This last one is extremely important. Humans are biologically wired for zero-sum thinking, that “their” gain is my “loss.” This is not always the case.
Demagogues of all ideologies love to hijack this one for their own benefit.
It's more a descriptive statement(as in most economic interactions are positive sum) rather then normative(which would be all actions done with a zero-sum lens are bad).
9.5/10. One thing I disagree on is Limited government. I fully agree with limiting government power but I don't think dispersing it is really good way to limit it. By dispersing state power especially to local level you make it really hard to make it democratically accountable. Also local areas especially rich ones have incentives to limit the liberty of other localities using things like zoning laws
I’m an 8.5/10 (according to your metrics). I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of it.
I was surprised about the methodological individualism point. I thought I was the only one talking about that. It’s such a fundamental part of the liberal worldview that many progressives actually work against.
Where I differ is point 10 (which I’m a 50/50 on) and point 8. Liberal internationalism (and this is very much a European point of view - more specifically a British point of view) tends to come along with the surrendering of national sovereignty to global institutions. This completely undermines democracy, as national sovereignty within a democracy is essentially the collective power of the citizens of a state. By giving up elements of that power to foreign bodies, especially those with no direct democratic input, you are surrendering the democratic power of each citizen over how they are governed.
I think these are the most principally liberal of international institutions because they facilitate universal liberal ends: peace through common defense and stronger trade relations between nations.
I think there is a fair dispute that can be had about how much the UN and other entities are to the cause of human freedom. I would speculate some, but not nearly as much as I would like.
Organisations like the OECD can absolutely be useful to be a part of. I’m not advocating isolationism. The issue comes when legal power is granted to NGOs, like the debate over the WHO having legal control over elements public health policy, or supranational governments like the EU.
When it comes to NATO, that is a military alliance, designed to protect North America and Europe from Russia, or any other potential threat to security. This is a very necessary body for both maintaining peace and for insurance in the case of war.
I kinda disagree on tenets vs natural conclusion, e.g. I wouldn't place maximizing individual liberty as a tenet, it just turns out to work best that way (e.g. if your aim is to minimize the chances of tyranny but you feel strongly against people wearing a certain colour, maximizing liberty is good because attempts to install tyranny will start with small encroachments on liberty, so they act like canaries in the coalmine). Maximizing liberty also works well as a compromise, i.e. it flows from the axiom that people are equal, since libertymaxxing is a natural way to avoid giving special treatment to one man's
preferences.
Likewise if I start from wanting to maximise human flourishing, it turns out that largely free trade is a good thing. But state-mandated health insurance works really well (better, at any rate, than state-run healthcare).
So of course you could say I'm not really a liberal, merely an utilitarian that has converged on something like liberalism, but I suspect these tenets are a bit overconstrained and would lead one to reject societies which are for all intents and purposes perfectly liberal.
for the record I'm like a 7.5/10 in that I think individual liberty and political pluralism are largely consequences of dispersed political power rather than tenets of their own and that while strong economic liberty has been a major driver of prosperity, some state interventions are highly beneficial beyond mere enforcement of property rights.
I think it's right to say that pure liberals think the central political aim should be the maximization of freedom, but they could come from any philosophical background. I am, too, a utilitarian, but I believe individual freedom is generally the best heuristic.
It looks like I'm probably a 9.5/10. I partially disagree with the individual liberty part, as I think people often make decisions based on their short-term desires that are bad for themselves and/or society in the long-term. For example, I think people should be compelled (with force, if necessary) to go to rehab for drug addictions. Another would be our eating habits: something has to be done about our obesity epidemic and if that infringes on our liberties a bit, it would likely be worth the price.
These are perfectly reasonable views to hold. I think the threshold for being a Liberal would be satisfying something like 7 or 8 out of the 10 core criteria. I myself think individual freedom is generally the best heuristic for utility, but I share the belief that, in limited cases, it may lead us astray from the optimal policy. So, in practical terms, I hold liberty-reducing policies to a high burden of evidence and take a stance of a presumption of freedom unless concretely demonstrated otherwise.
This last one is extremely important. Humans are biologically wired for zero-sum thinking, that “their” gain is my “loss.” This is not always the case.
Demagogues of all ideologies love to hijack this one for their own benefit.
So I’m 50-50, because sometimes hurting an adversary even if it hurts you is a good choice (for example economic sanctions on Russia), but not always.
It's more a descriptive statement(as in most economic interactions are positive sum) rather then normative(which would be all actions done with a zero-sum lens are bad).
9.5/10. One thing I disagree on is Limited government. I fully agree with limiting government power but I don't think dispersing it is really good way to limit it. By dispersing state power especially to local level you make it really hard to make it democratically accountable. Also local areas especially rich ones have incentives to limit the liberty of other localities using things like zoning laws
I’m an 8.5/10 (according to your metrics). I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of it.
I was surprised about the methodological individualism point. I thought I was the only one talking about that. It’s such a fundamental part of the liberal worldview that many progressives actually work against.
Where I differ is point 10 (which I’m a 50/50 on) and point 8. Liberal internationalism (and this is very much a European point of view - more specifically a British point of view) tends to come along with the surrendering of national sovereignty to global institutions. This completely undermines democracy, as national sovereignty within a democracy is essentially the collective power of the citizens of a state. By giving up elements of that power to foreign bodies, especially those with no direct democratic input, you are surrendering the democratic power of each citizen over how they are governed.
What do you think about NATO and the OECD?
I think these are the most principally liberal of international institutions because they facilitate universal liberal ends: peace through common defense and stronger trade relations between nations.
I think there is a fair dispute that can be had about how much the UN and other entities are to the cause of human freedom. I would speculate some, but not nearly as much as I would like.
Organisations like the OECD can absolutely be useful to be a part of. I’m not advocating isolationism. The issue comes when legal power is granted to NGOs, like the debate over the WHO having legal control over elements public health policy, or supranational governments like the EU.
When it comes to NATO, that is a military alliance, designed to protect North America and Europe from Russia, or any other potential threat to security. This is a very necessary body for both maintaining peace and for insurance in the case of war.
You are one of the people that inspired my view on this :)
10/10 obviously
I kinda disagree on tenets vs natural conclusion, e.g. I wouldn't place maximizing individual liberty as a tenet, it just turns out to work best that way (e.g. if your aim is to minimize the chances of tyranny but you feel strongly against people wearing a certain colour, maximizing liberty is good because attempts to install tyranny will start with small encroachments on liberty, so they act like canaries in the coalmine). Maximizing liberty also works well as a compromise, i.e. it flows from the axiom that people are equal, since libertymaxxing is a natural way to avoid giving special treatment to one man's
preferences.
Likewise if I start from wanting to maximise human flourishing, it turns out that largely free trade is a good thing. But state-mandated health insurance works really well (better, at any rate, than state-run healthcare).
So of course you could say I'm not really a liberal, merely an utilitarian that has converged on something like liberalism, but I suspect these tenets are a bit overconstrained and would lead one to reject societies which are for all intents and purposes perfectly liberal.
for the record I'm like a 7.5/10 in that I think individual liberty and political pluralism are largely consequences of dispersed political power rather than tenets of their own and that while strong economic liberty has been a major driver of prosperity, some state interventions are highly beneficial beyond mere enforcement of property rights.
I think it's right to say that pure liberals think the central political aim should be the maximization of freedom, but they could come from any philosophical background. I am, too, a utilitarian, but I believe individual freedom is generally the best heuristic.
Treat others as you would like to treated.
It looks like I'm probably a 9.5/10. I partially disagree with the individual liberty part, as I think people often make decisions based on their short-term desires that are bad for themselves and/or society in the long-term. For example, I think people should be compelled (with force, if necessary) to go to rehab for drug addictions. Another would be our eating habits: something has to be done about our obesity epidemic and if that infringes on our liberties a bit, it would likely be worth the price.
These are perfectly reasonable views to hold. I think the threshold for being a Liberal would be satisfying something like 7 or 8 out of the 10 core criteria. I myself think individual freedom is generally the best heuristic for utility, but I share the belief that, in limited cases, it may lead us astray from the optimal policy. So, in practical terms, I hold liberty-reducing policies to a high burden of evidence and take a stance of a presumption of freedom unless concretely demonstrated otherwise.