Classical liberalism is a rare blip of an exception in the history of civilization. As Milton Friedman says, and I paraphrase, it's quite remarkable it happened in the first place, but there's no real guarantee those conditions might ever arise again and no real expectation that it's realistic to think it will be recreated again in any particular desired timespan.
So is most technology, widespread literacy, health, freedom, etc. In fact, everything since we were nomadic hunter-gatherers is a blip - should we go back to that? The argument makes no sense; what force is compelling us to go back to hunting and gathering? It's absurd to raise this argument for inevitability, rather than do something about it - which has worked overwhelmingly for generations.
I'm describing how things are. Liberalism, including the Enlightenment is, and has been overwhelmingly successful in adoption (every corner of the globe, though not 100% of the globe), and success. It really does rule the world.
Mothballed and Milton are describing how they think things ought to be, or inevitably will be (I believe for many, the former is their goal, disguised as the latter). But that's just theory with no basis (as I pointed out earlier).
The idea that the latter is 'real' is laughable. Look at the world. The people who built a liberal world order had to contend with argument like this - there was little precedent. They had to invent much of it in the face of skepticism (like every innovator).
But it's absurd, now that it's built, institutionalized, and successful and status quo - now that you were born in it, fed on it, and live in it and breath it - now that all you need to do is pick up the tools that your predecessors did the hard work of creating, for you to argue that it's somehow not real. Just pick up the tools and march forward.
I mean, wow, that is some effective propaganda. It's like saying at noon that there's no star in the sky, like telling a fish in the ocean that there's no water.
It's laughable to think Milton Friedman wasn't picking up the tools to try and bring at least the form of freedom he envisioned. Most likely, he's done more than you've (or I) ever done or ever will do. I could bring out the fact I literally fought in a civil war to help retain liberalism for some populations, I've been shot at for trying to bring liberalism, of course no one will believe that and I have nothing to prove, so I'll just let whoever wants to believe that is a lie believe that. A lot of the people I met, well, they were just killed by ISIS, maybe even some of their family trapped behind lines of various jihadist militias and things get even worse.
It is because I've "picked up the tools" and seen how so often things turn out, that I came to find that Milton's words were so accurate. It is a beautiful thing when freedom works out. More often than not, it doesn't. Sure, you should still try. And then be prepared for the possibility things might get even worse.
Milton's assessment was that things have been getting progressively less liberal in the USA since at least the latter portion of his life. I believe especially so since 9/11. The populace keeps voting harder and things just get worse. We recently passed a budget bill, which magically banned hemp (something ~no one wanted) and basically gave gobs of money to politicians for having their cell phones monitored in ways the common populace constantly has their monitored with no recourse. As time goes on, I see the government is getting more leverage and the people less and less, I hope it changes and I hope people try to change it but I will be prepared for the possibility it does not do much good.
I remain prepared for the possibility the initial circumstances allowing classical liberalism to come about, no longer exist (one of my theories is that in the 19th and 18th century violent force was at its most decentralized point in history-- the ~modern firearm was the pinnacle of warfare and there was not a huge difference in effectiveness between a peasent and a government conscript which is a huge difference between prior times of it taking years to train say an archer or modern era where government has fighter jets and ballistic missiles -- this meant the general populace had as much or more leverage than the government) , and that the technological and social landscape are not particularly amenable to its recreation. There are a few pockets of remarkable freedom in the world -- good on them, I hope they keep it and I hope we see more of it.
I'm not arguing you shouldn't do something about it. I'm a bit of a dreamer myself; I've basically carved out a life in a super rural area with almost no government -- but at the same time I like to be aware of the thoughts of great philosophers like Friedman and the history of this sort of liberalism and use it to my advantage. Knowing what I've stated has allowed me to deal with a world where I can't expect things to get better, even if I hope they will.
My personal take is you can use Friedman's thoughts to your advantage. Be prepared that everything will get much worse. And then maybe you can organize your life to minimize your interaction with the state in case your efforts don't help.
The idea that these are dreams is just part of the anti-democratic, anti-freedom rhetoric. You might not mean it that way, but look how it's been absorbed widely.
These are concrete realities that have swept across every corner of the world, and brought, by orders of magnitude, the greatest expansions of human freedom and prosperity ever. All in reality, not a dream.
This is what I come to HN for. To be called a peddler of anti-freedom rhetoric for dreaming of freedom, as a reply to single word quote. Because, you know, you're not allowed to dream if those dreams have at some point been "reality."
They are reality, not at some point but right now and for generations (depending on where you live).
I'm not talking about you, but the rhetoric, the ideas. But another part of the rhetoric is to shift the conversation to being a victim, and away from the merits of the ideas so one doesn't have to talk about them. Heck, looking back, I even took trouble to say it wasn't about you.
If you want to insist you embrace those idea, that's your problem. Or you could be an independent thinker who examines ideas on their merits. That would be the core of HN.
>I'm not talking about you, but the rhetoric, the ideas. But another part of the rhetoric is to shift the conversation to being a victim, and away from the merits of the ideas so one doesn't have to talk about them. Heck, looking back, I even took trouble to say it wasn't about you.
A survey of the 'rhetoric' (which you've somehow shifted to even though it's quite obvious you are personifying the rhetoric to reflect the person) of Friedman's life and the people espousing his 'rhetoric' finds your accusation to be blatantly and utterly false. Nothing about Friedman's 'rhetoric' was focused around shifting away from the merits of the ideas. I recommend watching "Free to Choose" series where you will learn almost none of the 'rhetoric' is focused around 'victimhood' and almost entirely around how to deal with the circumstances he's recognized.
This 'victim' peddling of your 'rhetoric' assessment is purely aimed at assassinating Friedman's assessment with a thought terminating dismissal as appeal to victimhood, not grounded in truth nor is it even aimed at understanding what was said.
