The problems of having a liberal mind-set

Is it the State who deems what is 'Liberal?

The neutralist thesis, as set out, for example, by Ronald Dworkin in his 1978 essay, maintains that if the State treats individuals equally, as liberalism enjoins, it has to be neutral about what constitutes the good life.

The problem here is does this then imply that you are sitting on the fence. Neutralist accounts do imply a particular conception of the good, namely the requirement that all views should be treated the same.

The State Its role is to hold the ring and ensure that all have the same chance of pursuing their own preferences and choosing their own life, not to impose on them any particular view of the good.

So how does the populace get their ideas of  what constitutes the good?

And although it claims to be it is not a neutral view,
 since - let us take the example of immigration in the UK or the US
 many individuals would not agree with a liberal neutralist view and so - the liberal viewpoint has to has to be imposed on them.
Is this not slightly eh...claiming to be moral and liberal but in essence authoritarian, or even  fascistic?

Liberalism when elevated to an overarching principle, the 'good' becomes a good which is imposed on all citizens as surely as any other perfectionist ideal.
And liberalism of this kind cannot be presented as though it were some meta-theory. It contains its own substantive view of the good, and is prepared to enforce that view like any other. So if it enforces 'liberal' behaviour does that not make it illiberal?

The perfectionist thesis, by contrast, maintains that the purpose of the State is to affirm a particular notion of the good, and to assist its citizens in realizing it. Conceptions of the good are embodied in the laws and institutions of the State - but who designs and makes these laws are they more often than not white men in suits. and so having been passed by the bien pensant functionaires these laws are imposed on all its citizens, whether or not they share the particular conception of the good of the laws that have been imposed on them..

So where does the state get its idea of what constitutes the 'good'?

Personal autonomy is that the supreme liberal good?

Here the argument goes that all forms of perfectionism are dangerous and potentially illiberal, because they tend to restrict choice.

What about vulgar liberalism
Here the argument goes that the best standpoint for liberalism is vulgar liberalism, because this is closest to what actually transpires in real political societies, a continual process of negotiation and adjustment to find rules which permit toleration and promote equal treatment.

Conclusion:  politicians are vulgar in their certainties that they know

source: Andrew Gamble is Professor of Politics at the University of Sheffield. His books include The Free Economy and the Strong State: The politics of Thatcherism, 1988 and Hayek: The iron cage of liberty, 1996

Read Peter Cheevers' fiction published by Ether Books   

http://catalog.etherbooks.com/Authors/1118