Comments on: I'm No Diderot, but…

By: Illiberal Liberalism? Not so much » The HPRty

Illiberal Liberalism? Not so much » The HPRty — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:11:41 +0000

[...] whole slew of conservative (or conservative-ish) writers are taking on the idea of “illiberal [...]

By: cosmetic dentists surrey

cosmetic dentists surrey — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:39:09 +0000

The reason there are so many meta-arguments about what we are going to count as good arguments–as good reasons, as considerations worth taking seriously–is that once we come to a broad social consensus on standards, some factions in the culture wars are left defenseless and end up an impotent doomed remnant. One reason I’m not that interested in partisan politics is that I think it is a higher-order manifestation of factionalism at a deeper level of the culture. I’m interested in engaging at that level.

By: hgh

hgh — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:45:18 +0000

n my view,metaarguements are means to avoid actual arguements and to some extend correct also.

HGH

By: Memory Cards

Memory Cards — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:54:47 +0000

That's just you being you, though; believing in a future free of belief is just you exercising your right to believe what you want. What happens when you go to the mat to defend an idea that ends up eradicating any chances you have at seeing this magical world filled with smart people?

By: Panama Property

Panama Property — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:50:24 +0000

Great view no matter what side of the fence you are on.

By: danny899081

danny899081 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:47:56 +0000

Very rightly said. Good post overall.

By: spsdel01

spsdel01 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:41:27 +0000

In my view,metaarguements are means to avoid actual arguements and to some extend correct also.

By: Two Forms of Liberalism - Damon Linker

Two Forms of Liberalism - Damon Linker — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:31:41 +0000

[...] Web. Here's Russell Arben Fox and Ross Douthat and Noah Millman — and my response to Noah. And Will Wilkinson. And John Schwenkler. And Daniel Larison. And Sam Barr. I'm sure I've missed someone, but [...]

By: chrismealy

chrismealy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:56:55 +0000

If you're talking about ergodicity, you just might be a liberal. Here, let me introduce you to Paul Davidson …

By: tongue-twisterisms | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

tongue-twisterisms | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:39:11 +0000

[...] about lately that come, for lack of a better phrase, trippingly off the tongue? For instance “liberal liberalism” vs “illiberal liberalism” (or posts that begin with “a” then move on to [...]

By: Jeffrey Sykes

Jeffrey Sykes — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:04:29 +0000

"once we come to a broad social consensus on standards, some factions in the culture wars are left defenseless and end up an impotent doomed remnant."

Obviously you are blessed with depth and perception, but I pause when I hear people celebrating the obliteration of traditional values at the hands of "broad social consensus."

Who defines "broad" and "consensus" in your brave new world?

What if today's consensus becomes tomorrow's oppression?

By labeling your vanquished foe as an "impotent remnant" have you really achieved any higher form of humanity than that secured by the gladiator standing over his bloody opposite in the coliseum?

Just a few thoughts of my own.

By: liberalisms | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

liberalisms | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:40:10 +0000

[...] Arguably the first four (and #6 “realism”) could be said of conservatives as well–or at least some kinds of conservatives (e.g. Beaconsfieldians). Ditto, even more so, classical liberalism. [...]

By: “Toward a Liberal Liberalism” « Upturned Earth

“Toward a Liberal Liberalism” « Upturned Earth — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:02:12 +0000

[...] a Liberal Liberalism” Over at TAS, I’ve got a post up on that post of Will Wilkinson’s that I linked this morning in the [...]

By: Topics about Music » I’m No Diderot, but…

Topics about Music » I’m No Diderot, but… — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:32:07 +0000

[...] Technology | ‘Apprentice’ runner-up launches mapping site in LA | Los Angeles Times put an intriguing blog post on Iâ [...]

By: Eric Hosemann

Eric Hosemann — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:53:09 +0000

"And I will go to the mat to defend the idea that ours would be a better society if individuals come to be so embarrassed by Pentecostalism and John Birchism — by the ideas — that these communities of belief die peaceful natural deaths."

That's just you being you, though; believing in a future free of belief is just you exercising your right to believe what you want. What happens when you go to the mat to defend an idea that ends up eradicating any chances you have at seeing this magical world filled with smart people?

An example: in Soviet Russia and Ukraine, there existed rather resilient groups of Baptists and Pentecostals. One can assume they had no advocates as gallant as you; Kruschev publicly proclaimed that his regime would kill the last Christian, and the Soviets quite actively pursued this aim. Yet the Slavic Baptists and Pentecostals survived. And they did so not by vowing to go to the mat for Party members' right to promote Soviet communism. By reaching out to liberals, you may be doing a wimpier version of what those Baptists didn't do: extending an olive branch to those who are most comfortable with expanded state power. But where does that leave your core libertarian beliefs? Do they still have an advocate? Or do you believe libertarianism simply an attractive veil to throw over the complex statist machinery necessary in "nudging" us into the proper choices?