> American history can be understood as a running battle between authoritarians and egalitarians
...Do you mean "a running battle between conservatives and egalitarians," or "hierarchists and egalitarians," or something like that? I ask because authoritarians are usually seen as opposing libertarians, and libertarians are usually pretty OK with inequality so long as basic freedoms are respected.
If you'd written that American history can be understood as a running battle between libertarians and egalitarians, I would find that totally obvious, especially given that libertarians are probably the least domesticated out of the well-known political groups. Then again it really looks like the egalitarians have won, so... are you somehow dissatisfied?
The Google top box for libertarian reads, "a political philosophy that advocates only minimal *state* intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens" (emphasis mine). This is a tricky concept to apply to American history because it encompasses slaveholders who argued that state interference shouldn't deny them the private liberty of buying other human beings on the free market. The central problem, as Liz Anderson argues in her excellent book Private Government, is that the state isn't the only potential oppressor to consider. Jeff Bezos wants the yoke of government off his neck so he can have greater liberty to dominate an anti-competitive marketplace and exert unchecked authority over his employees. I appreciate your point about the slipperiness of some of this terminology, but I'd still argue Heather Cox Richardson is on the right track. A philosophy in which some people are anointed to hold unchecked authority over others - whether in the private or public sphere - is the political opposite of egalitarianism.
Trump is ahead in the polls. Authoritarian despots are wrecking a growing number of countries overseas. It would be wildly premature for egalitarians to declare victory.
> A philosophy in which some people are anointed to hold unchecked authority over others - whether in the private or public sphere - is the political opposite of egalitarianism.
OK, if this is the way you want to use the word egalitarian, you can. But I wonder, what term would you apply to the equity-loving woke crowd? These are people who really value social equality for all individuals and all groups as an ultimate goal.
> [Libertarianism] is a tricky concept to apply to American history because it encompasses slaveholders who argued that state interference shouldn't deny them the private liberty of buying other human beings on the free market.
Why is this tricky? Libertarians are a philosophical bunch, and bite the bullet on a lot of things. Most modern libertarians do find slavery abhorrent, but in practice, they're not going to raise any kind of unified objection to the idea of Jeff Bezos throwing off the government yoke, putting on the Ring of Fnargl, and owning everything he can see.
Out of curiosity, how many libertarians do you know personally? Any libertarian friends?
>OK, if this is the way you want to use the word egalitarian, you can. But I wonder, what term would you apply to the equity-loving woke crowd?
I've been wrestling with this question. When I see people on the left preening themselves about how morally superior they are and how deplorable the unwashed red states are, I don't think to myself "well there goes a fellow egalitarian." I'm a big fan of Rorty, but one thing he failed to foresee is how the abandonment of reformist leftism in favor of cultural leftism would bizarrely open the door to hierarchist/conservative/authoritarian/feral minds creeping over onto the left. People in the middle of the continuum are so repulsed by the new forms of cultural-left elitism they've been migrating toward authoritarians pretending to be just folks. Rorty is still completely right about the fact that only way out of the funhouse is to focus on actual policy. It's demoralizing how little that happens.
>Out of curiosity, how many libertarians do you know personally? Any libertarian friends?
I would call my close friend Andrew Rum (who critiqued an early draft of this post) libertarian-leaning in some regards. Andrew annoyingly rejects pretty much all labels https://freethinkr.substack.com/p/shattering-my-identity
And I'm sympathetic to his argument for the specific label libertarian. Pretty slippery, particularly if you try to apply it to American history.
OK, looking through this and some of your other posts, I'm starting to get a sense of you. I'm very interested in continued discussion with you - I'm the sort of person who likes to explore the strange perspectives of intelligent writers!
Sadly, though, I know from experience that unless you at least have that interest in strangeness in common with me, I'm just going to make you uncomfortable. Maybe you might try looking a bit at my substack before deciding you want to engage with me further?
I'm delighted to make your virtual acquaintance! My instant first thought on "Is Libertarianism a Bad Idea" is to wonder why Play Makes Us Human isn't on your "Reads" list. Peter Gray might be even more of a novelty-seeking egalitarian than me. If that's possible. Experimental History and Astral Codex Ten also carry a similar egalitarian torch, in my view.
You've given me plenty of homework! In the meantime I'll just say
I gave up on ACX over a year ago, and
When you say "egalitarian" I'm currently parsing it as "left-libertarian, probably minus various specific issues, IDK."
Do you like this thing you call egalitarianism because you believe it results in positive outcomes, or, is it valuable in and of itself, even if we have to trade away some other things we might like?
But yes, the early Quaker have generally been my favorites among the revolutionary and pre-revolutionary colonists. Whenever anyone tries to excuse the domestic behavior of Washington or Jefferson under temporal relativism, it's straight forward to point to their Quaker contemporaries to show that the badness of what they were doing was known at the time.
Regarding your discussion with Apple Pie, I don't fully comprehend what "woke people" means unless its immediately followed up with an example. It's one of the more abstract political nouns used these days.
Now that you mention it, that weird lobster bib on the Quaker Oats guy does seem a bit dandified. Modern simple dress is jeans and T-shirt. Even with the bib, I'd still argue Quaker Oats guy's outfit is basically jeans and T shirt compared to Saint Amant's foppery.
I regret the slippery sloppiness of the term "woke." I've been spitballing more concise terms since at least as far back as 2017, but unfortunately none of them stuck. Upvotes welcome!
> American history can be understood as a running battle between authoritarians and egalitarians
...Do you mean "a running battle between conservatives and egalitarians," or "hierarchists and egalitarians," or something like that? I ask because authoritarians are usually seen as opposing libertarians, and libertarians are usually pretty OK with inequality so long as basic freedoms are respected.
If you'd written that American history can be understood as a running battle between libertarians and egalitarians, I would find that totally obvious, especially given that libertarians are probably the least domesticated out of the well-known political groups. Then again it really looks like the egalitarians have won, so... are you somehow dissatisfied?
The Google top box for libertarian reads, "a political philosophy that advocates only minimal *state* intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens" (emphasis mine). This is a tricky concept to apply to American history because it encompasses slaveholders who argued that state interference shouldn't deny them the private liberty of buying other human beings on the free market. The central problem, as Liz Anderson argues in her excellent book Private Government, is that the state isn't the only potential oppressor to consider. Jeff Bezos wants the yoke of government off his neck so he can have greater liberty to dominate an anti-competitive marketplace and exert unchecked authority over his employees. I appreciate your point about the slipperiness of some of this terminology, but I'd still argue Heather Cox Richardson is on the right track. A philosophy in which some people are anointed to hold unchecked authority over others - whether in the private or public sphere - is the political opposite of egalitarianism.
Trump is ahead in the polls. Authoritarian despots are wrecking a growing number of countries overseas. It would be wildly premature for egalitarians to declare victory.
We have not been reading the same substacks!
> Trump is ahead in the polls.
Yes, and I've even predicted he'll win! I just don't think this matters in the long run: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-republican-party-is-doomed
> A philosophy in which some people are anointed to hold unchecked authority over others - whether in the private or public sphere - is the political opposite of egalitarianism.
OK, if this is the way you want to use the word egalitarian, you can. But I wonder, what term would you apply to the equity-loving woke crowd? These are people who really value social equality for all individuals and all groups as an ultimate goal.
> [Libertarianism] is a tricky concept to apply to American history because it encompasses slaveholders who argued that state interference shouldn't deny them the private liberty of buying other human beings on the free market.
Why is this tricky? Libertarians are a philosophical bunch, and bite the bullet on a lot of things. Most modern libertarians do find slavery abhorrent, but in practice, they're not going to raise any kind of unified objection to the idea of Jeff Bezos throwing off the government yoke, putting on the Ring of Fnargl, and owning everything he can see.
Out of curiosity, how many libertarians do you know personally? Any libertarian friends?
>OK, if this is the way you want to use the word egalitarian, you can. But I wonder, what term would you apply to the equity-loving woke crowd?
I've been wrestling with this question. When I see people on the left preening themselves about how morally superior they are and how deplorable the unwashed red states are, I don't think to myself "well there goes a fellow egalitarian." I'm a big fan of Rorty, but one thing he failed to foresee is how the abandonment of reformist leftism in favor of cultural leftism would bizarrely open the door to hierarchist/conservative/authoritarian/feral minds creeping over onto the left. People in the middle of the continuum are so repulsed by the new forms of cultural-left elitism they've been migrating toward authoritarians pretending to be just folks. Rorty is still completely right about the fact that only way out of the funhouse is to focus on actual policy. It's demoralizing how little that happens.
>Out of curiosity, how many libertarians do you know personally? Any libertarian friends?
I would call my close friend Andrew Rum (who critiqued an early draft of this post) libertarian-leaning in some regards. Andrew annoyingly rejects pretty much all labels https://freethinkr.substack.com/p/shattering-my-identity
And I'm sympathetic to his argument for the specific label libertarian. Pretty slippery, particularly if you try to apply it to American history.
OK, looking through this and some of your other posts, I'm starting to get a sense of you. I'm very interested in continued discussion with you - I'm the sort of person who likes to explore the strange perspectives of intelligent writers!
Sadly, though, I know from experience that unless you at least have that interest in strangeness in common with me, I'm just going to make you uncomfortable. Maybe you might try looking a bit at my substack before deciding you want to engage with me further?
I'm delighted to make your virtual acquaintance! My instant first thought on "Is Libertarianism a Bad Idea" is to wonder why Play Makes Us Human isn't on your "Reads" list. Peter Gray might be even more of a novelty-seeking egalitarian than me. If that's possible. Experimental History and Astral Codex Ten also carry a similar egalitarian torch, in my view.
You've given me plenty of homework! In the meantime I'll just say
I gave up on ACX over a year ago, and
When you say "egalitarian" I'm currently parsing it as "left-libertarian, probably minus various specific issues, IDK."
Do you like this thing you call egalitarianism because you believe it results in positive outcomes, or, is it valuable in and of itself, even if we have to trade away some other things we might like?
I think the Quaker Guy looks like quite the "dandy, almost a 'dude'." https://www.chess.com/article/view/saint-amant
:D
But yes, the early Quaker have generally been my favorites among the revolutionary and pre-revolutionary colonists. Whenever anyone tries to excuse the domestic behavior of Washington or Jefferson under temporal relativism, it's straight forward to point to their Quaker contemporaries to show that the badness of what they were doing was known at the time.
Regarding your discussion with Apple Pie, I don't fully comprehend what "woke people" means unless its immediately followed up with an example. It's one of the more abstract political nouns used these days.
Now that you mention it, that weird lobster bib on the Quaker Oats guy does seem a bit dandified. Modern simple dress is jeans and T-shirt. Even with the bib, I'd still argue Quaker Oats guy's outfit is basically jeans and T shirt compared to Saint Amant's foppery.
I regret the slippery sloppiness of the term "woke." I've been spitballing more concise terms since at least as far back as 2017, but unfortunately none of them stuck. Upvotes welcome!
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Deplorablism&defid=12156179
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wokesturbation&defid=17303780
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigotocentrism&defid=12885176
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Deplorepistemology&defid=12156169
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=racismism&defid=12686128