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.