display all the ideas for this combination of texts
13 ideas
22829 | Allowing defamatory speech is against society's interests, by blurring which people are trustworthy [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The argument for restricting defamatory speech is that unrestricted speech makes it impossible, or too difficult, to distinguish between those who deserve a trustworthy reputation and those who don't - a distinction in society's best interests. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 03) | |
A reaction: A nice example of appeal to the common good, in opposition to the normal freedoms of liberalism. An example of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Should assertion of the common good of a group be a prime value of liberalism? |
22836 | 'Freedom from' is an empty idea, if the freedom is not from impediments to my desires [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Berlin's distinction of 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' is worthless …because to say that I want to be free from something for absolutely no reason makes no sense. Unfreedom is being blocked from what I want to do, which ceases if I no longer want it. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 07) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The government could guarantee us against attacks by albatrosses, but we would hardly have a national holiday to celebrate the freedom. Still, there is freedom from incoming troubles, and freedom to output things. |
22837 | Positive freedom can lead to coercion, if you are forced to do what you chose to do [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Berlin saw positive freedom as a justification for illiberal coercion. If I am positively free only in doing X, then if I am forced to do X, I will still be free. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 07) | |
A reaction: I suppose Berlin is thinking of Russian farmers, who wanted to farm, but then found they were forced to do what they were going to do anyway. It's better than being forced to do what you didn't want to do. Forcing clearly isn't freedom. |
22844 | First level autonomy is application of personal values; second level is criticising them [Charvet] |
Full Idea: First level autonomy is being able to apply one's scheme of values to one's actions and life; second level autonomy is being able to subject those values to critical evaluation. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 10) | |
A reaction: Charvet sees this as a key issue for liberalism. How do you treat citizens who cannot advance beyond the first level? He mentions the elitism of Plato's Republic that results. |
22840 | Mere equality, as in two trees being the same height, has no value at all [Charvet] |
Full Idea: That the relation of equality might be considered a value in itself is an absurdity. Would the equality of blinding the only sighted person in a blind society be good? Is it inherently good that two trees are the same height? This is nonsense. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 08) | |
A reaction: He cites Temkin 1993 as defending the blinding example! Obviously equality is only possible in certain respects (though electrons might be equal in all respects). So the point is to identify the important respects. The rest is rhetoric. |
22843 | Inequalities are worse if they seem to be your fault, rather than social facts [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Inequality is worse in a meritocracy than in a stratified society, because everyone enjoys a formal equality of status and your position in the social order is due to your merit or lack of merit, so you have only yourself to blame for being at the bottom. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 10) | |
A reaction: This is the simple point that it is worse to lack some good if you might have possessed it, rather than it being entirely out of reach. It also makes the false assumption that people are largely responsible for their merit or lack of it (ignoring luck). |
22845 | Money allows unlimited inequalities, and we obviously all agree to money [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The introduction of money allows people to accumulate wealth without limit. Since money only works through everyone's agreement …everyone can be taken to have agreed to the consequences of money in the unequal distribution of wealth. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 11) | |
A reaction: [Locke] Presumably large inequalities of possessions and territory were possible before money, but there was at least an upper limit. The current owner of Amazon may end up with more wealth than the whole of the rest of humanity combined. |
22828 | The rule of law mainly benefits those with property and liberties [Charvet] |
Full Idea: A rule of law regime will primarily benefit those possessing property and liberty rights. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: Important. It's no good fighting for the law if the law doesn't protect what you have got, or if you have got nothing to protect. Important steps must precede assertion of the rule of law. |
22826 | From 1701 only parliament could remove judges, whose decisions could not be discussed [Charvet] |
Full Idea: In 1701 UK judges were given secure tenure, being removable only by parliament which at the same time undertook to follow a convention not to discuss particular judicial decisions. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: In recent years the UK Daily Mail published the pictures of three judges, and labelled them 'traitors' because of their verdict about leaving the European Union. |
22823 | The rule of law is mainly to restrict governments [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The rule of law is directed at the restriction of the power of governments as much, if not more, then the power of private individuals. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: The more powerful you are the more restricting is the rule of law. Every government is tempted to change the law to expand its powers. The UK government has just legislated to restrict public demonstrations. Law is the people's weapon against autocrats. |
22827 | Justice superior to the rule of law is claimed on behalf of the workers, or the will of the nation [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Communist leaders justify themselves as the embodiment of the people's will as workers, and fascist leaders as expressing the will of the nation. Both believe their policies contain a superior justice on this basis. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: [compressed] A neat summary of why the rule of law might be rejected (other than by simple tyrrany justified only by force). In modern democracies recent right-wing governments have pushed back the law and attacked justice on this basis. |
22825 | The 1689 Bill of Rights denied the monarch new courts, or the right to sit as judge [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The 1689 Bill of Rights said the monarch could not create new courts of law, or act as a judge at law. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: The background was the abolition of the court of Star Chamber in 1641, which had been secret, severe, and controlled by the monarch. Is it possible to create a new type of court, or are we stuck with the current ones? |
22832 | Welfare is needed if citizens are to accept the obligations of a liberal state [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The welfare state provides the background conditions under which it is reasonable to expect one's fellow citizens to commit to liberal principles of interaction, even if those conditions can only be achieved through a degree of compulsion. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 05) | |
A reaction: You cannot expect people to accept the role of 'free' citizen if that is likely to result in swift misery. A liberal state will only command loyalty if it has a safety net. Fully committed liberalism implies modest socialism. |