Do you think the philosophy of liberalism can be separated from the atomized individual acting in a market?
Those ideas underpin all philosophical liberalism that I’m aware of. We can’t have liberal social relations or philosophy without a market to act as a replacement for the often feudal social relations and theocratic philosophy that existed before liberalism.
Consider Protestantism if you want a great example. It was only possible because the market allowed a class of people access to a new social relation and they needed a new system of beliefs that fit it.
You can’t separate any part of liberalism from the elevated position of the market.
I’m really not trying to be aggressive or only make pithy, in your words mic drop replies. The question you asked is very broad and I’m not able to summarize it without glossing over lots of stuff. I also don’t have the time to type, source, check, proofread and edit a reply that covers the last 800 years.
Like I said, if you want something more specific or that you’re familiar with just name it and we can talk in those terms.
Ok. You continue to make connections between liberalism to religion, markets, personal economics, and more…clouded by words like atomize, feudal, and “elevated position of the market”.
Frankly, you don’t make sense. If you are incapable of reducing the connection between the philosophy of liberalism and the direct path to fascism due to plain text tenets of that philosophy it very much sounds like you don’t understand it yourself. Or you’re just making shit up.
You have expended extraordinary paragraphs waving your hands at every point of the compass while claiming you can’t be bothered to expend effort to type an explanation. I spent a good 20 minutes searching for papers, academic, historic, or otherwise, that could connect your claims - in effect I was attempting to prove you right. There are none.
I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation, you make lots of claims using fun words, but nothing to substantiate them.
I’m so sorry you’re not understanding. I’m trying my best to choose words carefully so that it’s clear what I’m saying. If something’s not clear feel free to ask for more information and, as I’ve said before, please tell me if tying my replies to a particular line of study, time, place, person or event would help!
If you don’t think it’s worthwhile to have this conversation you’re free not to. It would be pretty illiberal of me to force you to interact in the marketplace of ideals, that would be a violation of your basic liberties!
Do you think the philosophy of liberalism can be separated from the atomized individual acting in a market?
Those ideas underpin all philosophical liberalism that I’m aware of. We can’t have liberal social relations or philosophy without a market to act as a replacement for the often feudal social relations and theocratic philosophy that existed before liberalism.
Consider Protestantism if you want a great example. It was only possible because the market allowed a class of people access to a new social relation and they needed a new system of beliefs that fit it.
You can’t separate any part of liberalism from the elevated position of the market.
I’m really not trying to be aggressive or only make pithy, in your words mic drop replies. The question you asked is very broad and I’m not able to summarize it without glossing over lots of stuff. I also don’t have the time to type, source, check, proofread and edit a reply that covers the last 800 years.
Like I said, if you want something more specific or that you’re familiar with just name it and we can talk in those terms.
Ok. You continue to make connections between liberalism to religion, markets, personal economics, and more…clouded by words like atomize, feudal, and “elevated position of the market”.
Frankly, you don’t make sense. If you are incapable of reducing the connection between the philosophy of liberalism and the direct path to fascism due to plain text tenets of that philosophy it very much sounds like you don’t understand it yourself. Or you’re just making shit up.
You have expended extraordinary paragraphs waving your hands at every point of the compass while claiming you can’t be bothered to expend effort to type an explanation. I spent a good 20 minutes searching for papers, academic, historic, or otherwise, that could connect your claims - in effect I was attempting to prove you right. There are none.
I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation, you make lots of claims using fun words, but nothing to substantiate them.
I’m so sorry you’re not understanding. I’m trying my best to choose words carefully so that it’s clear what I’m saying. If something’s not clear feel free to ask for more information and, as I’ve said before, please tell me if tying my replies to a particular line of study, time, place, person or event would help!
If you don’t think it’s worthwhile to have this conversation you’re free not to. It would be pretty illiberal of me to force you to interact in the marketplace of ideals, that would be a violation of your basic liberties!
Ok buddy.
Is there something I can help you understand?