The end of History

[B~E]

Do people here consider that the history of the last century proves every non-liberal social order as nonsence? Reference to Francis Fukyama's book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

Here's my opinion.

There is no solide counterproposition to liberalism, in its economical or social forms, and Hegel's dialectic movement of History has been effectivly halted.

It could be argued that a social system cannot generate its own counter-proposition. A social system can improve itself, it can transforme itself, but it cannot give birth to something new. So if you want to look for an alternative to liberalism, you'd have to either look for a place where liberalism isnt the dominant form of social organisation, or you'd have to wait for liberalism to break down on its own. But from an economical point of view, liberalism has triumphed everywhere. In Russia, South america, in scandinavia, in China and in the Mohamedian world.

Social liberalism, on the other hand, didnt take hold in Asia and the islamic world, and its progress is shaky in Russia, and even in Europe and North America. Still, social liberalism is the only political philosophy that his still dynamically spreading around the world, even if it is meeting resistance. It is the only political philosophy that has the initiative, so to speak.

Then again, it could be argued that political Islam is spreading too, and that it can offer a solide alternative to secular liberal democraties. But Islam spread through violence and demographics only, and it can't stand free public criticisme and discussion, unlike liberalisme, so it is clearly inferior.

China is also going forward as a world power, but it is only doing so by adopting western economical liberalisme. Let say for a minute that China becomes another superpower and the world becomes again bipolar. This country would just end up promoting economical liberalism, like the USA is doing and Great-Britain did a century ago. China can only hope to become another tool of the curent international economic system. So political or ideological alternatives cant possibly emerge from China either.

Can an alternative emmerge from the Western world? I dont think so. I hope not. In my opinion, the West has become so interwinded with liberalism that if liberalism fail, the West will collapse as a coherent cultural entity. the West has lost the ability to transforme itself, it has reached the final form of civilisation. Is anyone here familiar with Ferdinand Tonnies's concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft?

 

[Sogeking]

heh. his last name is fukyama...

anyways, the true test of liberalism will be seen in the coming years when demand for simple needs such as food and water overweighs the supply.

 

[B~E]

What about social liberalism, which I find is the only important aspect of liberalism?

 

[Tipsy]

What about social liberalism, which I find is the only important aspect of liberalism?

Are you saying that it's more important than economic liberalism? If you are, I'd argue that economic liberalism is more important than social liberalism because social liberalism (specifically individual freedom) will not exist [for very long] without economic liberalism with the current alternatives available and that economic liberalism is a prerequisite for social liberalism.

On an unrelated note, I hate how the term liberalism is used in the United States.

 

[B~E]

Well then, go ahead and argue your point. How is the concept that people are capable of trading as free rational agents on a free market, somehow essential to the concept that an individual's freedom is the most important value a government should defend and uphold?

Heck, I think that I could even argue that if left alone on a free market to compete against other rational agents, some individuals will find their freedom severely reduced against other, more powerfull agents.

On an unrelated note, I hate how the term liberalism is used in the United States.

 

[Tipsy]

Well then, go ahead and argue your point. How is the concept that people are capable of trading as free rational agents on a free market, somehow essential to the concept that an individual's freedom is the most important value a government should defend and uphold?

Heck, I think that I could even argue that if left alone on a free market to compete against other rational agents, some individuals will find their freedom severely reduced against other, more powerfull agents.

It's a matter of the intimate relationship between economic liberalism and social liberalism - one cannot separate the two. Someone else directing economic activity, the only current alternative we have to economic liberalism as a way through which resources are allocated, means that whatever authority controls this allocation controls the limited means we have to meet our ends. Thus, whoever controls the limited means we have to meet our ends has to decide which ends are satisfied and which are not. This decision sets which values are rated higher and which are rated lower and essentially sets what we should believe. It takes away the power from the individual and gives it from the community - hence, it is no longer individual freedom.

You can argue that in competitive capitalism the price we have to pay will deprive a member of society of their freedom (which is my guess as to what you are referring to, though I really don't know). Price as an obstacle to freedom within competitive capitalism, however, is not due to our chosen end being disapproved of, but rather by no conscious will, and thus leaves us open to other options of choosing our end - a choice not available if our ends are disapproved of in direction of allocation.

In short, without economic liberalism a person becomes a means through which authority can meet the 'general welfare' of the community rather than an individual who uses his likes and dislikes to govern his own life. I do not mean to underplay the importance of social liberalism, I merely want to get the point across that economic liberalism is a prerequisite to social liberalism.

 

[B~E]

Thus, whoever controls the limited means we have to meet our ends has to decide which ends are satisfied and which are not. This decision sets which values are rated higher and which are rated lower and essentially sets what we should believe.

You will have to demonstrate that control over the economy (means of productions, trade, finance) correlate with a control over an individual's social freedom. You can partly understand individuals as economical agents, but they are much more than that, they act in other dimensions of society. So how does controling individuals as economical agents allow you to control them when they act as agents in other aspect of society?

Secondly, in a truly liberal free market, people may freely trade what they can, but they can't trade on equal footing. This inequality between economical agents allow the most powerfull to exploit and significantly curb the freedom of less powerfull economical agents. Thus you're liberal economy is only a children's playground without rules to regulate the behavior of bullies.

 

[Tipsy]

You will have to demonstrate that control over the economy (means of productions, trade, finance) correlate with a control over an individual's social freedom. You can partly understand individuals as economical agents, but they are much more than that, they act in other dimensions of society. So how does controling individuals as economical agents allow you to control them when they act as agents in other aspect of society?

That's only true if you limit what is meant by an economic agent. The end result of any activity is from an economic motive, however an economic motive is merely the desire for power to achieve unspecified ends. Maybe it is money, on the other hand, maybe it is the power to want to help animals, people, the environment, and countless other aims that are not aimed at gaining something of monetary value, but that require money to do. For example, if I want to use my life to help animals and my money is allocated by an authority instead to subsidize farming, my individual freedom is being infringed upon because I cannot use my resources to meet the end I have specified.

When the government slowly takes away our ability to spend our resources, be it in big government or complete socialism, there is not merely an economic loss, but also the loss of our power to choose which of our individual likes and dislikes are effected, be it money, an individual's dislike of cruelty towards animals, or any other number of economic motives.

Secondly, in a truly liberal free market, people may freely trade what they can, but they can't trade on equal footing. This inequality between economical agents allow the most powerfull to exploit and significantly curb the freedom of less powerfull economical agents. Thus you're liberal economy is only a children's playground without rules to regulate the behavior of bullies.

I am not saying that economic liberalism is perfect, but unfortunately the choice is not between Utopia and economic liberalism - it is between a system in which a few people decide who gets what, when, and how and a system in which who gets what depends on the ability of individuals combined with an unknown future (luck). A poor man may be less likely to end his life rich than one who inherits a fortune, however the only system known in which a man's fortune depends solely on himself without coercive hindrance and not from favors from those with power is competitive capitalism. The only alternative is a system in which a ruling group has more and more authority over all human ends as the system proceeds closer and closer to socialism.

 

[B~E]

For example, if I want to use my life to help animals and my money is allocated by an authority instead to subsidize farming, my individual freedom is being infringed upon because I cannot use my resources to meet the end I have specified.

In a free market, chances are that you wont have any money to freely.

When the government slowly takes away our ability to spend our resources, be it in big government or complete socialism, there is not merely an economic loss, but also the loss of our power to choose which of our individual likes and dislikes are effected, be it money, an individual's dislike of cruelty towards animals, or any other number of economic motives.

In a centralized economy, you still need to demonstrate why the central authority, even if it hold a monopoly over ressources, will necessarily work against your desires. The state can be influenced through lobbying, election, running for office and protest. the state can abe held accountable, unlike more powerful actor in a truly free market.

I am not saying that economic liberalism is perfect, but unfortunately the choice is not between Utopia and economic liberalism - it is between a system in which a few people decide who gets what, when, and how and a system in which who gets what depends on the ability of individuals combined with an unknown future (luck).

No, this is only a theorical discussion, dont bring any "but this is how it work in real life anyway" argument.

A poor man may be less likely to end his life rich than one who inherits a fortune, however the only system known in which a man's fortune depends solely on himself without coercive hindrance and not from favors from those with power is competitive capitalism.

Hey, that sounds fantastic. If you have a fortune. Afterall, hunting only make sense if you're an hunter.

The only alternative is a system in which a ruling group has more and more authority over all human ends as the system proceeds closer and closer to socialism.

Alright. Explain to me how you can go from a centralized economy to a "ruling group [that] has more and more authority over all human ends as the system proceeds closer and closer to socialism". Explain to me why a centralized economy not only forbid people from working toward their goals, but it also prevent people from being critical of the government and the state, and to organize themselves to pressure the state for it to be accountable. Why would it breed an undemocratic political system?

Liberalism is also about the ability to assume the individual and collective identity of your choice. Can a centralized economy forbid this?

 

[Tipsy]

Alright. Explain to me how you can go from a centralized economy to a "ruling group [that] has more and more authority over all human ends as the system proceeds closer and closer to socialism". Explain to me why a centralized economy not only forbid people from working toward their goals, but it also prevent people from being critical of the government and the state, and to organize themselves to pressure the state for it to be accountable. Why would it breed an undemocratic political system?

…

In a centralized economy, you still need to demonstrate why the central authority, even if it hold a monopoly over ressources, will necessarily work against your desires. The state can be influenced through lobbying, election, running for office and protest. the state can abe held accountable, unlike more powerful actor in a truly free market.

Both of these have the same underlying question - why is a centralized economy incompatible/unstable with democracy.

Let’s assume that it is unanimously expressed by the people of a country that the government should create a complete economic plan. The only result of a legislative body will be inefficiency because neither the legislators nor their constituent will be able to agree on any particular plan. People can agree on a broad phrase like general welfare, however without a unanimous ethical code – it is not the typical asking to agree where people can, but to agree on everything (as it will direct all the resources of the nation, and by the definition of an economic means I made, all the power to effect likes and dislikes). So there is no ability to create one comprehensive plan.

The other democratic alternative is to break up the comprehensive plan and vote on other issues, however this is also ineffective. An economic plan cannot be a comprehensive economic plan without a unitary conception – the complex plan requires all the parts to be carefully adjusted with each other. This would either result in no economic plan or one that satisfies no one because this once again requires a unanimous ethical code. This would also be the result of delegating the powers to experts as each group of experts would have economic plans aimed at a different interpretation of a common good.

Either way, within the democratic process, it is not possible to have a comprehensive economic plan. Drawing upon this, an economy in which there is the allocation of resources by government is incompatible with democracy meaning that 1) it would breed an undemocratic system and 2) one would not have the power to influence the government trough lobbying, election, running for office, and protest because one would no longer live under a democracy.

The underlying conflict between social liberalism and government allocation of resources is the conflict between individualism and collectivism. The needs and likes/dislikes of everyone are so complex that it isn't possible to deal with through democracy or to even have a consensus of them - what likes/dislikes should be approved and which shouldn't.

Liberalism is also about the ability to assume the individual and collective identity of your choice. Can a centralized economy forbid this?

What I am trying to say is that there is no separate economic motive from social liberalism - restricting how an individual can allocate his or her resources is a loss of power in "the ability to assume the individual and collective identity of your choice." So yes - a centralized economy does forbid this.

In a free market, chances are that you wont have any money to freely.

Hey, that sounds fantastic. If you have a fortune. Afterall, hunting only make sense if you're an hunter.

Why wouldn’t I have money? Why wouldn’t the relative and absolute standard of living increase under competitive capitalism?

No, this is only a theorical discussion, dont bring any "but this is how it work in real life anyway" argument.

That is how it works in theory as well as real life.