Why Liberalism Isn’t What We Think It Is
Liberalism (and proponents thereof) like to claim that a liberal society is the best form of governance, because it grants rights that other societies do not – upholding them regardless of meaningless distinctions such as race or gender – and that by doing this, it is the most accepting culture. This type of liberalism does not allow any illiberal practices, and it believes that is its strength. However, by not allowing illiberal practices, it discriminates against those who do not share the same liberal values – thus paradoxically robbing liberalism of its all-inclusive claim. A liberal society that allows illiberal values fares no better. If a liberal society allows illiberal values, the very fabric of the society will come undone as the metaphorical loom of cultural similarities and deeply held values that form liberal society comes crashing down. If no value is forbidden, regardless of how corrosive, then how can a consistent and nation-wide culture be created and maintained? Could a national identity even exist with no semi-universally held values? Thus, the paradox is outlined: if a liberal society fails to allow any illiberal practices, then liberalism is little more than a culture of its own and loses its claim of accepting all beliefs and cultures. Conversely, if a liberal society allows all illiberal practices, then that liberal society will quickly become an anarchy, having eroded central values and little common beliefs among the citizens. I believe that the best balance between the two extremes is allowing cultural differences of any amount and in any field as far as they do not involuntarily affect the negative or positive freedom, as Nathanson descried them to us, of anyone else.[1] I will call this non-interference liberalism.
Critique of Dworkin’s Concept of Liberty
Dworkin’s concept of liberty represents the extreme of allowing all illiberal practices in a liberal society. Taylor summarizes Dworkin’s beliefs as the society not adopting any view of what the end of life (the good life) should be.[2] The government should not be able to “make people virtuous [by legislation],” for that would always leave out a minority that does not agree with the majority’s concept of virtue.[3] I disagree with Dworkin because this model of liberty inevitably leads to erosion of the common values and goals that glue a society together, leading to contention, civil war, or worse.
According to Dworkin’s model, a society should not be able to form its own idea of what the end of life is.[4] This is flawed because a society needs a central principle or value set that the vast majority of the population believes to be one, coherent, nation. Taylor makes this point with his Québec example; the Quebecers are their “own, distinct society,” and because of that, they are playing a significant role in the “impeding breakup of the country [of Canada].”[5] Quebec is adopting a different set of laws and principles that change its values from that of the rest of Canada.[6] Regardless of the change having been brought about via legislation, it provides an example of what happens whenever the ideological foundation of a nation cracks. The fact that Quebec is still a part of Canada does not invalidate my argument; the Quebecers still maintained a significant part of the Canadian values; in 1995, there was a referendum to decide whether Quebec would leave Canada.[7] With 93.52% voter turnout, 50.58% voted “No” and 49.42% voted “Yes.” It was close – within one percent - the ideological break of Quebec and Canada almost caused Quebec to secede.[8]
Examples such as Quebec, when a nation had two different sets of values, can be seen clearly thought history. The American Civil War, the Russian Civil War of 1917, and even World War II were all caused by corrosive ideals and values being allowed to fester. Having different sets of values in the same nation will inevitably cause the nation to break up unless the new values are brought on by legislation, in which case an example such as Quebec would be seen again. If all illiberal practices and values are allowed in a liberal nation, then the nation will break up eventually.
The Solution to the Liberal Paradox
I posit that the best liberal society practices non-interference liberalism: it allows illiberal values and actions insofar as they do not affect the positive or negative freedom of any other non-consenting person. John Stuart Mill showed us why humans should be unique; he argued that each person’s goal set is the best for them simply because it is theirs.[9] To make a person have their best life, it is ideal not to interfere with them. No matter how good B’s concept of the good life is, it cannot be better than A’s concept of a good life for A. Thus, if a liberal society truly wishes to be inclusive such that it recognizes the differences of, and provides the most well-being to, its citizens, it should allow each person to pursue their own idea of the good life up until the point where it affects another citizen’s freedoms (both positive and negative). Admittedly, not every citizen will or can have positive freedom, but I include it because, for example, one should not be able to steal. Stealing a person’s money affects their positive freedom, but not their negative freedom; no one is keeping them from buying anything so negative freedom is unaffected. However, stealing is obviously a moral evil and should be restricted by any society.
In a society that practices non-interference liberalism, religious diversity would be allowed, cultural differences would be neither encouraged nor restricted, and everyone would be able to pursue their idea of the best life without interference, so far as they do not interfere with anyone’s ability to pursue their own idea of the best life. To better understand non-interference liberalism, I will examine how it would treat a people who wish to be self-governing, such as the Quebecers (or the native Indians that Taylor referenced, which I will not discuss here).[10]
Non-interference liberalism would not allow a people to become self-governing within its borders. This is because by becoming self-governing, the people have hurt the nation at large and significantly affected the positive freedom of the nation, for nations have positive freedom just as individuals have it. For example, 24% of Canadians live in Quebec, meaning that if it became self-governing, and left Canada, then the other 76.39% of Canadians would be affected because their nation would be significantly weakened.[11]
However, under a non-interference liberal society, minorities in values, religion, or race would not need to have their own self-governance to the same degree as they would elsewhere. For example, how does the Amish educating their kids differently or doing any other part of their religion affect the freedoms of any other citizens? I agree with the Anglo-American philosophy that places individual rights, and non-discriminatory policies, above all else.[12] Ultimately, in a non-interference society, it is not A’s business what B’s values and beliefs are, so far as they do not affect A.
Conclusion
The liberal paradox is nested within liberal society’s claim that it is the most inclusive. In trying to be inclusive, the liberal nations can face contention, civil war, or worse, as was proven throughout history whenever a nation’s commonly held values were shaken. If a liberal society is not inclusive and forbids all illiberal practices, then liberalism fails to be anything other than a value set itself. The solution to this paradox is found in non-interference liberalism. To ensure maximum well-being, a society should ensure the most citizens have their best lives, but also ensure that no citizen’s freedoms to act are limited by any other citizen. A liberal society should allow differences in values, religion, race and in all other things, requiring that no other citizen’s freedoms are affected.
[1] Nathanson, S. (1998). In Economic justice (p. 37). essay, Prentice Hall.
[2] Taylor, R. J. (1998). In Multiculturalism (p. 56). essay, R/L Taylor Pub. Consultants.
[3] Ibid. p. 57
[4] Ibid. p. 56
[5] Ibid. p. 52
[6] Ibid. p. 52-53
[7] Québec Referendum (1995). Québec Referendum (1995) | The Canadian Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Link.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Mill, J. (2019). In ON LIBERTY (p. 73). essay, BIG CHEESE Books.
[10] Taylor, R. J. (1998). In Multiculturalism (p. 52). essay, R/L Taylor Pub. Consultants.
[11] World Population Review. (n.d.). Quebec Population 2021. Link.
[12] Taylor, R. J. (1998). In Multiculturalism (p. 56). essay, R/L Taylor Pub. Consultants.