Monday, April 16, 2018

Loneliness Is The Direct Result Of Liberalism

 Even The Washington Post appears to agree. Your average bugman in the comments was in deep denial though.

On the right end of the ideological spectrum...classical liberalism celebrated the free market, which facilitated the radical expansion of choice. On the left, liberalism celebrated the civil right to personal choice and self-definition, along with the state that secured this right by enforcing the law. But both approaches basically converge into the same thing: a headlong and depersonalized pursuit of individual freedom and security that demands no concern for the wants and needs of others, or for society as a whole.

As liberalism has progressed, it has done so by ever more efficiently liberating each individual from “particular places, relationships, memberships, and even identities — unless they have been chosen, are worn lightly, and can be revised or abandoned at will.” In the process, it has scoured anything that could hold stable meaning and connection from our modern landscape — culture has been disintegrated, family bonds devalued, connections to the past cut off, an understanding of the common good all but disappeared... 

That’s the heart of it, really. Liberalism is loneliness. The state isn’t our sibling; the market won’t be our mate. And the more either the right or left’s solutions attempt to fill in the gaps — “more markets, for you to attempt to buy back what has been destroyed! More regulations, to protect you when you can’t!” — the more obvious it becomes that the entire concept is flawed. The institution of liberalism is caving in on itself, and we each individually feel the crush.



  1. Well, that was very well written. Nothing to add!

    I think it all started with easy divorce. When you cannot count on having your spouse there for a lifetime, and kids cannot trust to have family together even when they are young -the bonds that hold everything together are gone. People do not know how to make lasting relationships anymore because they haven't seen their parents do it or experienced it in their childhood.

    If mother or father can abandon his or her children for "new love" or "boredom", what kind of message that sends to kids? How likely those kids will want to spend time with their elderly parents, if the parents never really cared about them?

  2. It sends the message that people are expendable. Think how nowadays people are so proud of being "tolerant" yet will drop you as a friend/family by the slightest disagreement. Most have digital friendships anyway.

    I think it's an extract from the book, that's why it's so well-written.

  3. Divorce outside of extreme circumstances doesn't make sense at all, does it? Especially (but not only) if there are children in the question. How can you banish the father (or mother) of your children out of your life? His side of the family are related by blood to your child, after all.