Non-Aggression and Good Order: The Liberal Way

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.

In recent years, much has been said about the incompatibility between liberal values, and activism that is rooted in postmodern critical theory, that is sometimes called 'woke' (although I'm concerned that the w-word is now over broadly applied). As I have illustrated multiple times, for liberals, knowing the objective truth is fundamental and prior to building a good order. To know the objective truth, people must be allowed to freely explore ideas and discover things. This is why a truly free and fair marketplace of ideas is important. The postmodern critical theory worldview, where ideas are primarily seen as the product of oppressive power relations, and the activism it leads to, are fundamentally incompatible with what liberals believe in. After all, if certain ideas are seen as the product of oppressive power relations, they would need to be shut down rather than given a fair go in the marketplace of ideas. This is actually the logic behind Herbert Marcuse's famous essay Repressive Tolerance. The fact that this essay was published back in the 1960s shows that this worldview has actually been around for a while.

During this time, the influence of this worldview has led to an uneven playing field for certain ideas, which might not even be harmful. For example, there has been a particular aversion to traditional ideas as 'oppressive', which has led some to react negatively to any talk of 'family values', even when it is not used as a dog whistle against gay marriage and adoption. True liberals oppose this uneven playing field, because we believe in a healthy marketplace of ideas. Historically, we argued against the irrational negativity towards marriage that was behind the initial reluctance by some gay activists to embrace marriage equality, for example. However, in recent years, postmodern critical theory has gone mainstream, potentially leading to blatantly uneven playing fields as the new norm. This means it is now even more important to argue against this worldview as a whole.

However, there is also another reason liberals oppose postmodern critical theory, that is at least just as important. And that is non-aggression. The 'Non Aggression Principle' (NAP) at the root of classical libertarianism is actually a very specific and simplistic application of the value of non-aggression, and while classical libertarianism is under the broad liberal umbrella, most liberals probably don't believe in the NAP the way classical libertarians do. However, broadly speaking, non-aggression is actually the spirit of all kinds of liberalism. We liberals have long believed that non-aggression is essential to achieving a good order. Historically, liberalism arose as an extension of religious tolerance, that itself arose as a solution to put an end to centuries of toxic religious conflicts in Europe. As it is sometimes described, liberalism lowers the expectations of politics, and takes it away from debates about how the good life should be like, towards focusing on how we can live together peacefully despite our differences.

It turns out that this actually leads to the best life for all, comparatively speaking. Life in the West since the classical liberal consensus has undeniably been better than during the middle ages and the religious conflicts, even if it is still no utopia. The key reason why life has been better is because there is much less aggression. Life today is certainly much less violent than back in the middle ages. It is the liberal aversion towards aggression, and preference for non-aggressive means to resolve differences, that has made this possible. Besides making life less violent, non-aggression also contributes to building good order, because people can rationally work out their differences in dialogue. The stakes of speaking up and exploring new ideas are also much lower, when everyone knows that it would not lead to violent consequences, or innocent people being harmed. This, in turn, encourages the exchange of ideas, and the development of innovative solutions.

Postmodern critical theory activism is not compatible with non-aggression. De-platforming and cancel culture is aggression, by definition. Indeed, much of the theory is basically used to justify aggressive means for dealing with opponents. If words and language can be violent, then an aggressive response like de-platforming is justifiable. If ideas are actually oppressive applications of power, then aggressively shutting them down is justifiable. Taken as a whole, postmodern critical theory rejects the liberal preference for non-aggressive means to resolve our differences. This is why I believe it is essential to prevent liberalism from being contaminated with ideas from postmodern critical theory, if we want liberalism to remain committed to non-aggression.

Right now, many people are justifiably frustrated about cancel culture, and the uneven playing field for certain ideas and voices. Liberals share their frustration here. However, this does not mean that everyone agrees with us about what should be done, and hence can be seen as an ally. Given that liberals firmly believe in non-aggression, true liberals should be concerned about those who advocate using aggression to solve the current problem, or worse, use the current problem as justification for an aggressive culture war program to remake society the way they want to. Put it simply, using state power to shut down your opponents in the culture wars is aggression, and no better than cancel culture in the eyes of true liberals. Politicizing certain issues that actually affect real lives, and using state power to score points in the culture wars at the expense of those lives, is an act of extreme aggression, which true liberals need to resist with all our might. People who do these things might label themselves 'anti-woke', but their brand of anti-wokeness is certainly very different from what liberals want, and it needs to be made clear that we don't share any common ground at all. It is just as important to prevent liberalism from being contaminated by the culture war Right.

In the face of aggressive culture warriors coming from both the Left and the Right, we need to stand our ground, by arguing the case for non-aggression. Non-aggression leads to good order, because it is only when the threat of aggression is removed that people are free to explore and debate ideas, and it is only in this process that we can get closer to the objective truth, or find good solutions to problems. Non-aggression makes life much less violent, meaning that bloody tragedies are less likely to happen, and innocent people are much less likely to be harmed. Finally, non-aggression is an ongoing project, and is by definition progressive rather than reactive. When I was younger, I said I hoped to see all wars end in my lifetime, and I still truly believe in that dream. There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of moving society in the direction of non-aggression, and we must not give up hope.

The Trans Discourse and Gender Differences: The Liberal Way

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.

In this episode, I want to examine society's current inability to have a rational and objective discussion about gender differences, the flow-on effects on the discourse around trans issues, and how we can fix all this. In the previous episode, I stated that liberals believe in seeking out the objective truth first, and then seeking to build a good order based on what we know about the objective truth. The order here is important, because we need to know the objective facts before we make any value judgements, and this requires us to be open-minded in our quest to know the world as it is. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for wider society, when it comes to sex and gender issues.

Men and women, on average, differ on not just physical properties, but also in psychology and behavior, and at least some of these differences are by nature, rather than environmental conditioning. If by sex we mean biological sex, and by gender we mean the social and behavioral aspects, then the two are certainly highly correlated, even if there is also a large range of overlap. This is true even if we take LGBT people into account, because they account for only a small fraction of the population. Indeed, the exception (LGBT people) proves the rule (non-LGBT people) here. All this should not be controversial at all.

In fact, accepting these objective facts would go a long way towards understanding trans people. It is in refusing to accept at least some of these facts (that there could be differences between men and women outside of the physically observable) that anti-trans gender critical feminism becomes possible. It is in refusing to accept even more of these facts that a postmodern approach to trans issues, that ignores the centrality of gender dysphoria in trans lives, becomes able to speak over objective evidence from clinical medicine. In turn, this has led to trans identity being seen as akin to a lifestyle choice, leading to right-wing culture warriors calling for restricting trans rights and taking away funding for transition related medical treatment. All this means the critical theory worldview, in its rejection of the objective truth on sex and gender, is at the root of the current sorry state of the trans discourse. Which is why it must be challenged as a matter of priority.

To start fixing things, we must demand that we be able to talk about the objective truth when it comes to sex and gender. For too long, the critical theory worldview has made such discussion taboo, by assuming that any talk of differences would be a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women. However, this assumption is not objectively sound at all. The view that objective facts can be a tool of the patriarchy is ultimately rooted in the worldview that ideas are primarily defined by power relations, and objective truth is less important than power relations. While this worldview had existed before postmodernism, it was arguably the work of Michel Foucault that took it to its logical conclusion: that knowledge itself is always a product of power relations. Once you embrace this worldview, there is no going back to looking at the objective facts neutrally. Hence, this worldview is completely incompatible with being committed to what the scientific facts actually say.

In accepting the basic objective facts about sex and gender, one can clearly see trans people's plight in simple terms, as long as one is not already biased by religious dogma (like many right-wing culture warriors clearly are, even if they do not say it aloud these days). To put it simply, there is a mind-body mismatch happening. Of course, this is an oversimplification. However, this at least gets the basic point across. Given the current dire situation facing trans people and trans rights, I think there is a good case for going back to the basics here. And we can only do that by putting decades of academic philosophy aside, and returning to the objective facts.

Free Speech: The Liberal Way by TaraElla

From abortion to CRT, state power is making discourse toxic. We need to stop politicizing everything.

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.

In this episode, I want to examine the issue of free speech from a liberal perspective. At first glance, there appears to be nothing much to say: liberals support free speech, case closed. However, to defend free speech effectively, we must understand why it is an important priority in the liberal worldview. We also need to understand what conditions are necessary to maintain the promise of free speech, and a healthy marketplace of ideas.

Free speech is important because it is the only way we can get closer to the objective truth, no matter what topic we are talking about. Individual liberal thinkers often have different emphases and different priorities. For example, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe it is most important that we get to the objective truth on matters of morality. Other liberals might prioritize getting towards the objective truth on other matters. But the common ground for all liberals is the need to get towards the objective truth. Above all, liberals believe that getting to the objective truth is the fundamentally necessary condition that must be achieved before we can build a good order. An order that is not based on the objective truth would inevitably be unjust, inefficient, and potentially harmful.

The promise of free speech can only be maintained if speech will not lead to illiberal consequences. People should be allowed to freely explore ideas and viewpoints, knowing that it will not lead to actually oppressive consequences enforced by state power. If debate on abortion is used as a launching pad for punitive abortion bans, if valid criticism of drag queen story hour leads to legislation that bans drag queens from performing in public entirely, if opposition to critical race theory is used to justify limiting free speech itself, it raises the stakes of allowing free speech, and gives credence to the postmodern 'speech is power' worldview. After all, if free speech can indeed lead to illiberal consequences enforced by state power, then it becomes difficult to argue against its limitation on the grounds of maintaining social tolerance. This is why liberals must firmly oppose using state power to wage the culture wars, which inevitably includes coercing acceptance and obedience towards a particular viewpoint in contentious moral debates. There can be no compromise at all on this principle, because if we allow even the slightest bit of illiberalism, we would have set a precedent that destroys the promise of free speech, and fundamentally compromises our argument against the postmodernist 'speech is power' worldview.

On the other hand, liberals should insist on separating speech and political action. Postmodernism has over-emphasized the 'power' in speech and discourse, which has been detrimental to free speech. I think we can turn this around by telling people to focus on where the 'power' actually lies, i.e. the politicians who make the laws. For example, if you oppose abortion bans, your problem is not with those who argue against abortion on moral grounds. Your problem is with the legislators who introduce and pass bills to ban abortion, who often do so out of political, rather than moral grounds. Rather than de-platforming or otherwise disrespecting the free speech of private citizens with pro-life views, you should protest those politicians instead. However, you should still respect the free speech of pro-life individuals, because they are speaking from their conscience in good faith. If you disallow speech that is rooted in genuine belief on contentious moral matters, there is no longer free speech, practically speaking. While people might legitimately and strongly disagree on policy, free speech on matters of personal morality should be sacred, and treated as so. To achieve this goal, there must be a level of separation between politics and regular speech. This is another reason why liberals need to oppose the political culture warriors on both the Left and the Right, who seek to politicize everything. Their methods are a threat to free speech.

This brings us onto my final point: the right to privacy, and the necessity of separating the public from the private. Culture warriors on both the Left and the Right often seek to enlarge the public sphere, and diminish the private, by claiming almost everything as part of either a 'system of oppression' or 'the common good'. This would lead to forced conformity, which liberal thinkers going back to John Stuart Mill have long warned about. This is why we should, in principle, defend individual freedom against overly broad claims of the 'common good', especially where this so-called 'common good' isn't agreed to universally.

Critical Race Theory: The Liberal Way by TaraElla

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.

In this episode, I want to examine the controversy around critical race theory (CRT), and the various responses to it. Specifically, I want to talk about two groups of people: those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive', and those who oppose CRT and support politicians who would use state power to shut it down. Both are clearly not the liberal way, and in examining them, I hope we can clarify what a truly liberal attitude towards CRT should look like.

First, let's examine the case of those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive'. What we need to remember is that what 'sounds progressive' is arbitrary, and what sounded progressive in one era could be seen as regressive and misguided in the next. Therefore, going by what 'sounds progressive' is no different from following the fashion of the day, and forgoing independent thinking. Moreover, ideas that are the fashion of the day may also be illiberal. If so, embracing them would lead to a more illiberal future, and this is something that might not be easily correctable down the road.

The liberal case against CRT is clear. At the most fundamental level, CRT is incompatible with basic liberal values because it doesn't treat everyone the same regardless of immutable characteristics like race. Philosophically, CRT's prioritization of theories of power relations above commitment to objective truth is also at odds with liberalism's historical commitment to empiricism and objectivity, and inevitably puts long-standing principles like free speech and the scientific method at risk. Looking at it from a big picture perspective, CRT could be seen as a wedge to introduce a fundamentally anti-Enlightenment worldview into mainstream Western politics, with the aim of eventually supplanting liberalism and its associated values. This means that, if we don't want liberal values to be supplanted by postmodern values, we need to oppose CRT, period.

Next, let's consider the case of those who oppose CRT, and support using state power to shut it down. This is important to look at, because an increasing number of conservative politicians are now building an 'anti-woke' brand, based on policies like banning (vaguely defined) divisive discussions on race in schools, and banning textbooks that contain divisive content on race (again without clear and objective criteria). Previously, I've said that I'm particularly concerned about those who started opposing postmodern critical theory on liberal grounds, but have clearly lost sight of those liberal grounds they were defending. They have lost sight of why things like free speech are important, and why emotionally charged action is suspect. Instead of defending and rebuilding the liberal way, these people support illiberal means of 'combating wokeness', and are hence contributing to the erosion of liberalism in Western political culture.

The liberal way of combating bad ideas is by using our own free speech to expose their flaws, and ultimately win the argument against them in the marketplace of ideas. Using government power to shut down ideas we don't like is something liberals should never support, period. And we must remember that there is a very good reason for us to take this stance consistently. Free speech must be upheld in a consistent, universal and content-neutral way, or it will cease to exist within a generation. The other important point is, the marketplace of ideas is only credible if it is truly free and fair for all individuals and all ideas.

Of course, the lack of a strong, truly liberal movement against CRT (and postmodern critical theory more generally) has pushed some people towards the illiberal type of anti-wokeism in the past few years. This is why we must take a stance for the liberal way, and make the liberal position clearly heard. We must be brave enough to upset people and break alliances if this is what is needed to uphold the liberal way. We need to remember that the future of Western political culture is at stake here.