Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#11

Post by haroldp »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Fukuyama: Liberal societies are more innovative, wealthier. Reality: It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be. In evaluating that assertion its important to note that absent production of desirable goods & services no country can maintain its wealth. Fukuyama: Neoliberalism = hostility to the state. Reality: Neoliberals lack faith in the individuals who make…

Is China innovative? Or is Chinese labor inexpensive?

The US is still the second largest manufacturer in the world and broke it's own record in adjusted dollars for production in 2018. Pandemic aside, the US has never been more productive.

Your sentence about hostility to government is spot on, I think, and brings to mind that old Bastiat quote asking if government officials are, "made of finer clay."

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#12

Post by woopwoop »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Fukuyama: Liberal societies are more innovative, wealthier. Reality: It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be. In evaluating that assertion its important to note that absent production of desirable goods & services no country can maintain its wealth. Fukuyama: Neoliberalism = hostility to the state. Reality: Neoliberals lack faith in the individuals who make…

It's very easy to argue that the United States is wealthier than it was in the past and wealthier than China is today, because these things are unambiguously true.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#13

Post by thriftwy »

pyuser583 wrote: post #10
medo-bear wrote: post #8

sadly, his "end of history" thesis is turning out to be a replay of history that is the situation that preceded WWI, at an even more global scale. hopefully it doesn't replay the great war too

He’s done a lot of really good work since then. I recommend “Origins of Political Order.” He really has some fascinating ideas.

But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up?

I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#15

Post by thriftwy »

shimonabi wrote: post #14

Some argue that Europe prospered after 1945 because it was forcibly un-mixed after the war, not because of some abstract idea of "liberalism".

People seem to parrot that diversity is their strength, but I've never seen a compelling proof that it is so, and all research seem to prove otherwise.

Yes there are societies which are tolerant and diverse, but societies which have the same amount of freedoms with lower amount of diversity will perform even better. I'm mostly talking about cultural & religious, but economical diversity as well.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#16

Post by medo-bear »

thriftwy wrote: post #13
pyuser583 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s done a lot of really good work since then. I recommend “Origins of Political Order.” He really has some fascinating ideas.

But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…

> I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply

i think this line of reasoning is very wrong and in some sense insulting. i am sure you don't mean it like that, but i would say that if you need to convince someone of something like that, it is the people of those countries that you need to convince. also rejection of liberalism doesn't only happen in russia, china, and turkey. it is pervasive in central and eastern europe, in middle east, as well as in some huge populations like indonesia, and probably in a lot of other places too. pretty much it is possible that most of the world's population thinks it is not a good idea

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#17

Post by shimonabi »

thriftwy wrote: post #15
shimonabi wrote: post #14

Some argue that Europe prospered after 1945 because it was forcibly un-mixed after the war, not because of some abstract idea of "liberalism".

People seem to parrot that diversity is their strength, but I've never seen a compelling proof that it is so, and all research seem to prove otherwise. Yes there are societies which are tolerant and diverse, but societies which have the same amount of freedoms with lower amount of diversity will perform even better. I'm mostly talking about cultural & religious, but economical diversity as well.

Yes, countries run into trouble when people start voting tribally, not on the issues. Diversity has some benefits, but it also has downsides. I'm suspicious of people who deny either.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#18

Post by thriftwy »

medo-bear wrote: post #16
thriftwy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…

> I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply i think this line of reasoning is very wrong and in some sense insulting. i am sure you don't mean it like that, but i would say that if you need to convince someone of something like that, it is the people of those countries tha…

If the people in e.g. Russia are mostly convinced, how would that happen? Putin is still going to win "elections". As Belarus example has shown, prolonged and violent protests will not help in the slightest but only cause backlash. Then liberalism loses due to being non productive - a theoretically good idea which does not have a path to implementation.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#19

Post by medo-bear »

thriftwy wrote: post #18
medo-bear wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply i think this line of reasoning is very wrong and in some sense insulting. i am sure you don't mean it like that, but i would say that if you need to convince someone of something like that, it is the people of those countries tha…

If the people in e.g. Russia are mostly convinced, how would that happen? Putin is still going to win "elections". As Belarus example has shown, prolonged and violent protests will not help in the slightest but only cause backlash. Then liberalism loses due to being non productive - a theoretically good idea which does not have a path to implementation.

i think people in russia are largely sceptical of liberalism due to the huge mess it caused during the yeltsin years. yelsin, a hard core liberal, by the way ordered the army to shoot its tanks on the parliament in 1993 [0], and had the support of the liberal west to do it. today (and since the fall of ussr) the biggest opposition in russia comes from the communists

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_...

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#20

Post by thriftwy »

medo-bear wrote: post #19
thriftwy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people in e.g. Russia are mostly convinced, how would that happen? Putin is still going to win "elections". As Belarus example has shown, prolonged and violent protests will not help in the slightest but only cause backlash. Then liberalism loses due to being non productive - a theoretically good idea which does not have a path to implementation.

i think people in russia are largely sceptical of liberalism due to the huge mess it caused during the yeltsin years. yelsin, a hard core liberal, by the way ordered the army to shoot its tanks on the parliament in 1993 [0], and had the support of the liberal west to do it. today (and since the fall of ussr) the biggest opposition in russia comes from the communists [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_co…

Even if people become largely sceptical of Putin, he's not going away unless he choses to. So, being sceptical* of Putin is another example of unproductive behavior; and prolonged unproductive behavior is a sign of mental illness according to DEG.

* in any way that exhibits in your behavior

Post reply on HN