[SE23]

Okay i admit this is a mock practice question for an exam i will be sitting. However i am genuinely interested, why has Liberalism as a political theory proven to last so long, since the days of the French revolution. I suppose the definition of "liberal" has been misused and evacuated of meaning in contemporay politics, but the question still stands.
My view reflects Churchill's quote, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", i assume he is talking about a liberal democracy, or something close to it. Anyway i would appreciate responses to the question in the title, also will this trend continue ?

[SpaciousBox]

I'll give this a try, though if I have to be honest I've no idea.

What I'd like to say:
Humanity has matured to a point where they except that might is no longer right, and that we must accept we are all on the same planet, and must solve our differences like grown ups and through respect. This includes negotiation to a mutual level that allows both parties to coexist, even if it does effect you in some negative way, be it minor. This came from the enlightenment and is growing within all free-thinking cultures of the world, even if it hasn't quite spread to our governments yet.

What is probably more likely:
We've been through a century of pretty bad warfare, or threat of invasion / conflict, and the present generations can still remember it. People are reactionary beings and so are more likely to be tolerant of their fellow humans whilst the alternative is still fresh in their minds. Why respect each other? because we've seen what happens when you don't. Very much your Churchill quote here. This is on the way out though, and I'm fairly certain a move to the more culturally illiberal side is coming, especially when certain threats can be used to justify almost any action. Look at our present regimes for example; invading other countries for oil whilst under the pretence of defending the nation from terrorism - whilst many of us said this was not correct, there were many more who simply didn't care... The irony of this is that those people were also heavily under the influence of the cold war, so maybe my original argument of reaction isn't correct? It is possible that it is a value of the ethical left, and as the left is generally growing more middle class, so is Liberalism? But if truth be told I've not really got an answer for you on this one...

[mikema63]

i think its just because every new group thats come to power has adopted the term liberal, its just evolved with the times more than being one ideology that hasn't changed.

[SE23]

Two great replies, i suppose one answer could be looking at the other ideologies, and how they failed so terribly Fascism, socialism etc. Like all political ideologies the term liberal has been evacaated of all meaning, its empty now.

[cicero91]

it lasted so long, because our societies are based on liberal ideas. on the one hand, it imposes freedom in decision, economy, politics and on the other hand it implies responsibility one for each other and development of various structures. actually, those ism-words have negative connotations so we better stick to liberality.

[UK Sam15]

I suppose that it's largely due to the belief of equality under the law and the protection of individual rights and private property. Place those alongside low tax rates, and you've got yourself an answer!
Those are all the things that people want, hence enjoying the basics of liberalism. I'd suggest that's probably why it's so durable.

[Ombrageux]

Classical liberalism represents the first attempt to organize human society on a rational basis. I mean this both in the sense that it was based on logical reasoning as opposed to faith (a characteristic shared with Ancient Greek philosophy) but also, and this was new, to make human social life non-arbitrary.

This means that life becomes determined according not to arbitrary human wills (e.g.: the King/criminal steals your property/kills you) but according to consistently applied laws. Naturally, this is of interest for any person whose activity requires consistent (businessmen), but pretty much everyone enjoys the security provided by the rule of law. Only the naturally strong, warlords and revolutionaries, will be fundamentally opposed

As Rousseau said

No one is storng enough to always be the master unless he transforms his force in right [law] and obedience into duty. From then might makes right; a sarcastically defined right in appearance is genuinely established in principle [...].

More generally liberalism is about general limitations on the State, which also increased people's security. Indeed one can extend this logic to American liberalism (welfarism): By paying for universal healthcare/education/unemployment benefit, everyone (including the rich) is guaranteed a minimum of economic security (in addition to classical liberalism's political/physical security).

[Quantum]

Part of liberalism's durability is due to its ability to quickly adapt to survive in a ever-changing world. Horrible working conditions and the looming threat of Bolshevism gave birth to the liberal welfare state. Globalisation and economic competition between states gave birth to neoliberalism. Increasing technological sophistication gave us the pill, sexual liberation and LGBT rights. Increasing ethnic diversity gave birth to liberal multiculturalism instead of ethnic cleansing and the instability that comes with that.

All other systems like socialism, fascism, reactionary conservatism all failed to adapt to these realities and their power waned as a result. Liberalism also has greater variety within the ideology, ranging from left-liberalism/social democracy to classical liberalism, all united in their belief in liberty and equality under the law and don't fight as much as Stalinists/Trotskyites and Strasserites/Hitlerites. Following from the last point, liberal governments pass from right to left and vice versa easily where as in socialist and fascist systems, purges and coups are more likely to occur.

[SolarCross]

Durable compared to what? Absolute monarchy? 4000 years and counting..
Will liberalism last that long? Maybe. Its ideological foundation is Rousseau's social contract which is an obnoxious fraud but then the ideological foundation of Monarchy is the equally fraudulent 'divine right to rule'. Plainly fraudulent philosophy is no impediment to political success, hell it may even be a requirement.

[Rothbardian]

Durable compared to what? Absolute monarchy? 4000 years and counting..
Will liberalism last that long? Maybe. Its ideological foundation is Rousseau's social contract which is an obnoxious fraud but then the ideological foundation of Monarchy is the equally fraudulent 'divine right to rule'. Plainly fraudulent philosophy is no impediment to political success, hell it may even be a requirement.

Social contracts and the divine right to rule are really the same sort of faulty reasoning, the only difference is that one comes with the perception that the individual is involved and somehow a part of the rulership, as silly as that idea is.

[Eran]

American liberalism (welfarism): By paying for universal healthcare/education/unemployment benefit, everyone (including the rich) is guaranteed a minimum of economic security (in addition to classical liberalism's political/physical security).

Presenting modern liberalism as consistent with classical liberalism is problematic.

Classical liberalism was concerned with governmental abuse of power, and called to mitigate them through constitutional and cultural institutions. While it recognized a legitimate role for government in some respects, its spirit was to give people the widest scope possible to pursue their happiness. It rejected traditional paternalism (based on spiritual/religious values).

Modern liberalism, by contrast, is extraordinarily paternalistic. Probably the most paternalistic society in human history. Not only are secular values imposed by the "majority" (heavily dominated by intellectual and political elites) on society, but people are no longer free to pursue happiness based on their priorities - increasingly they face boundaries to happiness as perceived (and enforced) by less-and-less accountable distant strangers.

[DeadPresidents]

I agree with Eran.

This, people who think Liberalism is benevolent are fools. It's more oppressive than a monarchy, it's monarchy by the majority and the wealthy and powerful.

The people are turned into mere commodities and pawns for economic and political agendas.

[Rothbardian]

I agree with Eran.

This, people who think Liberalism is benevolent are fools. It's more oppressive than a monarchy, it's monarchy by the majority and the wealthy and powerful.

The people are turned into mere commodities and pawns for economic and political agendas.

We all grow up surrounded by the state and children are told when they are very young that if it wasn't for uncle sam, all would be chaos and misery.

So you can kind of understand why people come to the conclusion that anything the government does is good. Children accept the paradigms placed on them as true and then when they are adults they will subconsciously accept only information that supports the paradigm.

[Genghis Khan]

Not only are secular values imposed by the "majority" (heavily dominated by intellectual and political elites) on society

What are you talking about?

people are no longer free to pursue happiness based on their priorities

Same question.

[Eran]

I am talking about the countless ways that government officials, by legislating and setting rules, gradually diminish our freedoms.

I am not free to decide how to spend my income (of which a large fraction is appropriated by government).
I am not free to decide what to eat, drink or smoke.
I am not free to decide where to work or whom to employ.


On the question of values, consider "charity", the benevolent act of helping others simply because they need our help. Liberals routinely wish to impose their interpretation of charity through the tax code and welfare systems of government, rather than allow each individual to decide how to use their own money for charitable purposes.

[Genghis Khan]

I am not free to decide how to spend my income

Really? Which government bureaucrat is telling you can't buy an iPhone?

I am not free to decide what to eat, drink or smoke.

Which government bureaucrat is telling you you can't get a hot dog, or soda, or Marlboro?

am not free to decide where to work or whom to employ.

Which government bureaucrat is telling you you can't accept a job offer at Bank of America, or what candidate for office secretary you're allowed to employ?

consider "charity", the benevolent act of helping others simply because they need our help. Liberals routinely wish to impose their interpretation of charity through the tax code and welfare systems of government, rather than allow each individual to decide how to use their own money for charitable purposes.

You're confusing charity with a social safety net. These two aren't the same and do not correspond to the same guidelines and objectives.

[Decky]

People like being alive, the NHS keeps them that way, the libertarians would take it and laugh as the poor dies in the streets, why wouldn't literally any other ideology be more appealing to people that libertarianism the ideology of death?

[mum]

People like being alive, the NHS keeps them that way, the libertarians would take it and laugh as the poor dies in the streets, why wouldn't literally any other ideology be more appealing to people that libertarianism the ideology of death?

This is probably the stupidest post I have seen yet on pofo. Claiming that libertarians would "laugh as the poor dies in the streets" is simply insulting and stupid.
Wake up to yourself Decky

[Genghis Khan]

People like being alive, the NHS keeps them that way, the libertarians would take it and laugh as the poor dies in the streets, why wouldn't literally any other ideology be more appealing to people that libertarianism the ideology of death?

It's like you were channeling Alan Grayson there for a second.

[Eran]

Really? Which government bureaucrat is telling you can't buy an iPhone?

Well, Inland Revenue Service (or the IRS in the US) collects a large fraction of my income before I even see it. I have zero control over how that part of my income is spent.

Further, there are any number of products I may wish to buy, but which a range of government bureaucrats at all levels decided to prohibit. From drugs to pepper-spray (in the UK).

Which government bureaucrat is telling you you can't get a hot dog, or soda, or Marlboro?

If I lived in New York, the mayor would tell me not to buy a soda which is too large for his (the mayor's) taste.
Anywhere in the US, FDA bureaucrats prohibit me from buying raw mik.
And Marijuana smoking is illegal virtually everywhere.

Which government bureaucrat is telling you you can't accept a job offer at Bank of America, or what candidate for office secretary you're allowed to employ?

The Equal Opportunity bureaucracy will start questioning my hiring standards if my workforce's distribution of gender/race is not to their liking. Further, I am not allowed to work in the US (no work visa), nor am I allowed to provide employment to my own daughter (again, no work visa, this time in the UK).

Depending on what I want to employ people to do (or be employed to do myself), any number of professional licensing rules may prohibit me. And, of course, I cannot employ anybody without filling mountains of paperwork, and otherwise waste time as the government's arrend boy filling forms and collecting taxes on its behalf.


More generally, freedom is the freedom to do what you want, not just what government bureaucrats choose to allow you.

You're confusing charity with a social safety net. These two aren't the same and do not correspond to the same guidelines and objectives.

Both have the same objectives, namely helping the poor by resources taken from the wealthy. They are obviously operated differently, just as consensual sex and rape have the same objective (at least to one of the parties) while employing very different means.

People like being alive, the NHS keeps them that way, the libertarians would take it and laugh as the poor dies in the streets, why wouldn't literally any other ideology be more appealing to people that libertarianism the ideology of death?

People like being alive, but not at all costs. The NHS doesn't keep people alive - there is no reason at all to expect that more people would have died without it. Anything else is a mere ideologically-tainted speculation.