So, I finished the book.
-
His conclusion is that 'liberals/libertarians' take fundamental issue with the principle of equality in society and rely on some very dodgy science to confirm their own sense of genetic superiority.
How did greedy fuckery ever gain the status of 'ideology'? But it certainly is accepted as such.However, I have never made the argument that equality is a natural truth. Equality is an idea to embrace, to MAKE a truth, because it allows for the organisation of more ethical social systems.
Honestly, I don't need to appeal to some shadowy big other, nature or science or religion, to justify my passionate belief in equality and diversity.
Because I have morals.
I also have concrete proof of concept: hundreds of massive, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial cities that are the most prosperous, culturally rich and diverse places on earth, where people have lived together for hundreds of years without, for most of their existences, slaughtering each other.
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@Remittancegirl/117177735508773011
So, I finished the book. It is exceptionally well-written. Super accessible. It does suffer from being an academic text in that the author over-supplies examples to make his argument. I was persuaded of his central thesis about half-way through.
However, he chooses a very specific and, for Europeans, a quite unfamiliar definition of liberalism. He conflates it with libertarianism, and makes a robust argument for why he does so.
@Remittancegirl Liberalism, for me, is the idea that people should be free to live as they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. It has been the basis of my belief in equality and socialism - as all lifestyles are valid and of equal "value".
I fear this anti-liberal trend will lead to fascism from the other side, so to speak. -
RE: https://mstdn.social/@Remittancegirl/117177735508773011
So, I finished the book. It is exceptionally well-written. Super accessible. It does suffer from being an academic text in that the author over-supplies examples to make his argument. I was persuaded of his central thesis about half-way through.
However, he chooses a very specific and, for Europeans, a quite unfamiliar definition of liberalism. He conflates it with libertarianism, and makes a robust argument for why he does so.
@Remittancegirl "Libertarian" is a North American term for what almost everybody else in the world calls "liberal". And that is because the term "liberal" in the USA somehow got attached to "left wing" which is comical from my perspective.
When Europeans criticize "liberals" they're criticizing bankers or other such centre-right/fiscal-right types, not social democrats.
Ironically the term "libertarian", while rare in European discourse, generally refers to left-anarchic types.
-
@Remittancegirl Liberalism, for me, is the idea that people should be free to live as they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. It has been the basis of my belief in equality and socialism - as all lifestyles are valid and of equal "value".
I fear this anti-liberal trend will lead to fascism from the other side, so to speak.@DrorBedrack Understood. Look, the author is Canadian and the north American definition of liberal is very different from the European one.
That being said, the book is excellent.
-
Honestly, I don't need to appeal to some shadowy big other, nature or science or religion, to justify my passionate belief in equality and diversity.
Because I have morals.
I also have concrete proof of concept: hundreds of massive, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial cities that are the most prosperous, culturally rich and diverse places on earth, where people have lived together for hundreds of years without, for most of their existences, slaughtering each other.
If I don't let nature determine my fate in terms of disease, or physical disability, or access to food or shelter, why the fuck would I let nature be the determinant of my ideological beliefs?
True, nature is not kind. Nature allows for obscene levels of suffering.
The incoherence of the right with their embrace of social darwinism is that they constantly do everything in their power as white, male, christians to inure themselves from the cruelty of nature while demanding others endure it.
-
@DrorBedrack Understood. Look, the author is Canadian and the north American definition of liberal is very different from the European one.
That being said, the book is excellent.
@Remittancegirl I will add it to my wishlist
-
Honestly, I don't need to appeal to some shadowy big other, nature or science or religion, to justify my passionate belief in equality and diversity.
Because I have morals.
I also have concrete proof of concept: hundreds of massive, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial cities that are the most prosperous, culturally rich and diverse places on earth, where people have lived together for hundreds of years without, for most of their existences, slaughtering each other.
@Remittancegirl Kropotkin would maybe argue, because we live with and observe the altruism in the world around us.
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@Remittancegirl/117177735508773011
So, I finished the book. It is exceptionally well-written. Super accessible. It does suffer from being an academic text in that the author over-supplies examples to make his argument. I was persuaded of his central thesis about half-way through.
However, he chooses a very specific and, for Europeans, a quite unfamiliar definition of liberalism. He conflates it with libertarianism, and makes a robust argument for why he does so.
@Remittancegirl Just ordered it because you said it was "beautifully written.'
-
@Remittancegirl Just ordered it because you said it was "beautifully written.'
@12thRITS Okay, well, it's not a literary text. But for the subject matter, it is very coherent and fluent.
-
@12thRITS Okay, well, it's not a literary text. But for the subject matter, it is very coherent and fluent.
@Remittancegirl Yeah, that's cool. Clear, direct, organized expository writing is as great a pleasure as Faulkner or Wolfe.
-
If I don't let nature determine my fate in terms of disease, or physical disability, or access to food or shelter, why the fuck would I let nature be the determinant of my ideological beliefs?
True, nature is not kind. Nature allows for obscene levels of suffering.
The incoherence of the right with their embrace of social darwinism is that they constantly do everything in their power as white, male, christians to inure themselves from the cruelty of nature while demanding others endure it.
@Remittancegirl Great thoughts. But should that be "insure" ?
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
