Preston Werner on Nostr: nprofile1q…lczzv 1. Your last sentence suggests you agree with the post, which is ...
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqekwjg2y23nasyhevcr2292hme5jfehuczfyusfmzm6ud7k7llxtsqlczzv (nprofile…czzv)
1. Your last sentence suggests you agree with the post, which is that liberal political philosophy doesn't answer the question of how to live in a deeply polarized and intolerant world - it presupposes that we don't live in such a world.
2. If you really think that liberalism (and "pacifism", by which I think you mean something like anarchism) is/are the only "serious" political philosophies, much less the only political philosophies that take living alongside each other seriously, I think that is a real shame. I'm sure we could find many philosophers who might have said the same thing about theocracy, the divine right of kings, libertarianism, economic democracy, etc. throughout all of history.
I hope there are some political philosophers who are still dreaming of alternatives, as well as philosophers (including liberals!) addressing the reality as we find it instead of retreating to our offices and saying "well things shouldn't be that way, so my work is done here."
3. In any case, I'm sure you are familiar with arguments to the effect that liberalism + capitalism violates the limits of reasonable coercion, once we properly understand the concept of liberty (as not a wholly negative concept). I'm not asking you to refute such arguments here, of course. But would you really say that they aren't "serious"?
1. Your last sentence suggests you agree with the post, which is that liberal political philosophy doesn't answer the question of how to live in a deeply polarized and intolerant world - it presupposes that we don't live in such a world.
2. If you really think that liberalism (and "pacifism", by which I think you mean something like anarchism) is/are the only "serious" political philosophies, much less the only political philosophies that take living alongside each other seriously, I think that is a real shame. I'm sure we could find many philosophers who might have said the same thing about theocracy, the divine right of kings, libertarianism, economic democracy, etc. throughout all of history.
I hope there are some political philosophers who are still dreaming of alternatives, as well as philosophers (including liberals!) addressing the reality as we find it instead of retreating to our offices and saying "well things shouldn't be that way, so my work is done here."
3. In any case, I'm sure you are familiar with arguments to the effect that liberalism + capitalism violates the limits of reasonable coercion, once we properly understand the concept of liberty (as not a wholly negative concept). I'm not asking you to refute such arguments here, of course. But would you really say that they aren't "serious"?