The Rise and Fall of Liberalism (Part Three)

The Seeds of its Own Destruction

Previously: The Rise and Fall of Liberalism (Part One) (Part Two) (Part Four)

Why was classical liberalism created with such philosophical weaknesses, despite the obvious competence and intelligence of its creators?

Because every intelligence, no matter how astute, is limited by what it can observe.

Classical liberalism was created in a bubble.

The population of early America, who defined the Western version of classical liberalism as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, were largely drawn from the most orderly, unified, competent, and successful population on Earth at the time — the British empire.

The Brits, who at the time still had functioning testicles, were in the habit of hanging low-functioning members of their society not just for murder and rape, but for property crimes if severe enough. After many generations of pouring this sort of chlorine into the gene pool, the water tends to be clear and sparkling.

The American population was the result not merely of this process, but of applying two additional filters to the result. First, the Atlantic Ocean, which at the time was quite difficult or expensive to cross. Second, the wilderness on the other side, which tended to weed out those with low IQ, low agency, or an inability to get along with one’s neighbors.

Naturally, the wealthiest and the most civically active of Americans, who ended up creating both the philosophy of classical liberalism, and the United States as a living example of it, would tend to look around them and see people who not only deserved liberty, but could achieve wonderful things for humanity once they had it.

It is only natural that these American elites would create an anti-elitist revolution. They were among the best their society had to offer, from a society of the best humanity had to offer. But they were ruled over by their natural inferiors, a collection of Brits who had risen not by merit and effort but by birthright, ruled over by a German import of indifferent mental health.

And so it was that they saw undeserved privilege as the greatest impediment to justice, peace, prosperity, and technological progress. Within the walled garden of Western culture, it was.

So they devised a philosophy of human rights. Not the rights of those intelligent, wise, prosocial, and proactive enough to use those rights well, and benefit both themselves and others.

But human rights.

Rights which attached merely to being human.

And as we have seen in recent years, the word “human” covers an extremely broad range of territory.

The classical liberals certainly were aware that humans vary in quality:

Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

—John Adams, letter to the Massachusetts state militia, October 11, 1798

However, they failed to appreciate the full scope of the problem. In a world where the benefits of classical liberalism have propelled America, the West, and to a lesser extent all the world, to an undreamed-of height of prosperity and technological power, the distances of the world, and the obstacle of the Atlantic Ocean, are no barrier.

The masses of the third world, indeed the dregs of the third world, who have failed to prosper in their own societies, are now demanding entry to the West, and a full share in its wealth, and a full voice in its government and its destiny.

And can argue for it based upon the very classical liberal notion of universal human rights.

And others, enemies of the West who wish to see it defeated, looted, torn down, and humiliated, have discovered they can employ these masses as a bioweapon against it, merely by the expenditure of a little cash.

And so the West, which possesses the military and economic might to snuff out these attacks with the merest twitch of its smallest finger, is nevertheless philosophically helpless to defend itself against those who would poison the well and open the city gates to the enemy.

Because everyone, friend, foe, or traitor, is human.

So what is to be done?

In order to be once again able to unite and defend itself, the West must reformulate its philosophy of rights, so as to be able to deny certain rights to its enemies.

A distinction must be made between rights which can be allowed to all humans, and those which can only be entrusted to those the West deems citizens, friends, members of Western civilization, who support its goals and values.

In the fourth article in this series, we discuss some coherent philosophical basis for doing this.

---

You enjoy Devon’s non-fiction; does someone in your life enjoy science fiction?

This Christmas, give the gift of Devon Eriksen. Buy a hardback for the price of a paperback (or, put another way, three hardbacks for the price of two), and gift Kindle versions of Devon’s hard scifi Theft of Fire: Orbital Space #1 to friends, family, and in bulk for your favorite online anons. That’s right: you don’t need to know someone’s email address to gift a Kindle book!