posts/liberal-universalism/

[giscus[bot]]

posts/liberal-universalism/

Examining the usually overlooked ideology that has shaped Western policies and institutions over decades, and its catastrophic consequences.

https://xayan.nu/posts/liberal-universalism/

[swankypants-source]

Hey at least you didn't use AI to write this. Good on you.

[PGOak]

You seem to spend most of this rambling rant trying to trigger me by your irrationality, so let me summarise and save myself the torture of having to go through every single one of your outrageous misrepresentations, your inexcusable lack of consistent definitions as well as your deliberate sophistry.

Objective ethics are objective. What you are attempting to do is justify the fallacy of special pleading, in order to suggest that ethics are not universal nor objective.
Hilariously, you are given the opportunity to mention sentimentalism, yet your mention of emotional motivation is purely in order to paint the belief in objective ethics as irrationally emotional.

The idea that a Pole would come to reject Western liberalism, when this is precisely what they stretched for as an alternative to communism, is unbelievable. Somehow, you'd rather be like those countries that are worse off than the West. Yet, what do you provide as the alternative?

You do not.
Your assertion is that we, who believe that the ethics of liberalism; we who have provided you the evidence in favour of liberalism by outcompeting authoritarian states and providing better living standards, as well as greater rights and liberties for all our citizens; we are the ones imposing our values on others.

We are not. We have merely showed you that they work.
As a Norwegian, it is hilarious that a Pole should think so little of Western liberalism. Will you recall all your friends now? Has your country finally become endurable on its own, such that we do not need to pay Poles to do our cheap labour anymore?
Or even more hilariously, do you genuinely think we have suffered from your Polish labour?

It seems, if I am to pretend to have some good faith left after reading this, that you are getting cold feet. Liberalism has worked for us so far, but will it keep working?
This seems to be the real motivation behind this blog-post. Well, we are still ahead of you. Norwegians, Swedes, Frenchmen, Englishmen, etc. Our living standards are still greater. Our rights are still more expansive.

Poland is the fastest growing economy in Europe, almost in the world. You've almost caught up to the GDP per capita average of the EU (3/4s of the way there!)
Yet now you want to stop. Oh well. Too bad. Enjoy shooting yourself in the foot.

But don't expect the World Bank to give any loans to people who reject the best economic system the world has ever seen. Do not expect the United Nations to give any special concessions because you don't like them. Do not expect the International Criminal Court to change their laws simply because you do not like being held to the same standards that once brought your tyrant overlord to their knees.

I suppose the only conclusion I can take from this is that you regret that you broke free from the Soviet Union. Else, why would you be complaining about your saviours' self-righteousness?

[Xayan]

Your comment hinges on two basic yet flawed assumptions - so I'll just focus on those.

1. "Objective ethics are objective"

According to which laws of physics?

Ethics - being an abstract human construct - cannot be "objective" in any meaningful sense of the word.

More importantly, I am actually criticizing the subjectivity of ethics and their application. I show their constantly shifting nature, as evidenced by ONCHR's own document about "reparatory justice" - and that's just one of many examples.

Give this a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

2. "The idea that a Pole would come to reject Western liberalism"

As I have stated clearly in the beginning of the post, I am not rejecting liberalism as a whole. I am rejecting liberal universalism - the technocratic, utopian vision of a "transnational world" where all nations are expected to conform to a single set of values and norms.

In Poland's case, communism was a foreign imposition. Europe's help in overthrowing it was welcomed because it aligned with our own goals of freedom and self-determination, not because we wanted to become a carbon copy of Western Europe.

I hope this clarifies things. The rest of your points about GDP, living standards, etc. aren't really relevant to this discussion - unless you'd like to talk about the actual source of Norway's wealth?

[FredJ-code]

Maybe you should read a bit about the subject?

As it happens, I am currently writing a blog, sort of, about political realism. Perhaps I could even help you out, although it is pretty impossible to make anyone care about intellectual and academic texts if you are not in academia. (I am also not) And with most academics not interested in truths, it becomes a catch-22.

John Gray's book "Two faces of liberalism" is perhaps a good start that contains many of your thoughts.

Anyways, an ambitious start and I wish you best of luck.
But, you need to write shorter texts where you only argue about one specific issue, or very few will get through them.

[Solannn455]

I have the impression that your critics are mainly about socialism than liberalism tbh. I think you are giving them from a point of view of someone who is conservative/liberal-conservative, if that makes sense

Liberals != proponents of liberalism

A lot of "liberals" are actually social-liberal or socialists. Which are different philosophies from the main ideas of liberalism, which are mainly about negative rights. Social-liberals are socialists that follow the liberal institutions without really adhering to their philosophy, the same is done by liberal-conservatives. Which is kind of an expect outcome as liberalism is not restricting individuals, so it lets them derive if the individuals composing it let it derive (which happened).

However, I do not think socialism, liberalism, libertarianism or conservatism can be coherently held in one vision of the world in the long run. They can more or less agree on some points in the short run, but there are differences in principle on how to approach the world. Of course, there are even different points of view even within one philosophy.

I do not say that to be pedantic but because you criticize democracy that comes from the liberalism I am talking about for reasons that do not find their origins in liberalism but in socialism. You are criticizing democracy because of the non democratic elements that are let free by the principle of negative rights (which currently allow people to criticize the existence of democracy like you did and like the "liberals" do)

Also, I don't see how someone criticizing Japan is pressuring them. It is not like the west has embargoed Japan for not accepting more refugees.

That is just my current opinion on the subject, which may evolve