an interesting read

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

QUOTE=scottw;1030578]

It was an interesting read. I enjoyed and agreed with most of it, but some peculiar assumptions were annoying.

What is his definition of classical liberalism which reinforces reflections (whatever that means) of the same ideology of progressive "liberalism"? Were classical liberals "statists"?

I think it's more the definition of how liberty will/may be gained or maintained, one side supporting the notion that it must be gained/maintained through the will and benevolence of the State..."government as a means to expand liberty"...reflection might be a good choice of words....both would look in the mirror and see one who purports to expand "liberty"...the difference being how it all comes about...government to protect your liberty or government to provide your liberty... I think one side would prefer to argue the means to achieve "individual liberty" rather than what "individual liberty" really means....which leads to your next question

What is "true" human liberty? Does one "side" actually support "the autonomous individual"? If the rest of his article means that Locke supported the individual outside of society, I would disagree.

both would claim to.. although one would, in reality, support the automatomomous individual...he clearly discounts the argument that it can be gained/maintained through the modern liberal progressive ideology and to some extent "drift"... "Partly this is due to drift; but more worryingly, it is due to the increasingly singular embrace by many contemporary Americans - whether liberal or "conservative" - of a modern definition of liberty that consists in doing as one likes through the conquest of nature"


For the rest of the article, the large middle section, I agree with Dineen as he basically describes the progressive State. Somehow he throws Locke in with it and likens him to Hobbes. My opinion is that Locke is much closer to Dineen than to Hobbes, and certainly would advise us to "relearn the ancient virtue of self-government, and true liberty itself.
The Founders would.

"the virtue of self-government, and true liberty itself"..I think this is his ultimate point and he attempts to explain how it's been lost, muddied and corrupted...I think he's Australian, maybe having a slightly different perspective looking in...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

"the virtue of self-government, and true liberty itself"..I think this is his ultimate point and he attempts to explain how it's been lost, muddied and corrupted...I think he's Australian, maybe having a slightly different perspective looking in...

I agree that it is his ultimate point . . . just a little muddied (if not corrupted) by his attempts. Never got what he meant by true liberty or how that was viewed and espoused by "ancient political thought." His allusions to various types of liberty which drifted into each other and coalesced into contemporary conception of liberty and the drift away from ancient older and better definition of liberty was not clarified. Am interested in what is that older and better definition.

Am a bit wary of his perception of Lockean individualism being an "atomization" and a conquest of nature. Kinda think Locke didn't see it that way, but that's neither here nor there. I think he is on to something, though, regarding our progressive alienation from nature by conquering it and making it less and less relevant, even more a threat than a haven--while all along pretending that we should protect the environment from ourselves.

That may well be the most destructive loss of ancient wisdom we contemporaries suffer--our being separate from nature and superior to it. That "hubris" (bow to Spence) propels us into the dynamic of the progressive State in which all, including nature, is controlled by experts, and liberty is defined as that which the State allows.