarian state we have today.
What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately).
Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another.
New individual rights are only found under a greater regime of equality. Our existing rights assume a level of equality which is often overlooked and mostly artificial.
Our state is becoming increasing totalitarian even as our society can be said to be more equal, Liberal and 'Progressive', with more and more 'individual rights'.
Classical Liberalism seems like a pipedream where most of the social contract must necessarily be informal/cultural/traditionalist to avoid the Big State as we increasingly have now. But the value of these informal contracts are not fully appreciated by Classical Liberals. Only under a state where people culturally recogniss some level of natural inequality/hierarchy/cultural normativity can you have those essential 'individual rights' that Classical Liberals so desire. The existence of these rights precludes other newfound rights under the greater Liberal/Egalitarian state we have today.
Comments
Post a Comment