Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm a classical social liberal. I believe almost everything consensual should be tolerated.
The progressives of the moment are very much against this sort of thinking. Hell, look at the war raging over free speech. And due process has gone out the window. If you're simply accused of a #metoo offense, you must Go Away Forever.
|
There is no "war" "raging" over free speech. There are conservatives who like playing the victim to make money, and a small number of people on college campuses who like to dance with them.
Due process has not gone out the window, except in immigration. If you are a classic social liberal and believe that everything consensual should be tolerated, you should have a huge problem with the fact that so many woman have experiences with men that they do not ask for or consent to, and that they have no recourse in the legal system. If you experience a #metoo offense, you have no hope that the legal system will do anything about it. That bothers actual liberals. "Classic liberals" are apparently those who want to see the benefits of liberals and social freedom for the people who had it two hundred years ago, which is to say affluent white men.
Quote:
|
And alongside them are the Cass Sunsteins of the world ("we must nudge the proles to do what's best for them") and the Ezekial Emmanuels ("let me tell you how health care is best delivered to the masses").
|
The scorn you have for trying to make things better for the "proles" and the "masses" really puts the "classic" in "classic liberal."
Quote:
|
I find the smart arguments from the Left compelling because they are backed up with data. Most crumble years later as a result of the law of unintended consequences and leave an even worse mess than before, but some actually work (Social Security).
|
Lovely -- a nod towards data, and then a completely fact-free generalization of -- what, really, it's hard to say.
Quote:
|
But what we've got right now isn't a simple argument for tolerance versus intolerance. What we've got is an argument of "my preferred world" versus "your preferred world." Is the Left's preferred world better than the Right's? Yes. Of course. But why must we perpetually chose between officious intervening masters? Why aren't we allowed to live in a world of mostly negative rights?
|
Because markets do not always deliver optimal results for reasons that have been well understood for decades. Health-care, the environment, your favorite hobby horse of automation -- all issues because if the government simply allows a free market to operate, bad things will happen. It's not rocket science.
