But at this point, we are being asked to embrace the classical liberal state either on the basis of Locke’s self-contradictory arguments (where at one point God owns us all, but a bit later we all own ourselves), or because it achieves the not-at-all neutral aim of maximizing the citizens’ wealth. In response here, we are likely to encounter either some sort of Lockean argument as to how property rights are just, or perhaps a utilitarian case for why they make us all wealthier in the long run. ![]() The classical liberal state is certainly not neutral between his end of everyone sharing all goods in common, and the classical liberal insistence upon the sanctity of property rights. He contends, along with Proudhon, that “property is theft.” He believes that your seaside villa, my house in the country, Madison Square Garden, and the Louvre are all the common property of mankind: he (and everyone else) ought to be able to spend the weekend at your villa, farm my land, wander onto the court during a Knicks game, or borrow the Mona Lisa for a few days when he wishes. However, let’s move on to a less outlandish example: we will imagine an anarcho-communist confronting the classical liberal state. But it does begin to blow off the fog of “neutrality,” under the cover of which liberals advance liberal ends. The above example may appear absurd: “Of course, everyone objects to serial killing!” Well, almost everyone: not serial killers. What is the classic liberal state doing sending its armed minions after him? There’s no neutrality in that! Well, at least we post-liberals can answer “Of course the state is not neutral between evil ends and good ends: the state will promote the good ends and surpress the evil ones.” But Vallier has closed himself off from that response… instead, he must resort to a vague concept of “reasonable ends”… and it turns out that classical liberals will consider ends to be reasonable so long as they do not challenge classical liberalism. ![]() ![]() Firstly, let us imagine a serial killer who insists that, if classical liberalism is as good as its word, it ought to be neutral among his end of killing as much as possible and his victims desire to not be killed. Well, let us start off with some simple examples, and work our way forward from there. In fact, nationalist conservatives, classical liberals, and progressives all hope to steer the state towards promoting what they see as a good society: the only difference is that classical liberals attempt to hide their agenda behind a veil of neutrality. However, Vallier’s contention that the state must, indeed that the state can, remain “neutral among competing ends” is not a serious policy proposal or proposition in political philosophy: it is a piece of propaganda, under the cover of which “classical liberalism” conceals the fact that it advances classical liberal ends. Progressive liberals, on the other hand, disagree only with the ends that these conservatives seek.” Vallier contends that both “‘woke’ progressives and classical liberal defenders of limited government… oppose national conservatism’s goal of deploying a muscular state to advance cultural and religious objectives… Their reasons, however, are very different: Classical liberals disagree with the means national conservatives deploy because they believe that the state must remain neutral among competing ends. Recently, political philosopher Kevin Vallier published an essay entitled “ Making Common Cause”, in which he argues that, “If they ever want to counter the left’s excesses, neo-nationalists on the right need to ally with classical liberals and embrace the neutral state.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |