DAS Blog

I realized this too late to post it as a comment to this, but perhaps part of the reason why we liberals would be, e.g., unlikely to change our position on universal health care if only a long lost work by Rawls called "why universal healthcare is wrong" pops up is not because of our valuing pragmatism over ideology or any such distinction (as the commenters, including myself, previously suggested) but rather because we liberals are simply non-authoritarian by both inclination and ideology.

Certainly, for a liberal like me, the opinion of a favorite philosopher or other such intellectual authority will weigh quite heavily as would all the more so an opinion based on the tropes of reasoning favored by such a philosopher: if, e.g., Rawls were to have stated or it were to be demonstrable based on Rawlsian principles, that universal health care is wrong, it would certainly cause me to rethink my position on universal health care. However, for me to abandon my previous belief simply because an authority, even one I respect, or an authoritative method (short of maybe the scientific method or first order logic or some other reasonably rock solid approach of reasoning or induction), would seem rather wrong-headed (not only from a liberal point of view, but also from a theological point of view: who says liberalism and religiosity are incompatable? ... though, cue conservatives saying "see I told you liberalism was something you had to take on faith"): I came to my belief for some good reason, I hope, and while good reason should prompt me to re-examine my belief, we liberals (unlike the simulacra that play us, e.g. on Faux News) are not that wishy-washy or effete nor do we bow down so much to any one authority (save, perhaps for some of us, Hashem), so it would take more than just a mere appeal to authority (e.g. "Rawls said this" or "Rawls' approach shows this") to make me change a belief based on multiple bases of inference.

OTOH, if some libertarian (perhaps a straw libertarian) would change his beliefs simply because some chapter and verse of Hayak said so, how is that person anything but an authoritarian who all but (vainly) worships the (merely human) authority of Hayak. How is this person anything but an idolater (see the link the Bible pushes?) and an authoritarian? Of course, this is what we liberals have been saying about the "glibertarians" all along, and I think their (lack of reaction) to Bush & CO's policies to "keep us safe" (how is this any different from a truly libertarian point of view from environmental policies perporting to do the same thing?) demonstrates that conclusively about the glibertarians.

Still, the real libertarians are a different kind of folk who have not necessarily bought the Bush & CO claims hook, line and sinker. So maybe there is hope for a collaboration? However, if it is sunk, perhaps the reason would not be one of different levels of commitment to ideology but rather different levels of commitment to authorities.