Regular readers know that since the latter stages of my PhD, I have had the good fortune to receive ongoing instruction in the history of economics and (this is the controversial part) thereby in the history of philosophy by the creative economist, David M.
As I think you know, I have no sympathy for the view of Locke as the progenitor of liberalism. Relatedly, I would read "majority" here, to read "majority of free property-owning males". That was the kind of majority rule favored by Locke's American followers, without him his political thought would be much less influential.
Yes, I think we're on the same page here about Locke as progenitor of Liberalism.
Kendall's reading of Locke seems compatible with different ways in which to conceive the relevant franchise, and it strikes me that this is also the significance of Kendall's intervention in the American debate among Locke's American followers..
I don't seem to have access to the video. But my question seems a reasonable one not requiring a video, but simply a paragraph, to initiate worthwhile dialogue. I gave an almost universal definition in one sentence, admitting that each part could be interpreted in different ways.
I am picking on you because most liberals, and critics of liberalism, consider Locke the first major liberal thinker even when, as with me, we reject much of his reasoning. We liberals still accept his conclusions for different reasons and nonliberals critique it and its conclusions.
Well, first, if you read the archive of my substack you will see why I think it is a mistake to treat Locke as founder of liberalism. (That video lecture is really clear on that. There is a shorter, earlier version of that lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIfJNBQwU2E
I start around 32 minute mark.)
Second, I strongly doubt Locke is a moral egalitarian in your sense.
Third, the whole point of my blogging is to avoid the culture of gotchas, but to develop a mini-culture in which complexity has a place. But since you insist on a paragraph, here is one that does not offer a definition, but gives a sense of the program of liberalism (and helps explain why I think your definition is not sufficient):
"In the Smithian version of its origin story, liberalism takes the modern (Mercantile) state for granted and understands itself from the start as a reformist and ameliorative project of the many violent tendencies in it. The key conceptual-political move is to turn any zero-sum logic with winners and losers into a win-win agenda that promotes, as a political program, a moral vision — the good or open society — that is all about the expansion of individual freedoms (note the plural) and peace. In particular, it focuses on creating the social and legal conditions for the freedom to pursue meaningful choices within the context of moral equality, equality under the law, and robust property protections." From here:
I read and largely liked your “Gender Skepticism…” paper. It seems to me what you have done is unpack one way of interpreting my one sentence definition of liberalism. In a second sentence or so I emphasized every key term in it was subject to multiple interpretations, and so this sentence only described an intellectual arena that eliminated many illiberal positions as legitimate, such as all collectivisms and all arguments that some people were so superior to others as to have the rightful power of ruling them. Those are big categories: all identity politics, eugenics as a means of distinguishing who should or should not have an equal voice politically, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism, cases for aristocracy, kings, military rule, etc.
Now to where a difference in our outlooks might be important: the state. I have long argued two related points. First, that the principle of liberal equality leads to some kind of political equality that matters. If there is no political equality that matters, those with more influence will almost certainly use it to load the dice on a society’s rules in their favor. So at some point liberal principles require that everyone have an equal influence on whether a policy is adopted or not- and that is the vote.
Second, in Hayekian terms, whereas the state is a “taxis,” a top down organization, a democracy is a spontaneous order along the lines of science and the market process. Abstract procedural rules applying equally to all generate feedback (the vote) that determines what broader rules should apply in a society (initiatives and referendums) or who should have the responsibility of making them until the next election (representatives). Hayek came very close to this insight when he observed in The Constitution of Liberty (108-9):
“Democracy is above all a process of forming opinion. . . . We may admit . . . that at any given moment the decision of a government by an elite might be more beneficial to the whole; but this need not prevent us from still giving democracy the preference. It is in its dynamic rather than in its static, aspect that the value of democracy proves itself.”
Sadly, Hayek did not further pursue the implications of this insight. Most of the time he and most people’s reduced democracy to ‘majority rule.’ In a representative democracy there is no majority that rules, there are various temporary groups who agree politically and when a rigid majority does arise, democracy is threatened. The only exception is wartime, and then the majority quickly evaporates when war ends- best example is Britain in WW2, which cancelled elections during the war, returned to them afterwards, and Churchill was voted out.
This brings me to an important implication of democracies not being states- there has never been a war between two democracies, BECAUSE they are spontaneous orders. I will attach a copy of a paper of mine given at the recent Southern Economic Association meeting.
I’ll listen to your talk when time allows but I think your discussion of liberalism fits into my one sentence definition.
Now I've watched/heard most of your talk, and I read Locke as the founder of liberalism completely differently. I have never encountered the argument that toleration is in any way the foundation of liberalism. It's his Second Treatise, which explicitly describes the conditions for a legitimate government through a social contract. His letter on toleration (which did influence Madison's case for the Constitution) was not in any way a treatise of political philosophy. It was THIS message that led to the Declaration of Independence and the best of the constitution.
I agree with you that toleration grows out of accepting a liberal society and is not its foundation.
You are 100% wrong to deny Paganism is compatible with liberalism. As I demonstrate in my book "Persuasion, Power and Polity: A Theory of Democratic Self-Organization," Aristotle developed a theory of non-coercive politics based on persuasion and equality. My dissertation chair, who unlike me, read Greek, told me afterwards that I taught her a lot about Aristotle. I'm happy to send you the chapter because I have it as a file. Thucydides' Funeral Oration comes very close as well. And as a Pagan myself, I know the charge of incompatibility is entirely fallacious and uninformed.
Aristotle's non-coercive politics based on persuasion and equality is built on a theory of human (moral) inequality. Sure, you can extract building blocks for a liberal project from it by bracketing inconvenient material. I have nothing against such projects by Marxists or libertarian/anarchists or other historical leaps, but I don't think it has much to do with actually exiting liberalism (although undoubtedly Aristotle had huge impact on Smith [and Marx for that matter). I often cite Pericles's speech myself, but again athenian democracy is profoundly illiberal, too.
Actually Aristotle had an impact on Hayek regarding rule of law. As I said, feel free to read the chapter, it's your for the asking. And if you want to discuss influences on liberalism (a good idea!) may I suggest rereading Locke's Second Treatise and then comparing it to the preamble to America's Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson's comment that he only said what already had lots of support.
I, and most liberals I think, have always defined liberalism's core insight, very much present in Locke, as all individuals are the basic MORALLY RELEVANT unit in society, and all individuals are equally so. This definition leaves plenty of room for disagreement about what is the nature of an individual, what is the foundation of their equality in moral terms, and what is the basis for moral standing? You seem to see liberalism quite differently. Please give us a succinct definition of liberalism as you understand it.
On my view moral equality is a necessary component of all streams of liberalism (although often breached in practice), but not sufficient to be a liberal.
As I think you know, I have no sympathy for the view of Locke as the progenitor of liberalism. Relatedly, I would read "majority" here, to read "majority of free property-owning males". That was the kind of majority rule favored by Locke's American followers, without him his political thought would be much less influential.
Yes, I think we're on the same page here about Locke as progenitor of Liberalism.
Kendall's reading of Locke seems compatible with different ways in which to conceive the relevant franchise, and it strikes me that this is also the significance of Kendall's intervention in the American debate among Locke's American followers..
I don't seem to have access to the video. But my question seems a reasonable one not requiring a video, but simply a paragraph, to initiate worthwhile dialogue. I gave an almost universal definition in one sentence, admitting that each part could be interpreted in different ways.
I am picking on you because most liberals, and critics of liberalism, consider Locke the first major liberal thinker even when, as with me, we reject much of his reasoning. We liberals still accept his conclusions for different reasons and nonliberals critique it and its conclusions.
Well, first, if you read the archive of my substack you will see why I think it is a mistake to treat Locke as founder of liberalism. (That video lecture is really clear on that. There is a shorter, earlier version of that lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIfJNBQwU2E
I start around 32 minute mark.)
Second, I strongly doubt Locke is a moral egalitarian in your sense.
Third, the whole point of my blogging is to avoid the culture of gotchas, but to develop a mini-culture in which complexity has a place. But since you insist on a paragraph, here is one that does not offer a definition, but gives a sense of the program of liberalism (and helps explain why I think your definition is not sufficient):
"In the Smithian version of its origin story, liberalism takes the modern (Mercantile) state for granted and understands itself from the start as a reformist and ameliorative project of the many violent tendencies in it. The key conceptual-political move is to turn any zero-sum logic with winners and losers into a win-win agenda that promotes, as a political program, a moral vision — the good or open society — that is all about the expansion of individual freedoms (note the plural) and peace. In particular, it focuses on creating the social and legal conditions for the freedom to pursue meaningful choices within the context of moral equality, equality under the law, and robust property protections." From here:
https://www.liberalcurrents.com/liberal-skepticism-and-the-gender-identity-culture-wars/ There are also more essays at Liberal Currents that give a sense of my narrative.
Cheers!
I read and largely liked your “Gender Skepticism…” paper. It seems to me what you have done is unpack one way of interpreting my one sentence definition of liberalism. In a second sentence or so I emphasized every key term in it was subject to multiple interpretations, and so this sentence only described an intellectual arena that eliminated many illiberal positions as legitimate, such as all collectivisms and all arguments that some people were so superior to others as to have the rightful power of ruling them. Those are big categories: all identity politics, eugenics as a means of distinguishing who should or should not have an equal voice politically, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism, cases for aristocracy, kings, military rule, etc.
Now to where a difference in our outlooks might be important: the state. I have long argued two related points. First, that the principle of liberal equality leads to some kind of political equality that matters. If there is no political equality that matters, those with more influence will almost certainly use it to load the dice on a society’s rules in their favor. So at some point liberal principles require that everyone have an equal influence on whether a policy is adopted or not- and that is the vote.
Second, in Hayekian terms, whereas the state is a “taxis,” a top down organization, a democracy is a spontaneous order along the lines of science and the market process. Abstract procedural rules applying equally to all generate feedback (the vote) that determines what broader rules should apply in a society (initiatives and referendums) or who should have the responsibility of making them until the next election (representatives). Hayek came very close to this insight when he observed in The Constitution of Liberty (108-9):
“Democracy is above all a process of forming opinion. . . . We may admit . . . that at any given moment the decision of a government by an elite might be more beneficial to the whole; but this need not prevent us from still giving democracy the preference. It is in its dynamic rather than in its static, aspect that the value of democracy proves itself.”
Sadly, Hayek did not further pursue the implications of this insight. Most of the time he and most people’s reduced democracy to ‘majority rule.’ In a representative democracy there is no majority that rules, there are various temporary groups who agree politically and when a rigid majority does arise, democracy is threatened. The only exception is wartime, and then the majority quickly evaporates when war ends- best example is Britain in WW2, which cancelled elections during the war, returned to them afterwards, and Churchill was voted out.
This brings me to an important implication of democracies not being states- there has never been a war between two democracies, BECAUSE they are spontaneous orders. I will attach a copy of a paper of mine given at the recent Southern Economic Association meeting.
I’ll listen to your talk when time allows but I think your discussion of liberalism fits into my one sentence definition.
Best wishes,
Gus
Now I've watched/heard most of your talk, and I read Locke as the founder of liberalism completely differently. I have never encountered the argument that toleration is in any way the foundation of liberalism. It's his Second Treatise, which explicitly describes the conditions for a legitimate government through a social contract. His letter on toleration (which did influence Madison's case for the Constitution) was not in any way a treatise of political philosophy. It was THIS message that led to the Declaration of Independence and the best of the constitution.
I agree with you that toleration grows out of accepting a liberal society and is not its foundation.
You are 100% wrong to deny Paganism is compatible with liberalism. As I demonstrate in my book "Persuasion, Power and Polity: A Theory of Democratic Self-Organization," Aristotle developed a theory of non-coercive politics based on persuasion and equality. My dissertation chair, who unlike me, read Greek, told me afterwards that I taught her a lot about Aristotle. I'm happy to send you the chapter because I have it as a file. Thucydides' Funeral Oration comes very close as well. And as a Pagan myself, I know the charge of incompatibility is entirely fallacious and uninformed.
Aristotle's non-coercive politics based on persuasion and equality is built on a theory of human (moral) inequality. Sure, you can extract building blocks for a liberal project from it by bracketing inconvenient material. I have nothing against such projects by Marxists or libertarian/anarchists or other historical leaps, but I don't think it has much to do with actually exiting liberalism (although undoubtedly Aristotle had huge impact on Smith [and Marx for that matter). I often cite Pericles's speech myself, but again athenian democracy is profoundly illiberal, too.
Actually Aristotle had an impact on Hayek regarding rule of law. As I said, feel free to read the chapter, it's your for the asking. And if you want to discuss influences on liberalism (a good idea!) may I suggest rereading Locke's Second Treatise and then comparing it to the preamble to America's Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson's comment that he only said what already had lots of support.
I, and most liberals I think, have always defined liberalism's core insight, very much present in Locke, as all individuals are the basic MORALLY RELEVANT unit in society, and all individuals are equally so. This definition leaves plenty of room for disagreement about what is the nature of an individual, what is the foundation of their equality in moral terms, and what is the basis for moral standing? You seem to see liberalism quite differently. Please give us a succinct definition of liberalism as you understand it.
On my view moral equality is a necessary component of all streams of liberalism (although often breached in practice), but not sufficient to be a liberal.
You havde yet to answer my question. What do YOU mean by liberalism?
For my developing views i recommend this video: https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/research/politics/stevensontrust/videos/
I liked it. Is the slide deck available somewhere?