Liberalism test

[Myrtonos]

It is part of the common understanding in most developed countries that the individual human is, or should be, the highest authority, and is the source of all power and meaning in this world. I have come up with a test to see if one is a liberal humanist, this is based on various read world implications of this belief.

Most developed countries are democracies with elections where each citizen at least a certain age (with the possible exception of prisoners) gets to decide for themselves, regardless of fundamental characteristics, such as race or gender, and regardless of level of education, and a winner is chosen.
This is the best system for ruling a jurisdiction. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Customers should have, in effect, the ultimate authority on what gets produced. If enough people want to buy it, it should get produced. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Contrast this with a communist economy where the party controls the whole economy

Each adult should be allowed to decide which consenting adult to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Contrast this with arranged marriage

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

The main thing education should do to students is try to teach students to think for themselves. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

If you want to take the test post there, but for any question of concerns, send me a private message or email me.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Frankly perplexing. You seem to have borrowed all your ideas from Harari. I think you should simply cite him in every post as it's his ideas you're writing.

So to the 'test'.

Most developed countries are democracies with elections where each citizen at least a certain age (with the possible exception of prisoners) gets to decide for themselves, regardless of fundamental characteristics, such as race or gender, and regardless of level of education, and a winner is chosen.

This is the best system for ruling a jurisdiction. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Strongly disagree.

Customers should have, in effect, the ultimate authority on what gets produced. If enough people want to buy it, it should get produced. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Strongly disagree.

Contrast this with a communist economy where the party controls the whole economy

Is this an essay question? Describe and discuss...

Each adult should be allowed to decide which consenting adult to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Agree

Contrast this with arranged marriage

Compare and contrast in 650 words...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

First clause: strongly agree.
Second clause: strongly disagree

The main thing education should do to students is try to teach students to think for themselves. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Half way between agree and disagree. Not the 'main' thing, just one of many things.

 

[Myrtonos]

Most developed countries are democracies with elections where each citizen at least a certain age (with the possible exception of prisoners) gets to decide for themselves, regardless of fundamental characteristics, such as race or gender, and regardless of level of education, and a winner is chosen.

This is the best system for ruling a jurisdiction. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Strongly disagree.

So do you believe some source or authority knows better than everyone eligible to vote on who should rule a country?

Customers should have, in effect, the ultimate authority on what gets produced. If enough people want to buy it, it should get produced. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Strongly disagree.

Again, do you mean you believe that customers don't always know what they should get.

Is this an essay question? Describe and discuss...

In each communist country, a party sitting in the capital decides what goods the people get and if people don't like it and want something else, that is their problem.
For example; In East Germany, people sitting in East Berlin decided that nearly everyone who needed a car would get a Trabant. They all had to live with a poorly designed, poorly built, slow, noisy and smoky car. If they didn't like anything about the car, it was their problem. Such a car would never sell in a free/capitalist market no matter how cheaply it were sold and many East Germans abandoned them after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Each adult should be allowed to decide which consenting adult to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Agree

So you agree with this implication of the liberalist belief but not what it means in the field of politics or economics.

Compare and contrast in 650 words...

650 words? I don't think so.

An arranged marriage is one arranged by parents, and a love marriage is a marriage to someone else with and only with their permission, not that of either of their respective parents.

First clause: strongly agree.
Second clause: strongly disagree

How can you agree with the "first clause" and disagree with the "second clause"?

 

[Sparhafoc]

So do you believe some source or authority knows better than everyone eligible to vote on who should rule a country?

Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

Again, do you mean you believe that customers don't always know what they should get.

Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

Is this an essay question? Describe and discuss...

In each communist country, a party sitting in the capital decides what goods the people get and if people don't like it and want something else, that is their problem.
For example; In East Germany, people sitting in East Berlin decided that nearly everyone who needed a car would get a Trabant. They all had to live with a poorly designed, poorly built, slow, noisy and smoky car. If they didn't like anything about the car, it was their problem. Such a car would never sell in a free/capitalist market no matter how cheaply it were sold and many East Germans abandoned them after the fall of the Berlin wall.

So it was an essay question?

I like your potted fairy tale, though. B- for effort.

Agree

So you agree with this implication of the liberalist belief but not what it means in the field of politics or economics.

It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

I don't agree with any implication - I answer for myself, and my response was to the question, not to things you think can be extrapolated from my answer.

Compare and contrast in 650 words...

650 words? I don't think so.

You didn't specify, you just wrote 'Contrast this with arranged marriage'

An arranged marriage is one arranged by parents, and a love marriage is a marriage to someone else with and only with their permission, not that of either of their respective parents.

And water, is of course, wet. Why are you declaiming once again? Are you under the impression that anyone here, myself included, was unaware of the difference between an arranged marriage and a not-arranged marriage?

First clause: strongly agree.
Second clause: strongly disagree

How can you agree with the "first clause" and disagree with the "second clause"?

Well, quite easily. You can see I just did it, and I can assure you that it was no trouble at all.

Do you mean 'please expand'?

First clause: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - beauty, an abstract concept dependent on a vast array of biological and social factors outside of our personal control, is perceived in different sources and in different ways by different people. Ergo, it's subjective or subject-dependent.

Second clause: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective - art is a human social practice which follows a slew of conventions and traditions.

Whether something is art or not is an entirely different kettle of fish. For better or worse, there's a consensus on what art is and what it's not. It's not opening a fridge, or watching a train go by, or reading a timetable, for example. What art is remains consensus-dependent.

If your friend thinks a girl/boy is beautiful, you don't say 'no, he/she's not beautiful' - you phrase it in terms of you as a subject, that you personally don't find that individual beautiful - but you cannot declare he/she is not and expect others to conform. Whereas, if your friend thinks that pulling his underwear backwards and forwards vigorously is art, you would be perfectly justified in objectively saying 'no it's not, you twat!'.

The post-truth world is a very odd place to be but looking in from outside does give one the benefit of seeing patterns. If you are thinking of appealing to the idea that 'some people say' X or Y is art, I am not interested in nor do I value what some people say. Some people say up is down, that doesn't make up or down subjective, it just means some people feel special by being different - and that they are - but they still remain wrong.


I see you didn't follow up the last one. Did you need to go check the relevant page in Harari's book to find out what you think first?

 

[Myrtonos]

So do you believe some source or authority knows better than everyone eligible to vote on who should rule a country?

Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.

Again, do you mean you believe that customers don't always know what they should get.

Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.

So it was an essay question?

I like your potted fairy tale, though. B- for effort.

There is no fairy tale here, this is how it really was in "socialist" republics. If VEB Sachsenring were free to produce whatever sort of car sufficiently many East German car buyers wanted, they would not have produced a plastic bodied car with a (carburetor) two-stroke engine which required oil to be mixed through the filler cap with each refuel and was smoky.

It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

It is a liberalist belief because it follows from belief in individual freedom, as does belief in democracy with elections and the practice of producing goods that enough people want to buy.

You didn't specify, you just wrote 'Contrast this with arranged marriage'

I said that so that readers here know what I mean by deciding who to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings.

Note that there are different kinds of arranged marriage, they aren't always forced, but it is my impression that many people in the west think of forced marriages when they think of arranged ones. That is why I explained what an arranged marriage is or at least tried to explain it.

First clause: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - beauty, an abstract concept dependent on a vast array of biological and social factors outside of our personal control, is perceived in different sources and in different ways by different people. Ergo, it's subjective or subject-dependent.

Second clause: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective - art is a human social practice which follows a slew of conventions and traditions.

Whether something is art or not is an entirely different kettle of fish. For better or worse, there's a consensus on what art is and what it's not. It's not opening a fridge, or watching a train go by, or reading a timetable, for example. What art is remains consensus-dependent.

If your friend thinks a girl/boy is beautiful, you don't say 'no, he/she's not beautiful' - you phrase it in terms of you as a subject, that you personally don't find that individual beautiful - but you cannot declare he/she is not and expect others to conform. Whereas, if your friend thinks that pulling his underwear backwards and forwards vigorously is art, you would be perfectly justified in objectively saying 'no it's not, you twat!'.

The post-truth world is a very odd place to be but looking in from outside does give one the benefit of seeing patterns. If you are thinking of appealing to the idea that 'some people say' X or Y is art, I am not interested in nor do I value what some people say. Some people say up is down, that doesn't make up or down subjective, it just means some people feel special by being different - and that they are - but they still remain wrong.

I can't think of anything to say on the first clause.

Reply to the second clause: While I doubt that anyone in their right mind would consider opening a cupboard door art, what is considered subjective is whether something like a representation of opening and shutting a door can be considered art. There may be a consensus on what art is, and to define art according to that is quite democracy like. Note the similarity between consensus and majority vote.

But what about the virtue of art, isn't that still subjective even if there is a consensus on what counts as art?

I see you didn't follow up the last one. Did you need to go check the relevant page in Harari's book to find out what you think first?

I had nothing useful to say on it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.

Your question is nonsensical. How could it be? Because why I strongly disagree isn't what you said, that's how.

Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.

Your question is nonsensical. How could it be? Because why I strongly disagree isn't what you said, that's how.


Consider me old fashioned, but I am of the school of thought that follows the antiquated notion that when you want to find out someone's opinion, you ask them what their opinion is; you don't try and tell them what their opinion is then argue with them whether or not it is their opinion! :roll:

So it was an essay question?

I like your potted fairy tale, though. B- for effort.

There is no fairy tale here, this is how it really was in "socialist" republics. If VEB Sachsenring were free to produce whatever sort of car sufficiently many East German car buyers wanted, they would not have produced a plastic bodied car with a (carburetor) two-stroke engine which required oil to be mixed through the filler cap with each refuel and was smoky.

All good fairy tales are how it 'really was'.

It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

It is a liberalist belief because it follows from belief in individual freedom, as does belief in democracy with elections and the practice of producing goods that enough people want to buy.

It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

In reality - something apparently residing in an alternative universe to yours - the modern, Western world didn't really get behind the notion of marriage for love, by choice, for all, regardless of station etc. until after the 2nd World War and was influenced by the 60's individualism which was actually counter-culture to traditional liberalism.

You didn't specify, you just wrote 'Contrast this with arranged marriage'

I said that so that readers here know what I mean by deciding who to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings.

Note that there are different kinds of arranged marriage, they aren't always forced, but it is my impression that many people in the west think of forced marriages when they think of arranged ones. That is why I explained what an arranged marriage is or at least tried to explain it.

And water, is of course, wet. Why are you declaiming once again? Are you under the impression that anyone here, myself included, was unaware of the difference between an arranged marriage and a not-arranged marriage?

First clause: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - beauty, an abstract concept dependent on a vast array of biological and social factors outside of our personal control, is perceived in different sources and in different ways by different people. Ergo, it's subjective or subject-dependent.

Second clause: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective - art is a human social practice which follows a slew of conventions and traditions.

Whether something is art or not is an entirely different kettle of fish. For better or worse, there's a consensus on what art is and what it's not. It's not opening a fridge, or watching a train go by, or reading a timetable, for example. What art is remains consensus-dependent.

If your friend thinks a girl/boy is beautiful, you don't say 'no, he/she's not beautiful' - you phrase it in terms of you as a subject, that you personally don't find that individual beautiful - but you cannot declare he/she is not and expect others to conform. Whereas, if your friend thinks that pulling his underwear backwards and forwards vigorously is art, you would be perfectly justified in objectively saying 'no it's not, you twat!'.

The post-truth world is a very odd place to be but looking in from outside does give one the benefit of seeing patterns. If you are thinking of appealing to the idea that 'some people say' X or Y is art, I am not interested in nor do I value what some people say. Some people say up is down, that doesn't make up or down subjective, it just means some people feel special by being different - and that they are - but they still remain wrong.

I can't think of anything to say on the first clause.

Presumably because it doesn't conflict with your inner gospel?

Reply to the second clause: While I doubt that anyone in their right mind would consider opening a cupboard door art, what is considered subjective is whether something like a representation of opening and shutting a door can be considered art. There may be a consensus on what art is, and to define art according to that is quite democracy like. Note the similarity between consensus and majority vote.

I don't think your response adds anything to what I already said, but more importantly, it confers the sense that you understand and acknowledge why I agreed with the first clause but disagreed with the second clause.

Only, you didn't actually acknowledge it.

But what about the virtue of art, isn't that still subjective even if there is a consensus on what counts as art?

Not if you use the word as most people do. If you've got some idiosyncratic definition stuffed up your sleeve, then possibly it's 'subjective' in your mind from that contrived definition, but not for anyone else.

Of course, I already specified exactly what I meant: subject-dependent / consensus dependent. These are not the same thing whatsoever.

I had nothing useful to say on it.

That hasn't stopped you before. /shrug

 

[Myrtonos]

Consider me old fashioned, but I am of the school of thought that follows the antiquated notion that when you want to find out someone's opinion, you ask them what their opinion is; you don't try and tell them what their opinion is then argue with them whether or not it is their opinion! :roll:

Has this something to do with whether democracy with elections is the best system for ruling a country or whether manufacturers should produced whatever goods enough people want to buy?

Okay, I'll elaborate on liberal economics:

Let's consider the videotape format war. The first home video recorders and video cassettes got produced because there were already millions of T.V. viewers in most free market countries, including all major ones, and many wanted equipment and media that could record shows when not at home so they no longer missed what they really wanted to watch.
There were quite a few home video formats, the top two were Betamax and V.H.S. Betamax may have been technologically superior and may have gone on sale before V.H.S, but V.H.S appealed to more people and won. See why Sony's Beta Videotape system failed--and failed hard, parts one and two. These videos are by Alec Watson. People who admit that more people bought V.H.S cassettes and recorders that Beta cassettes and equipment but believe that Beta was still better seem to suggest that home video customers didn't know what format was best for them. They claim that Sony made the better home video cassette format but home video customers were "too stupid".

He also has a series on Laserdisc which introduces it, explaining that it had better picture and sound that home videotape, perfectly clear freeze-frame and chapter search and some Laserdiscs even had multiple soundtracks. It then goes on to explain that Laserdisc nevertheless didn't appeal to as many people as videocassettes and so failed to gain mass market acceptance.
There was no higher authority deciding that most people who wanted home video would get a video cassette recorder and video cassettes and that they would have to live without chapter search, soundtrack selection and the ability to freeze frame with prefect clarity.

All good fairy tales are how it 'really was'.

If it is how it really was, it is not a fairy tale, Eastern Bloc countries were central command economies.

It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

In reality - something apparently residing in an alternative universe to yours - the modern, Western world didn't really get behind the notion of marriage for love, by choice, for all, regardless of station etc. until after the 2nd World War and was influenced by the 60's individualism which was actually counter-culture to traditional liberalism.

There were democracies with elections even before then, and actually love marriage is older than that, as far as I know, my grandparents' marriages on both sides of my family were love marriages.
There were novels about love marriage written back in the 19[sup]th[/sup] century. And even before the 1st world war, there was a free market in many countries. In fact, there were two main types of phonograph record, the scientifically correct cylinder, and the cheaper, easier and double-sided disc records. Guess which appealed to more people and which one won that early format war.
It took a long time for liberalism to displace the conformist, non-individualistic way of before. In fact, even Christianity displaced pagan beliefs over generations.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Consider me old fashioned, but I am of the school of thought that follows the antiquated notion that when you want to find out someone's opinion, you ask them what their opinion is; you don't try and tell them what their opinion is then argue with them whether or not it is their opinion! :roll:

Has this something to do with whether democracy with elections is the best system for ruling a country or whether manufacturers should produced whatever goods enough people want to buy?

Well, sort of. Mostly it has to do with what I think about whether democracy is the best system for ruling a country or whether demand should dictate supply.

As you keep telling me what I must think, I haven't really seen any reason yet to actually explain what I think.

Okay, I'll elaborate on liberal economics:

You will?

What are you relevant qualifications for doing so?

Let's consider the videotape format war. The first home video recorders and video cassettes got produced because there were already millions of T.V. viewers in most free market countries, including all major ones, and many wanted equipment and media that could record shows when not at home so they no longer missed what they really wanted to watch.

There were quite a few home video formats, the top two were Betamax and V.H.S. Betamax may have been technologically superior and may have gone on sale before V.H.S, but V.H.S appealed to more people and won. See why Sony's Beta Videotape system failed--and failed hard, parts one and two. These videos are by Alec Watson. People who admit that more people bought V.H.S cassettes and recorders that Beta cassettes and equipment but believe that Beta was still better seem to suggest that home video customers didn't know what format was best for them. They claim that Sony made the better home video cassette format but home video customers were "too stupid".

He also has a series on Laserdisc which introduces it, explaining that it had better picture and sound that home videotape, perfectly clear freeze-frame and chapter search and some Laserdiscs even had multiple soundtracks. It then goes on to explain that Laserdisc nevertheless didn't appeal to as many people as videocassettes and so failed to gain mass market acceptance.
There was no higher authority deciding that most people who wanted home video would get a video cassette recorder and video cassettes and that they would have to live without chapter search, soundtrack selection and the ability to freeze frame with prefect clarity.

Has this something to do with whether democracy with elections is the best system for ruling a country or whether manufacturers should produced whatever goods enough people want to buy?

All good fairy tales are how it 'really was'.

If it is how it really was, it is not a fairy tale,...

If it was how it really was, then it's not a fairy tale. However, it wasn't how it really was, ergo it is a fairy tale. It's just not a very good one.

It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

You quoted my text, italicized it, then didn't reply to it?

In reality - something apparently residing in an alternative universe to yours - the modern, Western world didn't really get behind the notion of marriage for love, by choice, for all, regardless of station etc. until after the 2nd World War and was influenced by the 60's individualism which was actually counter-culture to traditional liberalism.

There were democracies with elections even before then,...

And of course, nothing I wrote suggests otherwise. The sky was also blue before the 1960's and water was wet.

... and actually love marriage is older than that, as far as I know, my grandparents' marriages on both sides of my family were love marriages.

Do you read what I write?

If you read what I wrote, then you'd know your response is a non-sequitur. Not only did I never say that democracies didn't exist prior to the 1960's, but I also didn't say that marriage for love didn't occur before the 1960's.

Now if you want to reply to what I wrote...?

There were novels about love marriage written back in the 19[sup]th[/sup] century. And even before the 1st world war, there was a free market in many countries. In fact, there were two main types of phonograph record, the scientifically correct cylinder, and the cheaper, easier and double-sided disc records. Guess which appealed to more people and which one won that early format war.

What a fascinating waltz through a mess of different points, none of which seem related to anything I wrote.

It took a long time for liberalism to displace the conformist, non-individualistic way of before. In fact, even Christianity displaced pagan beliefs over generations.

You hold a very quirky notion of how social phenomena operate. Unsurprisingly, it also appears to necessitate you drawing sweeping conclusions from cherry-picked data. Go look up anti-miscegenation laws in the US and then stop, think, reflect... what kind of society were those laws enacted by? Yup, factual contradiction. Factual contradictions suggest you are either wrong, or at least not right. From experience, I am going to guess you don't really care about facts which contradict your generalizations?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Some other factors you might want to consider in the rise of marriage for love.

Urbanization
Wage labour
Education
Affluence
Legality of divorce
Legal status of women

All have something to do with the modern trend of marriage for love, but none of them are simple causal quantities.

One of the most egregious mistakes possible with respect to the study of history is to use hindsight to infer causal relationships that really are based only on chronology.