Quotes About Liberalism

The modern age has witnessed the rise of a number of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies.

The liberal political system was shaped during the industrial era to manage a world of steam engines, oil refineries, and television sets. It has difficulty dealing with the ongoing revolutions in information technology and biotechnology.

The third threat to liberalism is that some people will remain both indispensable and undecipherable, but they will constitute a small and privileged elite of upgraded humans.

If liberalism, nationalism, Islam, or some novel creed wishes to shape the world of the year 2050, it will need not only to make sense of artificial intelligence, Big Data algorithms, and bioengineering but also to incorporate them into a new and meaningful narrative.

Teachers allowed themselves to focus on shoving data while encouraging pupils 'to think for themselves'. Due to their fear of authoritarianism, liberal schools had a particular horror of grand narratives. They assumed that as long as we give students lots of data and a modicum of freedom, the students will create their own picture of the world

despite the numerous shortcomings of the liberal package, it has a much better record than any of its alternatives

Radical Islam poses no serious threat to the liberal package, because for all their fervour the zealots don't really understand the world of the twenty-first century, and have nothing relevant to say about the novel dangers and opportunities that new technologies are generating all around us.

rise of a number of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism and Nazism. These

2016 the world is dominated by the liberal package of individualism, human rights, democracy and the free market. Yet twenty-first-

As of 2016, there is no serious alternative to the liberal package of individualism, human rights, democracy and a free market. The

The modern age has witnessed the rise of a number of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If

Liberalism sanctifies the narrating self, and allows it to vote in the polling stations, in the supermarket and in the marriage market. For centuries this made good sense, because though the narrating self believed in all kinds of fictions and fantasies, no alternative system knew me better. Yet once we have a system that really does know me better, it will be foolhardy to leave authority in the hands of the narrating self.

Liberalism has a particularly confused notion of 'free will'. Humans obviously have a will, they have desires, and they are sometimes free to fulfil their desires. If by 'free will' you mean the freedom to do what you desire - then yes, humans have free will. But if by 'free will' you mean the freedom to choose what to desire - then no, humans have no free will.

This reliance on the heart might prove to be the Achilles' heel of liberal democracy. For once somebody (whether in Beijing or in San Francisco) gains the technological ability to hack and manipulate the human heart, democratic politics will mutate into an emotional puppet show.

At the close of the twentieth century it appeared that the great ideological battles between fascism, communism and liberalism resulted in the overwhelming victory of liberalism. Democratic politics, human rights and free-market capitalism seemed destined to conquer the entire world. But as usual, history took an unexpected turn, and after fascism and communism collapsed, now liberalism is in a jam. So where are we heading?

Hating the haters, the morally repulsive, the fascists of the world, is indeed an endless source of libidinal satisfaction for "woke" liberals. But what changes does it actually produce?

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Yet in fact when the Party adopted economic liberalism, and ceased killing growth by killing businesspeople, real income for the poorest started doubling every seven to ten years. India has the same story, after 1991, following forty-four wretched years of Gandhian socialism and egalitarianism resulting in poor-people-neglecting rates of growth—at which it would take seven decades, not one, to double.

As an Italian liberal, and anti-fascist, Benedetto Croce, put it in 1928, "Ethical liberalism abhors authoritarian regulation of the economic process [equally from the left as from the right, from socialism as from fascism], because it considers it a humbling of the inventive faculties of man."3 In

The big economic story of our times is not the Great Recession of 2007–2009, unpleasant though it was. Now it's over. The big story is that the Chinese in 1978 and then the Indians in 1991 began to adopt liberal ideas in their economies, and came to welcome creative destruction.

But it didn't have the Great Enrichment because it didn't have the ideas flowing from a free people. Ideas, not savings, did it. Liberalism, not empire.

As Raymond Aron, that rarest of things, a modern French liberal, noted, in Clive James's translation, "the liberal believes in the permanence of humanity's imperfection; he resigns himself to a régime in which the good will be the result of numberless actions, and never the result of conscious choice."10 You could call it the invisible hand, noting that it is true also of other systems, such as language.

What distinguishes the various members of the ideological family descended from humanism and the Enlightenment, liberal, socialist, communist, or anarchist, is not the gentle anarchy which is the utopia of all of them, but the methods of achieving it.

Talvez valha a pena lembrar que nesse período a ameaça às instituições liberais vinha apenas da direita política, já que entre 1945 e 1989 se supôs, quase como coisa indiscutível, que vinha essencialmente do comunismo.