I agree that we benefit from most of what is listed above. They have been gains from a long history of political struggles and we ignore those gains at our peril. At the same time, I think we can see the history of liberalism as an attempt to neutralize those struggles in a myriad of ways. As for the question of markets, I think Braudel has an interesting a provocative perspective on the question arguing that the market and capitalism are actually antagonistic functions rather that synonomous... (linking capital and the state)
> I can't speak for Doug here, but I am also a liberal
> in the sense that I think principled agreement on
> terms of democratic decisionmaking trumps any
> particular conception of the good life -- that you
> can't base policy on someone' commitment to salvation.
> self-realization, utility-maximization,
> duty-fulfillment, consumerist self-gratification,
> what-have-you -- you just have to appeal to the other
> people;s commitment to resolve disputes democratically
> because for whatever non-self or non-narrowly-group
> interested reasons one has, one thinks that's the
> right thing to do even if the outcome is to one's
> disadvantage in a particular case. (This is what Rawls
> calls "political liberalism" -- the idea that deep
> metaphysical or theological disputes have no place in
> politics.)
I tend to broadly agree with this. On the other hand, I tend to agree with the thesis that secularization in Europe was an attempt to neutralize the radical elements in the wars of religion (Hobbes' work is a good example) There is a thread from this earlier history that goes into the critique of capital itself (Ernst Bloch makes this argument throughout his career.) This might be pushed farther to point out the ways that liberals leave the possibility of a critique of capital off the table...
robert wood