1) there isn't a liberal version of the good life, being a political liberal means having the state be as neutral as possible on visions of the good life. I'm personally a great fan of an Aristotelian-Marxian self-realization theory, and I think it's correct, but I wouldn't want to see my philosophical theory, as such (as mine or as a philosophical theory) be the basis of state policy.
2) Neutrality doesn't even begin to imply relativism. I cannot believe that so intelligent a person as you repeats so stupid an argument. The basis for neutrality is not the absurd relativist proposition that for all we know the Nazis or the Christofascists or the Islamists are just as morally justified as we liberals. That is ridiculous, idiotic, incoherent, self-refuting, and dumb, and no one, least of all me, believes it.
5) Rather basis for liberal neutrality is the obvious point that in a free society irreducible disagreement about what's good is inescapable, and resolving difference over fundamentals by force, even by force approved by the majority, is a bad thing. Morally bad as well as practically bad. Objectively, in fact, if-you-disagree-you're-wrong kind of bad.
So a free and democratic society seeks superficial bases of agreement that everyone can assent to without having to compromise their view of what's essential, and we seek to persuade each other to implement policy through democratic means that is acceptable to others who disagree with us on fundamentals without having to persuade them they are wrong on fundamentals.
Yes, of course I am very aware that we are far from attaining that ideal of a free and democratic society on lots of levels. I am talking about the basis of liberal neutrality.
3) The opposite of freedom, tolerance, and diversity, which is not a liberal vision of a good life but a liberal conception of the conditions of whatever you might think is the good life, is, so far as you have indicated, Rakesh, oppression, intolerance, uniformity. You say that is a false dilemma. I'm a-listening. What is the alternative to freedom, tolerance, and diversity that is not oppression, intolerance, uniformity? Please do tell.
4) I don't want to intimidate anyone from pointing to negative consequences of liberalism. It may be that freedom, tolerance, and diversity mean that we must deal with social isolation, alienation, troubling emptiness. If so, that's too bad. If so it would be unfortunate that the absolutely essential elements of a minimally acceptable society failed to make life perfect.
But who the fuck promised you a rose garden? Bad things will happen to you. You will have your heart broken, experience failure and humiliation, let down those who most count on you when it counts most. Not least of all, you are going to die, relatively soon. Neither liberalism nor any alternative can fix any of those things.
So maybe you will have to put up with social isolation, alienation, troubling emptiness as the price of the freedom to pursue your vision of the good, the tolerance of others in putting up with your following goals they thing are pointless or even bad, and social isolation because lots of people are pursuing different aims.
Things could be worse. They are in lots of places. You could be made to march in lockstep, swear fealty to ideals you despise at pain on persecution or death, have to forswear the things that mean most to you because other think your sexual preferences or life goals are sinful or counterrevolutionary; you may find your life full of sociability and meaning in shared resentment at the enforcers of virtue.
5) I don't believe that freedom, tolerance, and diversity are incompatible with collective ownership of productive assets.. If I did, I'd reject collective ownership of productive assets. I am not satisfied with a citation to Die Heilige Schrift, which I have read every bit as thoroughly as you, as you damn well know, as an argument that collective ownership requires the abolition of freedom, tolerance, and diversity.
Nor did the old Man. Or haven't you read, e.g., Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei II, last sentence of the section: An die Stelle der alten buergerlichen Gesellschaft mit ihren Klassen und Klassgegensaetzen tritt eine Assoziation, worin die freie Entwicklung eines jeden die Bedingung fuer die freie Entwicklung aller ist. (That's from memory, but I am pretty sure I have it right) : In place of the old bourgeois society wit its classes and class conflicts, steps forth an association where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
I don't say Marx is a liberal. But he was a Hegelian, and as such he knew that if there was something better than freedom, it hasn't been invented yet.
--- bhandari at berkeley.edu wrote:
> Replying to one of my posts, Andie writes:
>
> "That's why i said, as much as possible. of course
> liberalism involves a conception of the good,
> including freedom, tolerance, and diversity, but
> what's the alternative? Really, now. oppression,
> intolerance, uniformity? That what you'd advocate?"
>
> You begin by saying thatyou are for pluralism, now
> you say that if you don't
> promulgate the liberal vision of the good life--even
> as you
> qualify your own support so we don't really know
> whether you are
> supporting the liberal vision of the good-- you can
> only be in favor
> of oppression, intolerance, uniformity.
>
> So that should intimidate anyone from pointing to
> the obvious
> negative consequences of the liberal vision of the
> good life--
> social isolation, alienation, troubling emptiness
> (see Robert C Bishop The Philosophy of the Social
> Sciences,
> drawing on Charles Taylor and Ch Guignon).
>
> Saying there's no good alternative is only a form of
> social pessimism.
> This kind of dogmatic liberalism only opens the door
> to
> relativistic attitude towards (Christian or Islamic)
> fundamentalism
> and Jacobinism.
>
> Moreover, freedom, tolerance
> and diversity not only not incompatible with but
> the social forms through which oppression realizes
> itself
> on a social scale--that is, the collective
> possession of workers by employers.Or haven't you
> read
> chapters 6,22-4 of Capital, volume one?
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html