High on my list of things I'd want a college freshman to know is that words don't always mean what you think they mean, or even what you're told they mean. Some times words evolve into new contexts like the word “sin” for example. It originally meant “to miss the target”. It still means that, just in a context other than archery. Some times words evolve over time to mean something else entirely, like “nice” which meant “stupid or naive” and now means “being kind”. It's amusing to ponder how the speakers of the English language got from one meaning to the other.
More to my point though there are also words who's meanings have been changed in order to serve certain social and political agendas. The word “liberalism” being the most annoying to me. While some fret that “conservatives” have been successful in vilifying “liberalism” to the point that few dare to use the “L-word” in political discourse (in the United States), I am actually some what relieved at this. No, not because I hate liberalism, but because the word's meaning has become so distorted by those commonly calling themselves liberals that it's become almost impossible to see what they are and what they are not.
A region of confusion is generated by the twisting of the word “liberalism” that allows things to be done in its name that are completely contrary to what the world's first liberals believed in. The current usurpers, who are counter-revolutionaries as I see them, get to advance collectivism while getting credit for being in the spirit of great anti-collectivists such the founders of the United States. It's a perverse propaganda coupe on a grotesque scale and it's played out on university campuses across the nation, year in and year out.
Allow me to explain.
dictionary.com provides the following definition of “liberalism”(emphasis added by me).
“a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.”
I consider this definition, while one that would be very acceptable in and typical of a university classroom, to be flawed for a number of reasons. I'm leaning on logic here.
Political minds that typically describe themselves as “liberal” are far too collective in their mindset to ever sincerely advocate the freedom of the individual. Collectivism and individualism are opposites on the political spectrum, and serious examination of most self-proclaimed liberals' agendas will show a clear bent towards collectivism (see my post on social justice for one such example).
The same seek to use powerful government institutions to force changes they wish upon social institutions. This badly misses the point of what true liberalism should be. The liberalism of the founders seeks to make sure individuals simply need not associate with social institutions they disagree with, like religions for example, and thus need not abide by them. The institutions are free in a truly liberal society to change with public sentiment or to resist. Those that resist public sentiment will then either be proven right or wrong by the events of time. The typical self-proclaimed liberal however, would have the government dictate desired changes to institutions. i.e. Forcing Roman Catholic hospitals to provide contraception for their employees. Thus the freedom of the individual who wishes to be faithful to the religion or other social institution of their choice is completely disregarded. Clearly that contradicts “advocating the freedom of the individual”.
The same self-proclaimed liberals seek to use powerful government institutions to force changes they wish on economic institutions, with similar logical inconsistencies as respecting “the freedom of the individual”. While it is the proper role of a true liberal government to provide some regulation of economic institutions in order to prevent some sort of private tyranny that can't otherwise be escaped through reasonable choice, the self-proclaimed want the government to do far more than that. They want policies that force wealth redistribution, rather than just encourage it or discourage wealth concentration. Their governmental policies confiscate private property, i.e wealth, for redistribution, and fail to provide just compensation. The individual paying twice the percentage of income taxes isn't getting extra services from the government for that higher rate. The argument that this individual makes more and thus benefits more from the system could be valid if everyone payed the same percentage, but the added percentage in a progressive income tax is nothing else but the government deciding to make a wealthier individual poorer. The freedom of the individual to seek greater wealth, if they so wish, is curtailed and the government violates individual property rights in the process.*
Finally, the definition itself runs off the proverbial tracks when it says, “and governmental guarantees of individual rights”. What should be meant is that government guarantees that it wont interfere with or violate individual rights, but the wording here instead strongly implies that government should enforce individual rights. While it is true that government has a role in protecting individuals from other sources of potential tyranny, like labor unions, neighborhood associations, lending institutions, land lords, and employers, the only thing government needs to do is protect the individual's ability to choose not to participate in any of these. As long as these potential sources of tyranny can be reasonably avoided there is no actual tyranny happening (I want to vent on the actual tyranny of many neighborhood associations in a later post but for now I'll stay on topic).
The problem with saying, “and governmental guarantees of individual rights” here is that it both implies government as the source of individual rights, and that individual rights are something government can and should play an active role in. This ignores the whole concept of the “tyranny of the majority” as discussed in Tocqueville's Democracy In America. An institution such as a government that is controlled by a collective (the majority) cannot be counted on to respect the freedom of individuals, and will inevitably curtail individual rights. This is because the majority by definition, is in some way set against the wishes of some group of individuals known as the minority. Of course the minority ruling would be wrong as well. The solution of true liberal government is to allow the majority to rule in governmental affairs but with a government that is forced by contract not to violate or abridge individual rights. That is the government cannot abridge the individual's right to be a practicing voluntary member of a minority unless that minority directly threatens civil order or core individual rights such as life, liberty, and property.
In true liberalism government is the necessary and lesser of evils, to be restrained and limited whenever and wherever reasonable. It cannot be a champion of anything but order, and perfect order has no room for individual freedom. The mere implication that government should be the champion of individual rights causes this definition to promote dysfunction.
I could summarize the problems with this definition by saying it doesn't describe what we typically call liberalism today, and to the extent it describes the liberalism of the United States' founders it invites a huge misconception of the proper role of government.
I would offer two improved alternative definitions based on this one. One defines what is typically called liberalism today, modern liberalism, and the other defines the liberalism of the founding fathers, classical liberalism.
modern liberalism,
a political or social philosophy advocating democratic systems of government, governmental modification of political, social, or economic institutions designed and intended to assure progressive social development in all spheres of collective human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of civil liberties.
Note the absence of 'individual rights' as this term means nothing when modern liberals say it.
classical liberalism,
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom and liberty of the individual, democratically limited government, individually voluntary modification through civil discourse of political, social, or economic institutions to maximize individual liberty within minimally required civil order, and the contractual binding of governments to not violate or infringe upon individual rights and civil liberties.
It's important to note that classical liberalism is not absolutist but rather seeks the best possible balance between individual liberty and civil order. That best possible balance being that which allows for as much individual liberty as possible while still having enough civil order to make exercising one's liberty reasonably possible.
It is this, classical liberalism, that should capture the imagination of college students and challenge them to work for a better future. One full of individuals doing what their own well educated and raised sensibilities tell them is the best way for each to best contribute. Not full of people trying to tell others how to live according to some theories hatched in only the last couple centuries. Collectivism is the necessary evil that we want only enough of to live in peace with others. Individualism is the flower we should cherish.
[Next week I will offer advice to the modern liberal and the college students who must endure them.]
More to my point though there are also words who's meanings have been changed in order to serve certain social and political agendas. The word “liberalism” being the most annoying to me. While some fret that “conservatives” have been successful in vilifying “liberalism” to the point that few dare to use the “L-word” in political discourse (in the United States), I am actually some what relieved at this. No, not because I hate liberalism, but because the word's meaning has become so distorted by those commonly calling themselves liberals that it's become almost impossible to see what they are and what they are not.
A region of confusion is generated by the twisting of the word “liberalism” that allows things to be done in its name that are completely contrary to what the world's first liberals believed in. The current usurpers, who are counter-revolutionaries as I see them, get to advance collectivism while getting credit for being in the spirit of great anti-collectivists such the founders of the United States. It's a perverse propaganda coupe on a grotesque scale and it's played out on university campuses across the nation, year in and year out.
Allow me to explain.
dictionary.com provides the following definition of “liberalism”(emphasis added by me).
“a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.”
I consider this definition, while one that would be very acceptable in and typical of a university classroom, to be flawed for a number of reasons. I'm leaning on logic here.
Political minds that typically describe themselves as “liberal” are far too collective in their mindset to ever sincerely advocate the freedom of the individual. Collectivism and individualism are opposites on the political spectrum, and serious examination of most self-proclaimed liberals' agendas will show a clear bent towards collectivism (see my post on social justice for one such example).
The same seek to use powerful government institutions to force changes they wish upon social institutions. This badly misses the point of what true liberalism should be. The liberalism of the founders seeks to make sure individuals simply need not associate with social institutions they disagree with, like religions for example, and thus need not abide by them. The institutions are free in a truly liberal society to change with public sentiment or to resist. Those that resist public sentiment will then either be proven right or wrong by the events of time. The typical self-proclaimed liberal however, would have the government dictate desired changes to institutions. i.e. Forcing Roman Catholic hospitals to provide contraception for their employees. Thus the freedom of the individual who wishes to be faithful to the religion or other social institution of their choice is completely disregarded. Clearly that contradicts “advocating the freedom of the individual”.
The same self-proclaimed liberals seek to use powerful government institutions to force changes they wish on economic institutions, with similar logical inconsistencies as respecting “the freedom of the individual”. While it is the proper role of a true liberal government to provide some regulation of economic institutions in order to prevent some sort of private tyranny that can't otherwise be escaped through reasonable choice, the self-proclaimed want the government to do far more than that. They want policies that force wealth redistribution, rather than just encourage it or discourage wealth concentration. Their governmental policies confiscate private property, i.e wealth, for redistribution, and fail to provide just compensation. The individual paying twice the percentage of income taxes isn't getting extra services from the government for that higher rate. The argument that this individual makes more and thus benefits more from the system could be valid if everyone payed the same percentage, but the added percentage in a progressive income tax is nothing else but the government deciding to make a wealthier individual poorer. The freedom of the individual to seek greater wealth, if they so wish, is curtailed and the government violates individual property rights in the process.*
Finally, the definition itself runs off the proverbial tracks when it says, “and governmental guarantees of individual rights”. What should be meant is that government guarantees that it wont interfere with or violate individual rights, but the wording here instead strongly implies that government should enforce individual rights. While it is true that government has a role in protecting individuals from other sources of potential tyranny, like labor unions, neighborhood associations, lending institutions, land lords, and employers, the only thing government needs to do is protect the individual's ability to choose not to participate in any of these. As long as these potential sources of tyranny can be reasonably avoided there is no actual tyranny happening (I want to vent on the actual tyranny of many neighborhood associations in a later post but for now I'll stay on topic).
The problem with saying, “and governmental guarantees of individual rights” here is that it both implies government as the source of individual rights, and that individual rights are something government can and should play an active role in. This ignores the whole concept of the “tyranny of the majority” as discussed in Tocqueville's Democracy In America. An institution such as a government that is controlled by a collective (the majority) cannot be counted on to respect the freedom of individuals, and will inevitably curtail individual rights. This is because the majority by definition, is in some way set against the wishes of some group of individuals known as the minority. Of course the minority ruling would be wrong as well. The solution of true liberal government is to allow the majority to rule in governmental affairs but with a government that is forced by contract not to violate or abridge individual rights. That is the government cannot abridge the individual's right to be a practicing voluntary member of a minority unless that minority directly threatens civil order or core individual rights such as life, liberty, and property.
In true liberalism government is the necessary and lesser of evils, to be restrained and limited whenever and wherever reasonable. It cannot be a champion of anything but order, and perfect order has no room for individual freedom. The mere implication that government should be the champion of individual rights causes this definition to promote dysfunction.
I could summarize the problems with this definition by saying it doesn't describe what we typically call liberalism today, and to the extent it describes the liberalism of the United States' founders it invites a huge misconception of the proper role of government.
I would offer two improved alternative definitions based on this one. One defines what is typically called liberalism today, modern liberalism, and the other defines the liberalism of the founding fathers, classical liberalism.
modern liberalism,
a political or social philosophy advocating democratic systems of government, governmental modification of political, social, or economic institutions designed and intended to assure progressive social development in all spheres of collective human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of civil liberties.
Note the absence of 'individual rights' as this term means nothing when modern liberals say it.
classical liberalism,
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom and liberty of the individual, democratically limited government, individually voluntary modification through civil discourse of political, social, or economic institutions to maximize individual liberty within minimally required civil order, and the contractual binding of governments to not violate or infringe upon individual rights and civil liberties.
It's important to note that classical liberalism is not absolutist but rather seeks the best possible balance between individual liberty and civil order. That best possible balance being that which allows for as much individual liberty as possible while still having enough civil order to make exercising one's liberty reasonably possible.
It is this, classical liberalism, that should capture the imagination of college students and challenge them to work for a better future. One full of individuals doing what their own well educated and raised sensibilities tell them is the best way for each to best contribute. Not full of people trying to tell others how to live according to some theories hatched in only the last couple centuries. Collectivism is the necessary evil that we want only enough of to live in peace with others. Individualism is the flower we should cherish.
[Next week I will offer advice to the modern liberal and the college students who must endure them.]
No comments:
Post a Comment