I do not claim, in any way shape or form, to be a scholar of Mill’s work – or to have read enough of his output to be able to categorise his political stance, and thus be able to use his authority to buttress my own arguments – but there is a quotation from On Liberty I read many years ago at school that I have tried to adhere to and have often cited (in precis) when challenging others in debate, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
It was precisely this piece of advice that led me to continue reading leftish writers – and the Guardian almost daily – long after the point that I realised I disagreed with almost every position they took.
How can you ever feel confident in your own opinions unless you have understood, or at least exposed yourself to, the counter-argument – and from well-versed people who can make a strong defence for it?
Yet this obvious good sense, in the digital age, is anathema to most – certainly to many who would claim JS Mill for their own side of the aisle. With the plethora of information resources available to us it is all too easy to gravitate towards news that sits comfortably within your own preferred world-view.
It used to be said that you were entitled to your own opinions, yet we now live in a culture where many seem to feel entitled to their own facts.
Too many people feel they have a right to simply dismiss any information that challenges the consoling half-truths that bolster their preconceptions – because they’re convinced their point of view is intrinsically virtuous, thus everyone who thinks differently to them must be wrong. And, distressingly often, not merely wrong but somehow “Evil”. It seems to blind them to the possibility that other, perfectly decent and thoughtful people might, quite justifiably, think differently to them. I think this is the fundamental cause of the pessimism that permeates so much political discourse.
Even within our universities, the very places that should be most dedicated to the free exchange of opposing ideas, we have allowed a culture of no-platforming any who challenge the cultural shibboleths of our time. Not only do we find academics and journalists unwilling to listen to the case for the other side, we find plenty of people who actually claim that such a monocular view is a virtue, and damn any who dare think otherwise.
The BBC, which has a charter obligation to reflect the breadth of any argument and find articulate proponents to make the case for their own positions, was attacked by Emily Maitlis in her (what should be infamous) MacTaggart lecture, accusing her employer of committing the sin of “Both-sideism”.
As I say, I make no claim as an expert on JS Mill, but in my humble opinion, nothing would improve the tenor of political debate and critical thinking in our present time more than if those who do lay claim to his work took this particular piece of his advice to heart.
That’s a very astute observation. I used to read pieces I fundamentally disagreed with, but never thought of it as me trying to understand the other side. I always thought they were written to inflame and outrage readers in order to keep them engaged rather than informed, which is why I read a lot less of publications like the Guardian than I used to.
Articles on the Guardian are website are so ridiculous that I can’t believe it still has serious readership, yet occasionally I venture forth to their comments section only very quickly to retreat back to mental refuges like Unherd or Quintette.
I think I tried to understand the other side but eventually gave up, believing they were too far gone down the progressive rabbit hole.
I think this expectation is rather discriminatory toward Progressive Totalitarian and Postmodern Ideologies based in Standpoint Epistemology.
A progressive operates beyond reason because progressives possess Gnose or absolute knowledge. Absolute Knowledge can’t be accessed by the uninducted, non-expert class or those defined as privileged.
There is simply no reason for the progressive to consider a more conservative viewpoint when he already knows the truth.
Dissenting opinion is just an outdated form of bourgeois property that needs to be shelved in the interest of the global community!
Charles,
I take your point that words are cheap and it is by one’s actions that one should be judged.
But how do you suppose you can decide what course of action would be justifiable and right, unless you have discussed and considered the problem at hand from all sides? Your gut-instinct is often not the wisest approach.
Charles,
I take your point that words are cheap and it is by one’s actions that one should be judged.
But how do you suppose you can decide what course of action would be justifiable and right, unless you have discussed and considered the problem at hand from all sides? Your gut-instinct is often not the wisest approach.
That’s a very astute observation. I used to read pieces I fundamentally disagreed with, but never thought of it as me trying to understand the other side. I always thought they were written to inflame and outrage readers in order to keep them engaged rather than informed, which is why I read a lot less of publications like the Guardian than I used to.
Articles on the Guardian are website are so ridiculous that I can’t believe it still has serious readership, yet occasionally I venture forth to their comments section only very quickly to retreat back to mental refuges like Unherd or Quintette.
I think I tried to understand the other side but eventually gave up, believing they were too far gone down the progressive rabbit hole.
I think this expectation is rather discriminatory toward Progressive Totalitarian and Postmodern Ideologies based in Standpoint Epistemology.
A progressive operates beyond reason because progressives possess Gnose or absolute knowledge. Absolute Knowledge can’t be accessed by the uninducted, non-expert class or those defined as privileged.
There is simply no reason for the progressive to consider a more conservative viewpoint when he already knows the truth.
Dissenting opinion is just an outdated form of bourgeois property that needs to be shelved in the interest of the global community!
When you look into the void, the void looks into you.
And yes, when you inculcate the teachings of the void, you understand yourself better.
Even if that self would seem a monster to your earlier self.
Last edited 11 months ago by Bret Larson
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
I do not claim, in any way shape or form, to be a scholar of Mill’s work – or to have read enough of his output to be able to categorise his political stance, and thus be able to use his authority to buttress my own arguments – but there is a quotation from On Liberty I read many years ago at school that I have tried to adhere to and have often cited (in precis) when challenging others in debate, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
It was precisely this piece of advice that led me to continue reading leftish writers – and the Guardian almost daily – long after the point that I realised I disagreed with almost every position they took.
How can you ever feel confident in your own opinions unless you have understood, or at least exposed yourself to, the counter-argument – and from well-versed people who can make a strong defence for it?
Yet this obvious good sense, in the digital age, is anathema to most – certainly to many who would claim JS Mill for their own side of the aisle. With the plethora of information resources available to us it is all too easy to gravitate towards news that sits comfortably within your own preferred world-view.
It used to be said that you were entitled to your own opinions, yet we now live in a culture where many seem to feel entitled to their own facts.
Too many people feel they have a right to simply dismiss any information that challenges the consoling half-truths that bolster their preconceptions – because they’re convinced their point of view is intrinsically virtuous, thus everyone who thinks differently to them must be wrong. And, distressingly often, not merely wrong but somehow “Evil”. It seems to blind them to the possibility that other, perfectly decent and thoughtful people might, quite justifiably, think differently to them. I think this is the fundamental cause of the pessimism that permeates so much political discourse.
Even within our universities, the very places that should be most dedicated to the free exchange of opposing ideas, we have allowed a culture of no-platforming any who challenge the cultural shibboleths of our time. Not only do we find academics and journalists unwilling to listen to the case for the other side, we find plenty of people who actually claim that such a monocular view is a virtue, and damn any who dare think otherwise.
The BBC, which has a charter obligation to reflect the breadth of any argument and find articulate proponents to make the case for their own positions, was attacked by Emily Maitlis in her (what should be infamous) MacTaggart lecture, accusing her employer of committing the sin of “Both-sideism”.
As I say, I make no claim as an expert on JS Mill, but in my humble opinion, nothing would improve the tenor of political debate and critical thinking in our present time more than if those who do lay claim to his work took this particular piece of his advice to heart.
Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Unfortunately the modern left simply doesn’t believe that ‘democracy requires taking the perspectives of all people seriously’. Quite the opposite in fact.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Unfortunately the modern left simply doesn’t believe that ‘democracy requires taking the perspectives of all people seriously’. Quite the opposite in fact.
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Mill a ‘progressive’? Yes, I will certainly buy that. But that has most certainly not turned out to be a good thing in the long run, rather the intrusion of publically funded dubious ideological obsessions into more and more areas of private life. I’d agree women should have equal opportunities, but what if they choose child rearing and home making as their priority? Pay someone to look after your very young children while you go out to work?! Many other examples.
Mill a ‘progressive’? Yes, I will certainly buy that. But that has most certainly not turned out to be a good thing in the long run, rather the intrusion of publically funded dubious ideological obsessions into more and more areas of private life. I’d agree women should have equal opportunities, but what if they choose child rearing and home making as their priority? Pay someone to look after your very young children while you go out to work?! Many other examples.
AJ Mac
1 year ago
A superb defense of one of the most brilliant Englishmen who ever lived. I recommend that anyone inclined to make one or another assumption about John Stuart Mill read 100 pages of his actual works.
I respect the fact that this website allows–and publishes–a variety a viewpoints on the same important subject.
AJ Mac
1 year ago
A superb defense of one of the most brilliant Englishmen who ever lived. I recommend that anyone inclined to make one or another assumption about John Stuart Mill read 100 pages of his actual works.
I respect the fact that this website allows–and publishes–a variety a viewpoints on the same important subject.
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
The eminent professor worries about the availability of
public goods — education of the quality available to their more fortunate contemporaries, or a “safety net” that protects against severe poverty and homelessness — the odds are against success for even the most gifted and diligent of children.
But the question is:
Can gubmint ever deliver quality education?
Can gubmint deliver a “safety net” against poverty and homelessness?
Or does it always Make Things Worse?
Take the French, currently enraged about the gubmint mucking around with their retraites. Suppose the graduates of les grandes écoles had built a system where French workers financed their own retraites with a little gubmint regulation to keep fraud down to a dull roar? What then?
I’m a follower of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who says that politics is just friend vs. enemy. You gift your friends; you fight your enemies. And that is all. Prove to me that I’m wrong, Noble Professor.
No one can disprove a dark, cynical worldview to the satisfaction of one who peers through such a lens.
“All seems infected that th’ infected spy, / As all looks yellow to the jaundic’d eye” (Alexander Pope).
Of course governments can provide quality education if they have the will. My 3 children all went to public school in British Columbia. All 3 are now professionals doing quite well. They loved their high school.
Similarly, if it has the will government can provide a safety net against poverty and homelessness. Unfortunately many voters want to be taxed a lot less, which diminishes the ability of governments to do that.
None of the above is perfect, but perfectability isn’t and shouldn’t be the goal.
No one can disprove a dark, cynical worldview to the satisfaction of one who peers through such a lens.
“All seems infected that th’ infected spy, / As all looks yellow to the jaundic’d eye” (Alexander Pope).
Of course governments can provide quality education if they have the will. My 3 children all went to public school in British Columbia. All 3 are now professionals doing quite well. They loved their high school.
Similarly, if it has the will government can provide a safety net against poverty and homelessness. Unfortunately many voters want to be taxed a lot less, which diminishes the ability of governments to do that.
None of the above is perfect, but perfectability isn’t and shouldn’t be the goal.
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
The eminent professor worries about the availability of
public goods — education of the quality available to their more fortunate contemporaries, or a “safety net” that protects against severe poverty and homelessness — the odds are against success for even the most gifted and diligent of children.
But the question is:
Can gubmint ever deliver quality education?
Can gubmint deliver a “safety net” against poverty and homelessness?
Or does it always Make Things Worse?
Take the French, currently enraged about the gubmint mucking around with their retraites. Suppose the graduates of les grandes écoles had built a system where French workers financed their own retraites with a little gubmint regulation to keep fraud down to a dull roar? What then?
I’m a follower of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who says that politics is just friend vs. enemy. You gift your friends; you fight your enemies. And that is all. Prove to me that I’m wrong, Noble Professor.
Barry Dixon
11 months ago
An interesting piece and in a similar vein to the one written by Patrick Deneen and published in this portal last week. If I did not know better, I could imagine another attempt to undermine proper, European, liberalism.
The author, rightly records that Mill was a progressive but then tries to construe that the progressivism of 150 years ago is aligned with what, rather unhelpfully, is described as the progressivism of today’s hard left. The progressivism of Mill is not the progressivism that AOC and Sauders hope to progress, nor should they be described as liberal. Their progressivism is authoritarian and flavoured by the intolerance of Marcuse and others of that fraternity. In effect regressive and this is well-illustrated by Orwel and Huxley.
The progress that Western Society has experienced over the last centuries has been founded upon progressive policies that have understood the importance of the individual and his need for autonomy. To allude to the polar opposites of Capitalism and Socialism though his passage “The progressive interests of humanity are not fostered by intensifying competition. In the section of Mill’s Principles entitled “Of the Stationary State of Wealth and Population”, fails to distinguish the consequences of socialist imposed redistribution of earned wealth and the desirable redistribution that meritocracy brings through opportunity in a free market society.
Agree entirely. JS Mill worked to progress to humanity.
The loony left wants to proceed to ant hood. With of course three or four different classes of ant.
Barry Dixon
11 months ago
An interesting piece and in a similar vein to the one written by Patrick Deneen and published in this portal last week. If I did not know better, I could imagine another attempt to undermine proper, European, liberalism.
The author, rightly records that Mill was a progressive but then tries to construe that the progressivism of 150 years ago is aligned with what, rather unhelpfully, is described as the progressivism of today’s hard left. The progressivism of Mill is not the progressivism that AOC and Sauders hope to progress, nor should they be described as liberal. Their progressivism is authoritarian and flavoured by the intolerance of Marcuse and others of that fraternity. In effect regressive and this is well-illustrated by Orwel and Huxley.
The progress that Western Society has experienced over the last centuries has been founded upon progressive policies that have understood the importance of the individual and his need for autonomy. To allude to the polar opposites of Capitalism and Socialism though his passage “The progressive interests of humanity are not fostered by intensifying competition. In the section of Mill’s Principles entitled “Of the Stationary State of Wealth and Population”, fails to distinguish the consequences of socialist imposed redistribution of earned wealth and the desirable redistribution that meritocracy brings through opportunity in a free market society.
I do not claim, in any way shape or form, to be a scholar of Mill’s work – or to have read enough of his output to be able to categorise his political stance, and thus be able to use his authority to buttress my own arguments – but there is a quotation from On Liberty I read many years ago at school that I have tried to adhere to and have often cited (in precis) when challenging others in debate,
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
It was precisely this piece of advice that led me to continue reading leftish writers – and the Guardian almost daily – long after the point that I realised I disagreed with almost every position they took.
How can you ever feel confident in your own opinions unless you have understood, or at least exposed yourself to, the counter-argument – and from well-versed people who can make a strong defence for it?
Yet this obvious good sense, in the digital age, is anathema to most – certainly to many who would claim JS Mill for their own side of the aisle. With the plethora of information resources available to us it is all too easy to gravitate towards news that sits comfortably within your own preferred world-view.
It used to be said that you were entitled to your own opinions, yet we now live in a culture where many seem to feel entitled to their own facts.
Too many people feel they have a right to simply dismiss any information that challenges the consoling half-truths that bolster their preconceptions – because they’re convinced their point of view is intrinsically virtuous, thus everyone who thinks differently to them must be wrong. And, distressingly often, not merely wrong but somehow “Evil”. It seems to blind them to the possibility that other, perfectly decent and thoughtful people might, quite justifiably, think differently to them. I think this is the fundamental cause of the pessimism that permeates so much political discourse.
Even within our universities, the very places that should be most dedicated to the free exchange of opposing ideas, we have allowed a culture of no-platforming any who challenge the cultural shibboleths of our time. Not only do we find academics and journalists unwilling to listen to the case for the other side, we find plenty of people who actually claim that such a monocular view is a virtue, and damn any who dare think otherwise.
The BBC, which has a charter obligation to reflect the breadth of any argument and find articulate proponents to make the case for their own positions, was attacked by Emily Maitlis in her (what should be infamous) MacTaggart lecture, accusing her employer of committing the sin of “Both-sideism”.
As I say, I make no claim as an expert on JS Mill, but in my humble opinion, nothing would improve the tenor of political debate and critical thinking in our present time more than if those who do lay claim to his work took this particular piece of his advice to heart.
That’s a very astute observation. I used to read pieces I fundamentally disagreed with, but never thought of it as me trying to understand the other side. I always thought they were written to inflame and outrage readers in order to keep them engaged rather than informed, which is why I read a lot less of publications like the Guardian than I used to.
Articles on the Guardian are website are so ridiculous that I can’t believe it still has serious readership, yet occasionally I venture forth to their comments section only very quickly to retreat back to mental refuges like Unherd or Quintette.
I think I tried to understand the other side but eventually gave up, believing they were too far gone down the progressive rabbit hole.
I think this expectation is rather discriminatory toward Progressive Totalitarian and Postmodern Ideologies based in Standpoint Epistemology.
A progressive operates beyond reason because progressives possess Gnose or absolute knowledge. Absolute Knowledge can’t be accessed by the uninducted, non-expert class or those defined as privileged.
There is simply no reason for the progressive to consider a more conservative viewpoint when he already knows the truth.
Dissenting opinion is just an outdated form of bourgeois property that needs to be shelved in the interest of the global community!
Compared to Thomas Paine he was rubbish.
Action NOT words is the true judge, always has been always will be.
One has to know what actions are best
I would say that to be the main inspirational source for the foundation of the USA was a pretty good start.
I would say that to be the main inspirational source for the foundation of the USA was a pretty good start.
Charles,
I take your point that words are cheap and it is by one’s actions that one should be judged.
But how do you suppose you can decide what course of action would be justifiable and right, unless you have discussed and considered the problem at hand from all sides? Your gut-instinct is often not the wisest approach.
Off course, Paine was very fortunate with his timing, whilst Mill was not so lucky.
Off course, Paine was very fortunate with his timing, whilst Mill was not so lucky.
One has to know what actions are best
Charles,
I take your point that words are cheap and it is by one’s actions that one should be judged.
But how do you suppose you can decide what course of action would be justifiable and right, unless you have discussed and considered the problem at hand from all sides? Your gut-instinct is often not the wisest approach.
When you look into the void, the void looks into you.
And yes, when you inculcate the teachings of the void, you understand yourself better.
Even if that self would seem a monster to your earlier self.
That’s a very astute observation. I used to read pieces I fundamentally disagreed with, but never thought of it as me trying to understand the other side. I always thought they were written to inflame and outrage readers in order to keep them engaged rather than informed, which is why I read a lot less of publications like the Guardian than I used to.
Articles on the Guardian are website are so ridiculous that I can’t believe it still has serious readership, yet occasionally I venture forth to their comments section only very quickly to retreat back to mental refuges like Unherd or Quintette.
I think I tried to understand the other side but eventually gave up, believing they were too far gone down the progressive rabbit hole.
I think this expectation is rather discriminatory toward Progressive Totalitarian and Postmodern Ideologies based in Standpoint Epistemology.
A progressive operates beyond reason because progressives possess Gnose or absolute knowledge. Absolute Knowledge can’t be accessed by the uninducted, non-expert class or those defined as privileged.
There is simply no reason for the progressive to consider a more conservative viewpoint when he already knows the truth.
Dissenting opinion is just an outdated form of bourgeois property that needs to be shelved in the interest of the global community!
Compared to Thomas Paine he was rubbish.
Action NOT words is the true judge, always has been always will be.
When you look into the void, the void looks into you.
And yes, when you inculcate the teachings of the void, you understand yourself better.
Even if that self would seem a monster to your earlier self.
I do not claim, in any way shape or form, to be a scholar of Mill’s work – or to have read enough of his output to be able to categorise his political stance, and thus be able to use his authority to buttress my own arguments – but there is a quotation from On Liberty I read many years ago at school that I have tried to adhere to and have often cited (in precis) when challenging others in debate,
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
It was precisely this piece of advice that led me to continue reading leftish writers – and the Guardian almost daily – long after the point that I realised I disagreed with almost every position they took.
How can you ever feel confident in your own opinions unless you have understood, or at least exposed yourself to, the counter-argument – and from well-versed people who can make a strong defence for it?
Yet this obvious good sense, in the digital age, is anathema to most – certainly to many who would claim JS Mill for their own side of the aisle. With the plethora of information resources available to us it is all too easy to gravitate towards news that sits comfortably within your own preferred world-view.
It used to be said that you were entitled to your own opinions, yet we now live in a culture where many seem to feel entitled to their own facts.
Too many people feel they have a right to simply dismiss any information that challenges the consoling half-truths that bolster their preconceptions – because they’re convinced their point of view is intrinsically virtuous, thus everyone who thinks differently to them must be wrong. And, distressingly often, not merely wrong but somehow “Evil”. It seems to blind them to the possibility that other, perfectly decent and thoughtful people might, quite justifiably, think differently to them. I think this is the fundamental cause of the pessimism that permeates so much political discourse.
Even within our universities, the very places that should be most dedicated to the free exchange of opposing ideas, we have allowed a culture of no-platforming any who challenge the cultural shibboleths of our time. Not only do we find academics and journalists unwilling to listen to the case for the other side, we find plenty of people who actually claim that such a monocular view is a virtue, and damn any who dare think otherwise.
The BBC, which has a charter obligation to reflect the breadth of any argument and find articulate proponents to make the case for their own positions, was attacked by Emily Maitlis in her (what should be infamous) MacTaggart lecture, accusing her employer of committing the sin of “Both-sideism”.
As I say, I make no claim as an expert on JS Mill, but in my humble opinion, nothing would improve the tenor of political debate and critical thinking in our present time more than if those who do lay claim to his work took this particular piece of his advice to heart.
Unfortunately the modern left simply doesn’t believe that ‘democracy requires taking the perspectives of all people seriously’. Quite the opposite in fact.
Unfortunately the modern left simply doesn’t believe that ‘democracy requires taking the perspectives of all people seriously’. Quite the opposite in fact.
Mill a ‘progressive’? Yes, I will certainly buy that. But that has most certainly not turned out to be a good thing in the long run, rather the intrusion of publically funded dubious ideological obsessions into more and more areas of private life. I’d agree women should have equal opportunities, but what if they choose child rearing and home making as their priority? Pay someone to look after your very young children while you go out to work?! Many other examples.
To true. To describe someone today as a progressive is not a complement.
The article seems to position Mill more as a One Nation Tory than a progressive. But who am I to interpret the intentions of the eminent professor.
The article seems to position Mill more as a One Nation Tory than a progressive. But who am I to interpret the intentions of the eminent professor.
Dude made his money as a part of the East India Company, maybe the most rapacious corporation in existence. Spare me the encomiums.
https://victorianweb.org/philosophy/mill/career.html
Think you would have been different in the 19th century? It’s very unikely.
Think you would have been different in the 19th century? It’s very unikely.
To true. To describe someone today as a progressive is not a complement.
Dude made his money as a part of the East India Company, maybe the most rapacious corporation in existence. Spare me the encomiums.
https://victorianweb.org/philosophy/mill/career.html
Mill a ‘progressive’? Yes, I will certainly buy that. But that has most certainly not turned out to be a good thing in the long run, rather the intrusion of publically funded dubious ideological obsessions into more and more areas of private life. I’d agree women should have equal opportunities, but what if they choose child rearing and home making as their priority? Pay someone to look after your very young children while you go out to work?! Many other examples.
A superb defense of one of the most brilliant Englishmen who ever lived. I recommend that anyone inclined to make one or another assumption about John Stuart Mill read 100 pages of his actual works.
I respect the fact that this website allows–and publishes–a variety a viewpoints on the same important subject.
A superb defense of one of the most brilliant Englishmen who ever lived. I recommend that anyone inclined to make one or another assumption about John Stuart Mill read 100 pages of his actual works.
I respect the fact that this website allows–and publishes–a variety a viewpoints on the same important subject.
The eminent professor worries about the availability of
But the question is:
Can gubmint ever deliver quality education?
Can gubmint deliver a “safety net” against poverty and homelessness?
Or does it always Make Things Worse?
Take the French, currently enraged about the gubmint mucking around with their retraites. Suppose the graduates of les grandes écoles had built a system where French workers financed their own retraites with a little gubmint regulation to keep fraud down to a dull roar? What then?
I’m a follower of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who says that politics is just friend vs. enemy. You gift your friends; you fight your enemies. And that is all. Prove to me that I’m wrong, Noble Professor.
No one can disprove a dark, cynical worldview to the satisfaction of one who peers through such a lens.
“All seems infected that th’ infected spy, / As all looks yellow to the jaundic’d eye” (Alexander Pope).
Of course governments can provide quality education if they have the will. My 3 children all went to public school in British Columbia. All 3 are now professionals doing quite well. They loved their high school.
Similarly, if it has the will government can provide a safety net against poverty and homelessness. Unfortunately many voters want to be taxed a lot less, which diminishes the ability of governments to do that.
None of the above is perfect, but perfectability isn’t and shouldn’t be the goal.
No one can disprove a dark, cynical worldview to the satisfaction of one who peers through such a lens.
“All seems infected that th’ infected spy, / As all looks yellow to the jaundic’d eye” (Alexander Pope).
Of course governments can provide quality education if they have the will. My 3 children all went to public school in British Columbia. All 3 are now professionals doing quite well. They loved their high school.
Similarly, if it has the will government can provide a safety net against poverty and homelessness. Unfortunately many voters want to be taxed a lot less, which diminishes the ability of governments to do that.
None of the above is perfect, but perfectability isn’t and shouldn’t be the goal.
The eminent professor worries about the availability of
But the question is:
Can gubmint ever deliver quality education?
Can gubmint deliver a “safety net” against poverty and homelessness?
Or does it always Make Things Worse?
Take the French, currently enraged about the gubmint mucking around with their retraites. Suppose the graduates of les grandes écoles had built a system where French workers financed their own retraites with a little gubmint regulation to keep fraud down to a dull roar? What then?
I’m a follower of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who says that politics is just friend vs. enemy. You gift your friends; you fight your enemies. And that is all. Prove to me that I’m wrong, Noble Professor.
An interesting piece and in a similar vein to the one written by Patrick Deneen and published in this portal last week. If I did not know better, I could imagine another attempt to undermine proper, European, liberalism.
The author, rightly records that Mill was a progressive but then tries to construe that the progressivism of 150 years ago is aligned with what, rather unhelpfully, is described as the progressivism of today’s hard left. The progressivism of Mill is not the progressivism that AOC and Sauders hope to progress, nor should they be described as liberal. Their progressivism is authoritarian and flavoured by the intolerance of Marcuse and others of that fraternity. In effect regressive and this is well-illustrated by Orwel and Huxley.
The progress that Western Society has experienced over the last centuries has been founded upon progressive policies that have understood the importance of the individual and his need for autonomy. To allude to the polar opposites of Capitalism and Socialism though his passage “The progressive interests of humanity are not fostered by intensifying competition. In the section of Mill’s Principles entitled “Of the Stationary State of Wealth and Population”, fails to distinguish the consequences of socialist imposed redistribution of earned wealth and the desirable redistribution that meritocracy brings through opportunity in a free market society.
Agree entirely. JS Mill worked to progress to humanity.
The loony left wants to proceed to ant hood. With of course three or four different classes of ant.
Agree entirely. JS Mill worked to progress to humanity.
The loony left wants to proceed to ant hood. With of course three or four different classes of ant.
An interesting piece and in a similar vein to the one written by Patrick Deneen and published in this portal last week. If I did not know better, I could imagine another attempt to undermine proper, European, liberalism.
The author, rightly records that Mill was a progressive but then tries to construe that the progressivism of 150 years ago is aligned with what, rather unhelpfully, is described as the progressivism of today’s hard left. The progressivism of Mill is not the progressivism that AOC and Sauders hope to progress, nor should they be described as liberal. Their progressivism is authoritarian and flavoured by the intolerance of Marcuse and others of that fraternity. In effect regressive and this is well-illustrated by Orwel and Huxley.
The progress that Western Society has experienced over the last centuries has been founded upon progressive policies that have understood the importance of the individual and his need for autonomy. To allude to the polar opposites of Capitalism and Socialism though his passage “The progressive interests of humanity are not fostered by intensifying competition. In the section of Mill’s Principles entitled “Of the Stationary State of Wealth and Population”, fails to distinguish the consequences of socialist imposed redistribution of earned wealth and the desirable redistribution that meritocracy brings through opportunity in a free market society.
Really good. Thank you
Really good. Thank you