Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Often encountered the question in discussions -

"Why are you not a libertarian/classical liberal"?

I was one, back in my 20s

Outgrew that for a few reasons

1. Classical liberalism is predicated on "reason". Tends to dismiss prejudice altogether

2. It ignores history/culture

Classical liberalism is fundamentally anti-politics

Because it is based on the universalizing notions of individual liberty, economic freedom

It does not acknowledge "groups", "special interests"

E.g libertarians insist on low tariffs

But then zero tariffs are always in general interest. They may reduce prices for everybody just a wee bit

But not in the special interest of any group.

So if the idea is to support domestic industry, zero tariffs may not be beneficial

Now the classical liberal position on this is to look down upon "special interests"

That's because the liberal tendency is to view things in a nation-agnostic and culture-agnostic way

This extends to arguments on immigration

Libertarians may dream of an America of a billion people. But an America that large will be very far removed from its WASP roots / heritage

While that may be viewed with a sense of loss by conservatives, for classical liberals it is irrelevant

As they view human beings mostly as a statistic. Oblivious to the variety among them. In that sense, they are not that different from progressives

Tangible things like GDP, trade volume are appreciated by libertarians

Not so much intangibles like loss of cultures, values, decimation of ways of living

If you bring it up, they will turn to the rhetoric of "individual choice"

But then, "groups" have their own identity. Distinct from that of individuals

Group sentiment / group prejudice is what makes a civilization

Let's take some case examples to illustrate this

1. Kashmir

Now a standard "classical liberal" position will be - "We should have a referendum. Right to self determination"

But this ignores history

a. Forced Changes in religious demography

b. Group aspirations. One country wants to see Kashmir as part of the Islamic bloc. Another wants to turn it Indic / Hindu over time

No right or wrong answer here. These are legitimate aspirations

But in a liberal view, the only thing that matters is what Kashmiris think as of today.

Which can be neatly decided with a referendum

The clash of worldviews, the messiness of history - tend to be viewed as extraneous

Another example is Shabarimala temple entry

The liberal world view found it abhorrent that individuals of a certain gender and age bracket were not allowed inside the shrine

But when conservatives brought up the issue of group sentiment, deity's "rights", they were nonplussed

That's in part because Liberalism sees society largely as a collection of atomized individuals

It does not consider "groups", and the rights of groups

Let alone the conceptions of groups like "deities", "ideas of sacred / profane"