clips

The list of liberals with wildly different or wildly universalist ideas. Point is twofold, it's almost an empty epithet with very few core commitments which makes it NOT a sufficient vision and prone to taking on what else is around it (which is why it's pretty proggy and degenerate for lack of a better word now) as it lacks no argument against its own degradation. And to demonstrate something important about associations of traits, ie think about the traits implied by a system, or which ones are correlated with it outright, and what else those traits are associated with, have an affinity for, or also imply. Either by attraction to something pre-existing or what happens to be created by such a mentality.

The response I've seen is pretty similar to "real liberalism has never been tried". Like an AnCom, you look to see what deviates from theory or what you'd like out of liberalism and say that deviation is the issue. But the same issue applies with the USSR and "not real communism": we will always have deviations, and enough was implemented to make an assessment of its faults.