TaraElla's Political Theory of Everything & Moral Libertarian Talk

How to Build the Post Woke Movement | TER Post Woke

It won't be easy, and we need a plan.

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics. Previously, I have outlined what a post-woke alternative would look like. Today, I want to talk about how we can advance the post-woke alternative in the cultural discourse.

As I said before, the current cultural and political discourse of the West is dominated by two echo chambers, the so-called woke and anti-woke. The existence of these echo chambers essentially keep other ways of thinking at the margins, severely limiting the influence of any post-woke ideas. Moreover, the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money. Therefore, the key to building a successful post-woke alternative is to pierce and disrupt the echo chambers on both sides. If we can do this, then we can truly end the woke vs anti-woke wars. If not, then post-wokeism will remain no more than a nice theoretical idea, with very little practical influence in the real world.

I guess the first thing to do is to accept that we are not operating on a level playing field, compared to the media personalities and influencers on both sides, who use their big platforms to reinforce the dominant ideas of the echo chambers. This means that we have to start small, be patient, and wait for it to snowball into something bigger over time. We need to insist on talking about the post-woke alternative, and providing the post-woke voice when it comes to various social and cultural debates. Some days we might get very frustrated, feeling like we are essentially shouting into the void. Other days it might all feel futile, as our well-reasoned positions get drowned out by the loud culture warriors on both sides. But we need to keep going, if we are to have any chance of changing things at all.

Next, we need to recognize that many people who are trapped in the echo chambers actually feel uncomfortable with the status quo too. This even includes people whose work are essential to holding up the dominant narratives of the echo chambers, like journalists, media personalities, intellectuals, influencers and more. They might be quietly questioning the dominant narrative in their echo chambers, the echo chambers they are otherwise helping to maintain. We need to help that questioning process along. For example, whenever a culture war flare up occurs between the two sides, it actually provides a good opportunity to intervene, to help people question the soundness of the whole thing.

Finally, we need to be able to regularly come up with unique and innovative solutions to the problems and controversies that make up the fault lines of our cultural landscape. This is the best way to demonstrate the advantages of the post-woke approach compared to both the woke and anti-woke orthodoxies. People generally pay attention to something new, and prefer fresh ideas to talking points that have been repeated over and over again. Moreover, many people out there are actually looking for ways to build bridges across factions, perhaps because they want society to function again, or perhaps just because they don't want their family and friends to keep fighting the same old fights all the time. Anyway, the post-woke movement should provide these answers, when the woke and anti-woke factions can't and won't. Many people will appreciate it, and it will make our movement bigger and stronger over time.

Summing up, this is my three step plan for building the post-woke alternative: firstly, we need a lot of patience and perseverence, and recognition that this isn't going to be easy. Secondly, we need to seek opportunities to help more people question the status quo. Finally, we need to provide solutions to build bridges and resolve conflicts where the woke and anti-woke won't.

Two Perspectives: The Need for a Post Woke Alternative | TER Post Woke

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Perspective 1: I have long been passionate about equality for minorities, addressing climate change, and being open-minded about different ways to solve our social problems. That is why I've always identified as a progressive. However, in recent years, I feel like progressives have been shooting ourselves in the foot. For some reason, the most divisive, counter-productive and literally stupid so-called 'solutions' are given the most attention, and the most controversial voices are often given the biggest platforms, as if the more controversial the better. This has generated nothing but backlash, which has prevented the necessary consensus building to make reforms possible. What I want is for there to be a way to move beyond this tragic situation.

Perspective 2: I believe in the value of traditions and traditional institutions. This is why I'm a conservative. However, I also believe that traditions must remain adaptive to remain relevant and maintain widespread support. The way to achieve this is to have good faith and respectful discussions about how we should move into the future, and to resolve our differences. The problem is that, modern conservatism is more like a culture war tribe that reinforces each others' existing views, and is not that interested in having productive discussions. The result is that they often hold onto maladaptive solutions and policies, which can ultimately lead to the discrediting of traditional values and institutions.

I think the problem with the current social and political discourse is that people are divided into two main tribes, each tribe exists in its own echo chamber, and the worst ideas in each echo chamber are allowed to become dominant, because of the lack of real challenge from other perspectives. Call it progressive vs conservative, woke vs anti-woke, or whatever, this is actually very unhealthy, and will certainly not lead our society towards good outcomes. This is why we need a post-woke alternative, where we acknowledge all that has gone wrong since the rise of the current round of the culture wars about a decade ago, and come together for a sincere discussion on how we can do better going forward.

The key to this is to puncture and disrupt the echo chambers that are the root cause of the current dynamic. The trouble is, this won't be an easy task, because the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money. This means we need to consciously aim to disrupt the echo chambers, especially the dominant narratives in each echo chamber that are repeatedly reinforced. This disruption will be key to building the post-woke alternative. This is why, going forward, I will be talking a lot more about the strategies we can use to disrupt the echo chambers.

On Wokeness, Anti-Woke and Intellectualism | TER Post Woke

Why we need to bring back sincere intellectuals

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics. Today, I want to talk about why both the woke and anti-woke positions are insufficiently intellectual, and why a truly intellectual atmosphere is essential for a post-woke movement.

Let's start with the woke position first. As we have previously established, wokeness is actually rooted in philosophy and theory that came out of academia. This is why, to some people, it has the veneer of being intellectual. However, since the woke theories are not products of unbiased discussion and debate, truly open-minded truth seeking, and a commitment to objectivity, I would have to say that they are not truly 'intellectual' in the traditional sense. Rather, I think they are more like activists' wishes phrased in intellectual language. Indeed, one could argue that a worldview that fundamentally sees language, knowledge and discourse as products of power, and objectivity as nothing more than pretense, would actually be incompatible with being 'intellectual' in the traditional sense.

Given the intellectual deficiencies of wokeness, the anti-woke position could naturally have been built on a foundation of restoring the meaning of being an 'intellectual' in the traditional sense. And to some extent, the early anti-woke movement did go a bit in that direction. There was plenty of discussion about the values of the Enlightenment, why free speech is essential, and so on. But ultimately, the anti-woke movement came to be dominated by culture warriors, who had no patience for proper intellectual exploration and argumentation either. I believe this is why anti-woke intellectual projects like the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) ultimately ended up quite hollow and unattractive after a while. The same talking points are repeated again and again, and the discourse seems to not be very open to unexplored possibilities. To be honest, I think many IDW figures sound more like culture warriors than sincere intellectuals nowadays.

I believe an important part of moving beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars is to actually bring back sincere intellectualism. We need people who are dedicated to exploring the objective truth of the world, rather than just seeing the world as they wish, or worse, selectively picking and choosing facts to build a biased narrative to suit their political agenda. We need people who actually want to have open-minded discussions about the important issues, rather than just wanting their side to 'win' and their 'enemies' to lose. A sincere intellectual today should be able to easily tell that both the woke and anti-woke positions are unsound. Sadly, too many people can't even see that right now.

The Problem with Anti-Woke and Anti-Anti-Woke | TER Post Woke

Why reaction is maladaptive, and will just perpetuate the problem

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about two movements or perspectives that have arisen as a consequence of the rise of woke culture: anti-woke, and anti-anti-woke. I believe the 'reactive' nature of these movements have ultimately meant that they have just perpetuated the problems that were started by woke culture. I will illustrate how this happens, and what we should do instead to break the vicious cycle.

From what I see, the default stance of the anti-woke is to basically do the opposite of what woke culture demands every time, believing that this is an effective way to resist woke culture. Instead of critizing wokeness where it goes wrong, anti-woke culture prefers to 'trigger' the woke, by doing the opposite of what they want. For example, whatever woke culture wants to ban people from saying, the anti-woke will deliberately say it. Whatever groups woke culture upholds as 'oppressed' and hence worthy of special consideration above others, the anti-woke will deliberately dismiss their issues. The problem with this is, woke culture's enabling of the mistreatment of people based on immutable characteristics and group membership also transfers to anti-woke culture, because of its 'equal but opposite' response to everything woke. This inevitably leads to withholding decency, compassion and fairness from people by immutable characteristics and group membership sometimes. Furthermore, over time, because of its lazy reactionary posture, anti-woke has also developed into an increasingly conformist and predictable movement, and it has become effectively as unwelcoming of independent thinking as woke culture itself. Hence, anti-woke culture has replicated the two biggest errors of woke culture, i.e. the lack of independent thinking, and the normalization of dehumanizing people based on group membership.

The problems of anti-woke culture, and its ongoing association with elements of the authoritarian right, have led some people to adopt an anti-anti-woke stance in reaction. Anti-anti-woke starts with the position that the anti-woke movement is inherently bad, and whatever points they raise are inherently invalid or even dangerous. The problem with this, however, is that it leads to deliberately ignoring the problems brought by woke culture, and hence the normalization of these problems. This means that anti-anti-woke is basically complicit in the normalization of dehumanizing people based on group membership, and the erosion of the Enlightenment values of freedom of conscience, independent thinking and objectivity. Even if there are problems with the anti-woke movement, the answer is clearly not to ignore or suppress whatever they say.

The examples of anti-woke and anti-anti-woke demonstrate how taking a reactionary or oppositional stance is ultimately counter-productive. This is why it is better to go back to the roots of where woke culture went wrong, and address those problems directly. This way, we can be constructive rather than reactive. As I previously said, woke culture basically turned the desire for social justice into its opposite, through the application of theories rooted in postmodernism and critical theory. The way to stop this happening is to prevent those passionate about social justice from embracing these theories, and we can do that by upholding what I call the core post-woke values: decency, fairness and genuineness. By emphasizing these values, we can shine a light on how postmodernism and critical theory are flawed worldviews at their core, and hence begin to undo the problems that woke culture brought.

The Real Problem With Wokeness | TER Post Woke

How Wokeness Misdirected the Desire for Social Justice

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

I believe that, to truly move beyond wokeness, we need to understand where it went wrong. In my mind, the main difference between an anti-woke stance and a post-woke stance is that anti-woke only tries to 'attack' wokeness by doing the opposite of what it appears to demand, while post-woke actually aims to resolve the problem by correcting where wokeness went wrong, and putting things right again, so that we can move forward having conquered this obstacle.

So what is wokeness? While the term is now overused and has lost much of its clarity, going back to the way it was used before, we can argue that it refers to approaches to social change and activism rooted in postmodernism, critical theory, and adjacent ideas. These ideas are problematic because they often pit one group against another, and provide excuses for practices like cancel culture. The reason why they became popular was because they were offered as a ticket to improving social justice, even though this is clearly a false promise that can never be fulfilled. Hence, looking at it from a bigger picture perspective, wokeness is a misdirection of the impulse for social justice, that has driven a desire for compassion and fairness into its opposite, via a lot of misguided theory and philosophy. The misdirection of social justice into its opposite has caused both a well-justified backlash to postmodernism and critical theory, as well as a reactionary backlash to all social justice aims in general, with both parts of the backlash packaged into a broad 'anti-woke' movement. The overall effect of wokeness is therefore the confusion and defeat of social justice, as well as things like cancel culture, polarization, and the division of people by immutable characteristics.

As I just said, the biggest problem with wokeness is that it has turned the desire for social justice into its opposite. One of the most important ways this happens is through the routine description of certain groups as 'privileged', as in 'white privilege' or 'male privilege'. This is morally wrong for two reasons: firstly, to label a whole group of people, based on an immutable characteristic, is effectively an act of deliberately obscuring the differences in individual cases, which is very dehumanizing. This is clearly harmful from a justice point of view, if we are to truly care about there being justice for every individual. But even more importantly, to label a whole group of people as having unearned privilege is effectively an act of inviting people to treat them less favorably. To label people as privileged effectively says it is OK to treat them less well, less decently, less fairly. This psychological effect is undeniable, and is indeed consistent with some of what has been observed in real life in 'very woke' social circles in recent years.

The negative effects of calling people 'privileged' based on immutable characteristics may start with the groups being called privileged, but it surely doesn't end there either. Ultimately, the important thing here isn't which specific groups are being called 'privileged'. Rather, the important thing is that the normative value of treating everyone with the same decency and compassion, and the taboo against differential treatment of people based on membership of groups, are shattered. Once it becomes acceptable to treat people badly based on group-based perceptions, it can then apply in any direction, towards any group. Postmodern critical theory itself of course doesn't intend to allow this, as it clearly defines which groups are supposed to be 'oppressors' and which are 'oppressed' based on its analysis of history. However, human nature doesn't work like that, and there are strong evolutionary psychology reasons why people generally insist that the same rules and same conditions apply to everyone. Therefore, once postmodern critical theory breaks the normative values of liberalism, it unavoidably opens the floodgates to racism and bigotry in every direction. This is why, I believe, the rise of woke culture is the actual cause behind the recent rise in racism and bigotry across the Western world. This actually means we must put an end to woke culture if we want to end the current wave of bigotry targeted at minorities. This kind of analysis has sometimes been rendered taboo in so-called progressive circles, but it is clearly well justified, and I believe we need to give it much more attention if we want to make things better.

The other main problem with wokeness is that it often disrespects people's freedom of conscience and independent thinking. This is where things like cancel culture and deplatforming come from. This phenomenon, again, is rooted in theories based on postmodernism and critical theory. The overall worldview of these theories is that almost everything is changeable because they are all 'social constructs', and the barrier to radical progress is the current culture and its institutions, which form a power structure serving the interests of the oppressor groups against the oppressed. In this worldview, there is effectively no respect for the fact that people have an ability to think for themselves, and also no respect for the fact that people have reliable ways to discern the objective truth, even if they might be imperfect and might take some time. The denial of free thinking and free speech, as well as the denial of the importance of objectivity, are all clearly bad for justice, as history has shown.

As you can see, woke culture has been able to turn the desire of social justice into its opposite, through the application of theories rooted in the philosophies broadly described as postmodernism and critical theory. Therefore, the solution to stop this process from happening is to stop people who are passionate about social justice from embracing these faulty theories and believing in what they have to say. I think this can be best achieved by emphasizing certain values, which are a natural part of pro-social justice thinking, but are also an antidote to what is proposed in these theories. The values I propose are decency, fairness and genuineness. By demanding that decency and fairness be upheld at all times, there will be no room for things like calling people 'privileged' based solely on group membership. By demanding that genuineness and fairness be respected, there will be no room for things like cancel culture. The rise of woke culture reflects the failure of social justice advocates to uphold these values in the recent past, and the unconditional re-embrace of these values will rectify the problem. Therefore, I believe that decency, fairness and genuineness should be the three core post-woke values, the values that will lead us away from the mess created by woke culture.

How the Woke Wars Could Derail Libertarianism Again | Lib Lib Report

People are rightly concerned about history repeating itself

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while aiming to make the social contract of Western society more libertarian moving towards the future.

Today, I want to talk about a crisis that is unfolding within libertarianism. Let's start with the controversy over the recent takeover of the US Libertarian Party by the Mises Caucus, although that's not what I really want to discuss. As I've said before, I'm not a big fan of the libertarian immediatism that the Libertarian Party insists on having as its platform, and given that I'm not a supporter of that party, I have generally not been interested in its internal politics. However, the current controversy seems more significant, because it goes to the heart of what libertarianism is, and hence implicitly what liberty is too. I mean, some libertarians, including both members and non-members of the party alike, are worried that this could ruin the commonly accepted view of what libertarianism is, and I'm sorry to say that I share their concerns too.

Let's start with the controversy itself. The Mises Caucus is a right-leaning faction within the Libertarian Party. Officially, they have a conventional right-libertarian platform, and there is quite a bit of diversity among their membership in terms of social views. However, it is the broader strategy of some members of the caucus that have gotten people concerned. To put it simply, prominent members of the Mises Caucus have been enthusiastically embracing the anti-woke side of the 'woke' culture wars, and other associated culture wars in the American political landscape. They are also not shy about their intention to attract new members and supporters that are really into these culture wars. The problem with this is that authoritarian conservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are also often participants in the anti-woke movement, and their ideas could dilute or even confuse libertarian positions. Indeed, non-Mises members of the Libertarian Party have accused the Mises Caucus of watering down traditional libertarian positions to make the party a more comfortable place for the authoritarian right, should they want to join. They cite the caucus's removal of the pro-choice plank in the party platform as evidence of this, for example.

Having experienced the horror show that was the 'paleo' strategy of the 1990s, many libertarians fear that this could be similar, or even worse. Even those who aren't totally opposed to the Mises Caucus fear that their methods will leave the party and the movement vulnerable to a further takeover by elements of the authoritarian right. I think this possibility, rather than the Mises Caucus itself, is what many people are actually worried about. In other words, I think the controversy over the Mises Caucus takeover is situated in a larger crisis, rooted in the fear of a more general authoritarian right takeover. The fallout is a symptom of the larger problem, one that people must be able to talk about openly.

Basically, I have two thoughts about this. Firstly, the libertarian movement is small and weak, and is able to be easily taken over by outside forces with their own agenda. The current fear simply reflects this reality, unfortunately. This is of course not new, as niche groups have often tried to insert their niche issues into various minor party platforms around the world, including libertarian parties. (Nor is it limited to the libertarian movement. The trans community has experienced a similar phenomenon in the past decade, for example.) This is also an important reason why I'm not a libertarian immediatist. For me, the important thing right now is to build a movement that will support and promote individual liberty, because a movement that is dedicated to this idea, rather than cutting government per se, would be much more resilient. By emphasizing practical liberty and rejecting libertarian immediatism, the liberty movement can also attract much more mainstream support, thereby making it much harder to take over.

Of course, what we are worried about right now is not just a niche group trying to insert itself into libertarianism, but a total takeover of libertarianism by bigger forces that could be described as authoritarian right-adjacent at least, if not in the authoritarian right itself. Given the situation we are potentially facing, I would even say that building a broad-based practical liberty movement is likely to be the only way to save the reputation of libertarianism going forward. And this is important, because in the Western political landscape, libertarians are the only players who consistently and credibly advance an anti-war agenda. The fall of libertarianism could lead to the total victory of the interventionists that brought us Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Secondly, the 'woke wars' in general, and the anti-woke movement in particular, have spiraled out of control in some ways. As I have recently said, the word 'woke' has lost its original meaning and much of the 'woke wars' are now basically empty tribal culture wars. And because the anti-woke alliance was an alliance of convenience in the first place, and an alliance that stood against rather than for something, its meaning and future are now up for grabs by whoever has the best organization, numbers and money. This could allow the anti-woke movement to be dominated by the authoritarian right rather than old-school liberals or libertarians, because the authoritarian right are simply better at organizing and fundraising. This is why I fear that woke vs anti-woke dynamics could work against liberals in both directions going forward, and the only way to take a stand for liberty is to find a way to transcend the tribalist 'woke wars' now.

That's why, going forward, I believe we should be 'post woke'. We should look at all issues objectively, on their own merits, rather than see them in a 'woke wars' state of mind. We should still be opposing postmodernism and critical theory, but we should do so on well reasoned grounds. And I will definitely call out people who use the 'woke' word as an empty insult, as a tribalist culture war thing. Because this certainly won't help to advance individual liberty.

Why It's Time We Moved to a Post-Woke Culture and Politics | TER Post Woke

On the limitations of Woke vs Anti-Woke, and why we need to change course now.

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, a new series where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

In recent years, much has been said about there being a 'woke vs anti-woke' divide in Western culture and politics. It all started about a decade ago, when, due to a combination of factors, ideas from postmodernism and critical theory began to increasingly influence parts of the progressive side of politics. Over the course of just a few years, practices that challenged traditional liberal values, like deplatforming speakers, cancel culture, oppressor vs oppressed models of identity politics, thinking of people as pieces in a system rather than equal individuals, and skepticism towards science and objectivity, began to influence progressive movements like feminism, environmentalism, and LGBT equality. These ideas also found their way into progressive-adjacent cultures like atheism and veganism. They have been received controversially in all of these areas, dividing people in these communities into being for them or against them, which later came to be known as woke and anti-woke respectively.

I guess there was a time when having an 'anti-woke coalition', as it was originally understood, actually made sense. Back when postmodernism and critical theory were poorly understood by most, it was probably the most effective way to push back against this rise of illiberalism on the Left that seemed to have come out of nowhere. If anything, having a strong coalition aligned against these ideas was an effective method of raising awareness, and we needed to do so quickly, because of the rapid rise of this new illiberal faction in the Left. Besides, in those days, it was mainly progressive, liberal and moderate people involved in the coalition, which meant the reactionary faction wasn't dominant.

However, we are now in a different place. There is now plenty of awareness and resistance towards postmodernism, critical theory, and their associated ideas and methods. I mean, critical race theory has gone from obscurity to a widely discussed topic in just two years, and I think it is great that we are discussing these ideas and their faults so openly and so frequently. However, we also need to realize that the so-called 'woke' ideas aren't entirely going away anytime soon. For those hoping for a complete victory, I need to burst your bubble. These ideas have been established in parts of academia and activism for so long that they would be here in some form for the foreseeable future, and we will just have to live with it while not letting it take over, until perhaps one or two more generations down the line, when the intellectual landscape of the West would have had enough time to organically evolve away from these ideas. Therefore, I believe we need to think in terms of the long term, as to what we should do next.

The problem I see with the 'woke vs anti-woke' model right now is that it is evolving rapidly into an 'us vs them' game, and likely a successor to the old-school left vs right culture wars. As many of us already know, the left vs right culture wars were pretty unhealthy, because it divided people into opposing camps in an unsound way, thus encouraging tribalism. If we are to seriously sort people out by their political views, we would need at least three axes, namely economic, capitalist vs socialist; social, progressive vs conservative; and governmental, libertarian vs authoritarian. Given the issues of particular importance in contemporary Western politics, we might also need pro-globalization vs nationalist, pro-peace vs hawkish, and pro-establishment vs anti-establishment, since the three basic axes don't capture these views very well. In other words, any simplistic dichotomous model would just be encouraging tribalism while not being actually useful. This applies equally to the old-school left vs right and the new woke vs anti-woke.

And we are already seeing the unhealthy and counterproductive results of the 'woke vs anti-woke' model's evolution into a tribalist politics. People are already using the word 'woke' to describe things they don't like which have nothing to do with postmodernism or critical theory. As I previously said, 'woke' now effectively means whatever you don't like. Hence the old-school liberals can call the criticalists 'woke', but the hardline conservatives can also call the old-school liberals 'woke'. The problem with this is that 'woke' effectively becomes a lazy insult, and this is not good for independent thinking and pursuit of the objective truth. Moreover, if 'woke' means nothing solid, its meaning becomes vulnerable to constant change, essentially defined by the prevailing political fashions and alliances of the moment. This, in turn, can cause anti-woke culture to become a backdoor for authoritarian elements to take over pro-liberty movements, as some members and supporters of the US Libertarian party have recently begun to worry about.

To sum up, the 'anti-woke coalition' of the 2010s have already achieved their purpose, and that was to shine a spotlight on the faulty ideas of postmodernism and critical theory, and put this issue into the mainstream of Western political discourse. However, the 'woke vs anti-woke' model of politics has also inevitably become tribal and is rapidly losing its original meaning, and could even be vulnerable to takeover by authoritarian forces, which means that we must question its utility going forward. This is an important question because postmodernism and critical theory are not going to disappear any time soon, and we will need to live with these ideas while continuing to argue against them for the foreseeable future. The question then becomes, firstly, is the 'woke vs anti-woke' model a good model for the long term, and if not, what model should we choose instead. Given that effective arguments against postmodernism and critical theory must be philosophically sound and rooted in a commitment to the objective reality to be successful, a tribalist model like 'woke vs anti-woke' is probably not the best choice for making those arguments, especially in the longer term.

Therefore, I think it's time we start actively moving to a 'post woke' mode, where we remain very conscious of the faulty ideas of postmodernism and critical theory, and their adverse influence on contemporary Western culture and politics, but instead of just being negative about these ideas, we should start being more constructive, and more thoughtful about building alternatives that actually fulfill the yearning for progress and inclusion, and still reinforce the heritage of the liberalism rooted in the Western Enlightenment. The awareness that the anti-woke moment brought has been essential to getting us to where we are, and will be essential to ensure that whatever we come up with in the future isn't contaminated by postmodernism and critical theory. However, I believe we need to change course now, and go more positive rather than negative, to actually stand for something rather than just against something.

The other thing that differentiates post-woke from anti-woke is that, having learned from how postmodernism and critical theory misdirect the desire for social justice, the post-woke mind is much more alert to other movements that could try to misdirect our inherent impulse towards good things like individualism, fairness, compassion and so on. The post-woke continues to oppose wokeism, as originally defined, but they also turn the same critical analysis on other political factions and movements, including those which claim to be anti-woke, because they are aware that bad ideas, the lure of authoritarianism, and politics with an intent to manipulate people emotionally, don't just come in one flavor.

The Obsessions of the Illiberal Left and the Illiberal Right | Lib Lib Report

The Illiberal Left is about deconstruction, and the Illiberal Right is about literalism.

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while looking for more libertarian solutions moving towards the future.

Recently, I have been talking about how the illiberal left and the illiberal right are similar in many ways, including their blind faith in utopian fantasies, and the influence of critical theory on both movements. Today, however, I am going to look at a key difference between the illiberal left and the illiberal right. I think it is because of this difference that the two can't ever be united.

From what I see, the biggest difference between the illiberal left and the illiberal right is what they are most obsessed about. The illiberal left is obsessed with deconstruction. For the illiberal left, every part of the status quo, every structure and every institution, is a product of oppressive power relations, and needs to be deconstructed to bring about liberation. The illiberal left is illiberal because they believe the freedoms guaranteed by liberalism are part of the oppressive structure to maintain the status quo, to prevent the dismantling of the status quo. I believe this view is illustrated most clearly in Herbert Marcuse's infamous essay Repressive Tolerance, where he essentially says that liberalism's universal tolerance leads to the upholding of the repressive and oppressive status quo, and that a truly liberating tolerance must be selectively intolerant to some ideas, i.e. illiberal at least some of the time. Hence, the basic logic of the illiberal left looks like this: the freedoms guaranteed by liberalism make the liberated utopia they desire impossible to achieve, so they must be knocked down.

Meanwhile, the illiberal right is obsessed with literalism, as in the literal reading of statements and rules, and the rigid obedience to such rules. We all know that conservative Christianity often insists on a literal reading of the Bible. However, this worldview is not limited to religion. Conservative legal academics and judges approach the law with the same literalism, for example. I think some conservatives' attitudes on LGBT issues also stem from their worldview that everything should function according to rigid rules, and their discomfort about LGBT rights could stem from their discomfort about what are clearly exceptions to the rule. For the authoritarian right, liberalism is bad because it allows people the freedom of conscience to interpret the rules of life, and to potentially break the rules some regard as sacred. When they speak of the 'common good', it is really the society-wide obedience to the sacred rules that they have in mind. Which, of course, is not what many of us would consider to be the common good.

A recent concern is that the illiberal right could start using judicial literalism to read down legal rights to liberty, so that the government could have more scope to legislate morality. This is in fact my biggest concern about the recent leaked US Supreme Court opinion on abortion and Roe v. Wade. This is not about whether Roe itself was the correct legal decision or not, but rather, the logic used to overturn Roe in the opinion. From what I understand, the logic is that, since the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the US constitution, there is no rule that it must be respected by governments, at least not to the extent implied in Roe. Many people are concerned that this could set a precedent to roll back other rights, and I agree with them. The authoritarian right clearly intends to take a very narrow, literalist view on the guarantees to liberty in Western liberal democracies. Under their worldview, government action could be justified as long as it does not literally violate the word of the constitution. There is no respect for the broader spirit of liberty at all. For the authoritarian right, only the literal words of the law matter, the broader values of liberty don't. I guess this is why they think they can transform the West to resemble illiberal democracies like Hungary, while still being true to the traditions of the West.

In conclusion, while the illiberal left and the illiberal right are similarly unrealistic, utopian, disrespectful to others' freedoms, and influenced by critical theory, their ultimate objective is different, and this is why they can't really unite to form a firm anti-liberal bloc. The illiberal left's objective is to dismantle the status quo, while the illiberal right's objective is to remake society into one that is rigidly bound by black and white rules that are often religiously inspired. These two goals are clearly incompatible with each other. I think certain personality traits, e.g. perfectionism and black and white thinking, could predispose a person towards both goals, and I think this could explain why there are so many people who switch from the illiberal left to the illiberal right, and vice versa. But one can only be committed to either goal at one time. Therefore, while illiberal people can and do switch camps, the two camps can't ever be combined into one.

A Libertarian Argument for the Pro-Choice Position | Lib Lib Report

It doesn't even depend on your moral views on abortion itself.

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while looking for more libertarian solutions moving towards the future.

The leak of a US Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting the overturn of Roe v. Wade earlier this month has reignited the long standing debate between pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians. At the heart of the matter is whether the proper libertarian position regarding abortion should be pro-choice or pro-life. I want to talk about my thoughts on this matter, and how this might inform the liberal libertarian orientation in politics in the here and now. Before we start, I have to make it clear that what I'm going to talk about does not directly concern the legal merits of Roe itself, or the leaked opinion. It is about pro-life vs pro-choice positions in libertarianism, and the arguments are equally applicable in other situations. I must also say that I don't pretend to speak for other libertarians, and these are just my own thoughts. As they say, if there are ten libertarians in the room, there is likely going to be ten different positions taken on an issue. And this diversity is certainly something I welcome.

Let's start with this story about a friend of mine. She is a religious person, and she certainly believes that abortion is morally equivalent to taking an innocent life. But then, she has never been a fan of getting the government involved in this issue. Given that the most vocal pro-life activists often like to equate abortion with murder, and hence equate legal abortion with the absurd position of legalizing murder, my friend has never been one to voice her opinions in public, because she was worried that they might ask her something like 'so you think murder should be legal?' My friend used to think that her views were deeply unpopular until this month, when the heated debate over Roe v. Wade revealed that there were indeed plenty of people who shared her views. Apparently, even among those who believe abortion is morally equivalent to taking an innocent life, they don't necessarily have to equate it with murder, at least legally speaking.

To understand this, I think we should step back and take a look at the larger picture. The argument of the staunchest pro-life activists basically goes like this: given abortion is morally equivalent to murder in their view, how can it be acceptable that murder is generally punishable by the maximum penalty available, while abortion is legally allowed? However, the assumption of that argument is that the government's role in society is that of moral enforcer, and it should always punish behavior that is immoral. This view is basically rooted in the social contract of the pre-Enlightenment West, where everyone lived by and agreed to moral values that were determined by the authorities, which was generally the church, based on religious tradition and scripture. The problem with this model was that everyone had to agree to be bound by the the laws of Christianity in the first place, and also the authority of the church in interpreting the religious law. This was not that much of a problem in pre-Enlightenment times, given that the vast majority of people in Europe were Christians, and they also closely obeyed the decisions of the church hierarchy in matters of faith.

The Enlightenment challenged the absolute authority of the church, and this was where things changed. As I liked to say, liberalism is basically rooted in freedom of religion. Liberalism represented a new social contract, one that was necessary to maintain the peace, in a Western world that no longer universally accepted the supremacy of a unified religious authority. Given that morality was deeply tied to religion, the end of religious agreement would, at least to some extent, also mean the end of moral agreement on many issues. This made the old social contract where the government was society's enforcer of morality unacceptable, and indeed oppressive, to a significant number of people in society. The horrible religious conflicts in Europe back then demonstrated this point very well. Hence, liberalism arose to give Western society a different social contract: one where the government plays no role in determining and enforcing standards of morality, but instead functions to guarantee that every citizen has an equal right to live life according to their own moral conscience, as long as other citizens' rights to do the same is equally respected. Of course, social change is slow, and this idea, while already long firmly embedded into the legal traditions and institutions of the Western world, is still yet to be fully implemented, or to fully supplant pre-Enlightenment cultural views. Hence, even today, both the authoritarian Left and the authoritarian Right continue to demand that governments legislate for the common good, or react swiftly to moral panics of all kinds, without much regard for the requirements of the liberal social contract. This, I believe, is where a lot of the unnecessary culture war style political conflicts come from. Libertarianism is basically a movement to end this state of confusion, and move the Enlightenment's ideals forward to their logical conclusion, by fully realizing the implementation of the liberal social contract in the Western world.

It follows that, in a fully libertarianized society, with a fully liberal social contract, the government simply can't legislate against something because people find it morally wrong. They can only legislate to ensure the equal standing of parties to the social contract. Murder would still be illegal because it violates the rights of another party to the social contract. Abortion, however, would be different. Countries cannot practically consider fetuses to be citizens with full rights of citizenship. For practical reasons, citizenship can only begin at birth. There is a reason that our documents have our date of birth, not our date of fertilization. Even when abortion was illegal, fetuses were not considered citizens. Therefore, fetuses cannot be considered parties to the social contract. This means that abortion cannot be considered a violation of the rights of a party to the social contract, and cannot be outlawed on these grounds. It can only be considered a matter of morality, which under a libertarian social contract, the government should have no ability to legislate over. Therefore, abortion and murder are indeed very different, no matter what your moral views on abortion are. From this, it can also be concluded that the correct libertarian position on the matter of abortion is the pro-choice position. Again, this doesn't even have to depend on your moral views on abortion itself.

Of course, here on the Lib Lib Report, we are not libertarian immediatists. While we want to move society towards the libertarian destination in the long run, we recognize that this is not where we are at right now, which is why we practice a more pragmatic liberalism in the here and now. We recognize that the current social contract of Western liberal democracy is not yet the libertarian one, and calls to legislate based on morality and the common good are not universally considered illegitimate in the West at this time. However, given that we are Liberal Libertarians, with a libertarian destination for society in mind, I think we should aim to move towards, and not away from, that destination as much as possible, in the policy positions we support. Especially given that abortion has already been legal in America and most other Western democracies for decades, to outlaw abortion now would be to take a big leap backwards, away from the libertarian destination, something that is simply not acceptable for those of us committed to taking society towards the libertarian destination. This, I think, is a very good justification for taking the pro-choice position in the politics of the here and now.

The Justice Argument Against Critical Theory | Lib Lib Report

How Critical Theory is Challenging Liberty from Both Sides | Lib Lib Report

On the Common Roots of the Illiberal Right and the Illiberal Left

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while looking for more libertarian solutions moving towards the future.

Recently, I have been talking quite a lot about the similarities between the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right. Today, I want to go deeper into exploring this similarity. We might even find out that they are basically the same thing, to a great extent.

Let's start with this quote: "Conservatives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Progressives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral."

Sounds like something written by a critical theory inspired illiberal Left activist, right? In fact, it's a quote taken from Sohrab Ahmari's famous 2019 article 'Against David French-ism', with 'conservatives' and 'progressives' switched around. The rest of that article also contains themes often found in critical theory-sympathetic texts, like how liberal neutrality is ultimately impossible and will eventually lead to your enemies taking away your freedom. In other words, Ahmari and his fellow travelers actually think like the critical theory Left, but in reverse. Call it the critical turn in conservatism, if you like.

And this resemblance is no accident either. At least some of the people in the illiberal Right have a history of being on the Left, where they are likely to have encountered the critical theory worldview. Ahmari himself admitted to having studied and 'adored' critical theories in college, in his recent article 'The problem with anti-woke liberals' (Unheard, 2022). In that article, he also called the 'marketplace of ideas' a liberal idol. Again, this sounds exactly like something that an ardent supporter of critical theory might have written. What I think is, Ahmari and people like him never really left the critical theory worldview behind when they left the Left, they simply turned it around to serve the Right's political goals now that they have become disillusioned with the Left. Therefore, much of the illiberal Right could be basically an inverted version of the illiberal Left.

The worrying thing about the illiberal Right is that, like the illiberal Left, they are beginning the influence real world events. And the kind of influence is similar too: curtailing free speech, and using raw power to override the market. The recent plight of Disney in Florida illustrates this point. In the beginning, they were just going about their business, when the state passed the 'Parental Rights in Education' legislation, also commonly referred to as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. Some on the Left were unhappy that Disney didn't speak up against it at first, despite opposing the legislation. This eventually led to the Florida Democratic Party canceling plans to hold their fundraiser at Disney World, after some people threatened to boycott the event.

Afterwards, Disney publicly took a position against the legislation, which angered the Right and led to calls to boycott them from the Right. Going even further, the Republican administration and congress eventually decided to take action to punish Disney, by revoking arrangements granted to them many decades ago, the House passing the legislation in less than five minutes with no debate, despite potential for massive job losses and as well as greatly increased and inefficient government. All this for a company having a stance on a piece of legislation! This was clearly a case of using unchecked state power to punish legal, private speech, with likely adverse consequences on the people too.

If all this is a glimpse into what an illiberal society will look like in the future, I am truly afraid. Everything is politicized, not taking a position is subject to punishment, and taking a position, any position, is also subject to punishment. The illiberal dystopia is basically a place where everyone has to walk on eggshells all the time, or else they might become collateral damage of the culture wars. If the illiberals on both or either side win, free speech and freedom of conscience will basically become history. It's why we must work hard to uphold liberalism, and push back against both the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right. Knowing that they are both products of the power-obsessed critical theory worldview allows us to effectively argue against both at the same time, using basically the same arguments, and standing on the same principles.

On Tribalism: Conservative Homophobia and Progressive Avoidance of CRT | Lib Lib Report

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while looking for more libertarian solutions moving towards the future.

In this episode, I want to talk about political tribalism making people unable to face the problems on their own side of politics. I believe that the ideal of a free society should include people being able to think independently and look at things objectively at all times, and not feel pressured to stay silent when things go wrong. Sadly, we are clearly not there yet. I will use the example of homophobia in conservative circles and the avoidance of the critical race theory debate in progressive circles to illustrate the problem.

Recently, when conservative commentator Dave Rubin announced that he was starting a family with his husband, it was quite controversially received in conservative circles. Some people even said some horribly homophobic things (that I won't repeat here). Others were surprised at the intensity of the reaction within the Right. After all, almost every Western country has gay marriage nowadays, and a recent poll showed that a large majority of Americans, including a slim majority of Republicans, now supported marriage equality. But then, it is clear that society does not move in the direction of freedom at the same pace, and some people remain quite behind the times on this issue. It is also not the only time conservatives had a negative reaction to LGBT people on their own side: last year, when Caitlyn Jenner ran for governor in California, some conservatives reacted quite badly too.

The mixed reaction to Rubin's announcement led to a discussion, on both the Left and the Right, as to whether there remains a serious problem of homophobia on the Right. As expected, the Left basically unanimously nailed the Right as homophobic, which also linked into their view that Rubin made the wrong choice in moving to the Right. Meanwhile, many on the Right, who are clearly not anti-gay themselves, nevertheless seemed to feel the need to downplay the problem on their side, putting the reaction down to a niche faction within the Right that didn't represent mainstream conservatism. I guess the truth is somewhere in between. But the point is, people are clearly more interested in attacking the opposite side or defending their own side, rather than seeking the truth of the matter, and thinking about what we might be able to do to make things better.

Now, let's talk about how progressive liberals have basically avoided talking about critical race theory (CRT). While CRT has been a hot topic of conversation in America and several other Western countries, mainstream progressives seem to have avoided dealing with the substance of the topic. For example, while conservatives argue against CRT and the Theory Left argue for CRT, based on what CRT actually is, many progressives would choose to instead talk about how conservative attempts to 'ban CRT' from schools are having adverse impacts on free speech and the teaching of accurate history to students. Don't get me wrong, I agree with quite a lot of these criticisms too, to the point where I believe that government action to 'ban CRT' is basically illiberal and counterproductive. However, none of this takes away from the fact that CRT, and other associated critical theories, are increasingly influencing the mainstream culture of the West, and this has serious implications for our future, because certain commitments of CRT are clearly incompatible with liberal democracy.

I guess the reluctance of progressive liberals to seriously deal with CRT is because they feel conflicted. I'm sure that many of them have serious concerns about CRT and its associated ideas too. However, they don't want to cede any ground to conservatives by speaking up about it. It's like how many pro-LGBT conservatives privately concede that their side still has a homophobia problem. However, they downplay it to avoid giving any ground to progressives. In both cases, it is tribalism that is preventing people from following their own conscience, and speaking up on what they see is wrong. This is why it's important to prevent tribalism in our thinking, and support the culture of free speech that encourages free thought.

The Liberal Libertarian Alternative: An Introduction | Lib Lib Report

Welcome to the new Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report. In this first episode, I want to explain what liberal libertarianism is, and what this show is going to be about. Let's start here. Liberalism, in a broad pro-liberty sense, is losing ground to illiberal critical theory-based movements on the Left, as well as illiberal populist forms of conservatism on the Right. Given that classical liberal values are fundamental to the social contract of the post-Enlightenment West, I believe that if we let liberalism fall, the consensus behind Western society as we know it will basically collapse, and much that we hold dear will disappear forever. Therefore, it is certainly an urgent priority that we act to save liberalism. But what should we do?

Right Now, Liberalism Lacks a Grand Vision

I think the biggest reason why liberalism has suffered is because it is seen to lack a longer term vision. Much of contemporary liberal discourse is very pragmatic, i.e. it seeks to resolve issues in the here and now, using solutions that are aimed at respecting individual liberty and equality as much as possible. However, there is almost no vision of arriving at a better destination eventually. Contrast this to both the critical theory Left and the populist Right, which promise their supporters the possibility of a different world. While a true liberalism can never, and should never be utopian, I think we should still offer a vision, where we can reach a different, better world in the longer term. This longer term vision would, in turn, provide stronger justification for choosing the liberal path in the here and now.

So what long term vision, what kind of long term destination, should a robust 21st century liberal politics offer? This is what I want to explore next. But let's detour a bit and take a look at my early political development, and how I chose between liberalism and libertarianism.

The Possible Liberalism vs The Impossible Libertarianism

When I was in college, I had the idea that, if I were to start a political party, I would call it the 'Liberal Libertarian Party'. I liked parts of libertarianism and liberalism, because, after all, both were dedicated to increasing individual liberty. At first, I thought that libertarianism was grander in its vision, which was why I was more attracted to it. But about a year later, especially in the context of an election, I came to realize that libertarianism wasn't practically going to win any time soon, and we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Back then, my top two priorities were ending the 'War on Terror' and legalizing the freedom to marry for gay couples. And I saw clearly that liberalism, rather than libertarianism, was the only hope for delivering these things in the foreseeable future. And so, I became mostly a pragmatic liberal from that point onwards.

Libertarian politics, in the conventional sense, has always been a hard sell. Even 20 years ago, when people most commonly identified as 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative', libertarianism still had few supporters. And it's not for no good reason either. Conventional libertarians are almost always 'immediatists', i.e. if they had a chance to govern they would cut the size of the government to the absolute minimum at the first opportunity. This could have a lot of undesirable, perhaps even dangerous, effects on society, some of them even likely to be unforeseeable or unpredictable. Conventional libertarians often don't care too much about this, because libertarianism cares more about first principles than practical consequences. However, the average voter out there, whose priority is usually a stable and secure life, often first see an unfamiliar set of policies as a potential wrecking ball if allowed into government. And immediatist libertarianism, let's be honest, does sound like a wrecking ball to most voters. Hence, they are never going to vote libertarian, no matter how libertarians frame their message.

Besides the practical pitfalls of an 'immediatist' libertarian politics, there is also the pragmatic consideration of electoral competitiveness. Right now, the West has a major problem of worsening economic inequality, and both the critical theory Left and the populist Right are calling for a more robust economic safety net. The challenges of the last two years has further increased the common desire for a stronger safety net. If libertarians continue to call for cutting government programs across the board, because of ideological reasons, it is certainly going to sound tone deaf. The trouble with this kind of ideological stubborness is that, it has practical consequences in the real world. It means illiberal forces that promise to deliver what the people want will gain ground instead, leading us to a more illiberal future. I believe the most important thing about participating in politics is a sense of responsibility for the consequences one's decisions might have on people's lives in the future. Ideological purity that might lead to future disaster certainly sounds irresponsible to me.

Pragmatic Liberalism Plus Long Term Libertarianism?

The impracticality of libertarian immediatism means that we are left with the choice of practicing a pragmatic liberalism for now. This would include defending free speech vigorously, encouraging free and independent thinking, promoting and protecting civil liberties, and safeguarding the freedom of individuals from being trampled on by the tyranny of the majority. By extension, I also believe in advocating for objective science-based policies, and a peace-orientated approach to international relations. I have said a lot about the aforementioned goals over the years. However, a liberalism that is only ever concerned about pragmatic problems in the here and now lacks the grand long term vision, which means it has a deficit in passion, and in particular makes it much less attractive to more idealistic people.

This is where a kind of long term libertarian goal comes in. Liberal libertarianism aims to combine the practice of pragmatic liberalism, perhaps with some libertarian influences, in the here and now, with having a longer term goal of moving towards a much more libertarian society. What liberal libertarianism recognizes is that, right now, the immediate application of a typical libertarian platform could actually harm individual liberty in many cases, given the long-standing social and economic structure of society. A pragmatic liberalism therefore best serves individual liberty in the here and now. However, liberal libertarianism also recognizes that, given the rapid development of technology, automation, and new social practices enabled by technology like crowdsourcing, mutual aid and the new sharing economy, there is indeed scope to move in a much more libertarian direction in the longer run, especially when the aforementioned developments become much more mature. Therefore, while liberal libertarians are basically pragmatic liberals in the here and now, they have also not given up on the libertarian dream in the longer term.

Don't get me wrong. Liberal libertarianism is certainly not just liberals who daydream about a libertarian utopia in the distant future. The existence of the long term 'libertarian destination' in our roadmap actually influences policy orientations in the here and now. For example, the underlying long term goal of moving towards a decentralized society would justify the choice of more decentralized and market-based mechanisms when deciding how we might strengthen our social safety net. A universal basic income (UBI) scheme could be one way of doing that, and a liberal libertarian would therefore prefer a UBI over welfare schemes that are means tested or tied to work requirements. A liberal libertarian would also be particularly interested in encouraging the development of decentralized, market-based or market-like systems where individuals could engage in mutually beneficial exchanges, because that could eventually lead to ways to cut the size of the government, without turning power and resources over to big business like conventional privatization schemes do.

What This Show Will Be About

This show will be part of an attempt to build a liberal libertarian worldview and politics. It will be for liberal libertarians and people of other ideologies alike. I hope my ideas can inspire fellow liberal libertarians to think about what could be pragmatically done to address problems in the here and now, how we can have a much more decentralized and free society in the ideal future, and how the two can be linked. Meanwhile, people of other ideologies can hopefully come to appreciate how a liberal libertarian would see the issues, and where there might be opportunities for cooperation, even if we have differences in other areas. The show will discuss news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian perspective on some days, and talk about liberal libertarian philosophy on other days. The show will have episodes that focus on imagining the libertarian future, and how our current choices might help or hinder us in getting there. I'm also going to explore how Moral Libertarianism, i.e. the principle of ensuring equal and maximum moral agency for every individual, can serve as a philosophical bridge between the pragmatic liberalism of the present and the idealistic libertarianism of the future.

How the Illiberal Right and Illiberal Left are Ultimately Similar | TaraElla Report Lab

Or why there are no simple or magical solutions to society's problems

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about how the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right are ultimately similar in an important way: their preference for simple solutions to complex problems. Given the increasing prominence of both in Western politics in the past decade, I think it is an important thing to address.

As liberals, we believe in the importance of having a functioning and healthy marketplace of ideas. Our commitment to free speech, free debate, and freedom of action as long as it does not harm other people, are all basically rooted in our commitment to the marketplace of ideas. The reason we believe in the marketplace of ideas is because we don't believe any one individual or group of people can have all the best solutions for the problems we face. In fact, this is almost impossible, because of the complexity of the problems themselves. No individual or group can have all the information they need to solve everything effectively. Besides, even if they have all the information, there is no guarantee that they would come up with the best solutions. Life is a process of trial and error, and allowing competing views and solutions to play out is the only way we can know which ones are more sound.

Another important function of the marketplace of ideas is the negotiation, remixing and sometimes even fusion of ideas and solutions. The best ideas and the most effective solutions are often the result of compromise or fusion. Free debate in the marketplace of ideas allows this process to happen, as long as there is plenty of room for rational and respectful debate. This is why the polarization, division and echo chambers that have characterized the past decade should be a major concern for any true liberal.

In contrast to liberals, neither the illiberal Left nor the illiberal Right have any time for the marketplace of ideas. It is from this that they reject things like free speech. What the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right have in common is that they don't see, or rather refuse to see, the complexity of our problems, the vast amount of factors that interplay in various issues, and the fact that life is often a trial and error process. This is why they believe their simple solutions will magically work to resolve everything. For the illiberal Left, the magic solution is blindly opposing and deconstructing all aspects of the status quo, and remaking society using their theories. For the illiberal Right, the magic solution is to force society to return to a previous state, even if at the cost of trampling on freedom, democracy, and long standing standards of decency and compassion. There is no reason to expect these all-encompassing solutions to work well at all, but the fact that they haven't been tried yet seem to be enough justification for keeping the faith in both cases.

The problem with the attitude of both the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right is that they don't seem to have any use for historical lessons, rationality or logic. While rational thinking would demonstrate the errors in their way of thinking, and history also provides plenty of evidence against their views, for the illiberal faithful, all this don't seem to be able to penetrate their worldview. Therefore, what they have is actually blind faith. It is blind faith, rooted in a kind of reality-defying romanticism, that is sustaining the current surge of illiberalism in the West. I believe that, the more we point this out, the sooner people can wake up from this.

The Case For a Common Good Liberalism | TaraElla Report Lab

Why there is no reason to choose 'common good conservatism' over liberalism.

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about the idea of the 'common good' from a liberal perspective. It's an important discussion to have, because I fear the West is about to see a wave of anti-liberal sentiment. For many years, people on both the Left and the Right have criticized liberalism for supposedly promoting selfishness and ignoring the common good because of its individualist orientation. With the recent rise of 'common good conservatism' as a focus of the illiberal Right, this debate is likely to heat up again soon. Here, I will offer a defense of liberalism, and explain why I believe liberalism is actually the best model for advancing the common good.

Firstly, there is nothing in liberal values and principles that inherently promotes selfishness or opposes notions of the common good. As I first pointed out several years ago, liberalism is not inherently against communitarianism, indeed, I argued that a fusion of liberalism and communitarianism could be the best way forward. Liberalism, especially the Moral Libertarian model, guarantees individual autonomy and moral agency. But that doesn't mean individuals can't or won't use that moral agency to advance what they believe to be the common good.

The key to advancing the common good is to have a culture that stresses the importance of morality, and our duty towards each other. It is these cultural values that will prevent selfishness from prevailing in the general population. Contrary to what the illiberal Right claims, widespread selfishness and lack of regard for the common good is a product of cultural dysfunction, not a product of liberal individualism. Indeed, the Moral Libertarian model of liberalism places morality at its heart, and I believe the promotion of this model will greatly help to advance the common good in the long run.

The actual difference between liberalism and more authoritarian forms of politics like what the illiberal Right is advocating, is that liberalism stresses individual autonomy. Looking at it from another angle, decision making in liberalism is non-hierarchical, whilst decision making in authoritarian conservatism is done in a hierarchical way. Hence, what constitutes the common good in 'common good liberalism' will ultimately be determined by the marketplace of ideas, especially in the long run, while the common good in 'common good conservatism' will be determined by those at the top of the hierarchy.

Hence, the choice between 'common good liberalism' vs 'common good conservatism' would essentially be a choice between decisions being made by the marketplace of ideas, vs decisions being made by those at the top of the hierarchy. And there is good reason to choose the marketplace of ideas. Firstly, the marketplace of ideas represents the thinking of many minds, the experiences of many lives, and the combined knowledge of a lot of information that a small group of elites simply can't match. Secondly, the marketplace of ideas allows for trial and error, and ideas which are objectively found to be successful can be adopted and further developed by other people. Most importantly, the marketplace of ideas allows for negotiation, where the best parts of each package of ideas can be remixed into new proposals, to create even better solutions moving forward. This is a level of complexity and efficiency top-down decision making simply can't match.

In conclusion, I believe that liberalism is, in fact, the best model to advance the common good, as long as it is practiced in a pro-common good culture. Pro-morality models of liberalism like Moral Libertarianism can also help bring about this culture. Hence, there is no reason to choose 'common good conservatism' over liberalism at all.