Bill Vallicella has generously subjected my recent post on classical liberalism to philosophical scrutiny. He has kind (and appreciated) words for my unkind words about certain celebrated cuckolds of contemporary conservatism, but when he places my argument in the balance he finds it wanting. BV is himself a champion of classical liberalism, so he has a dog in this fight, but he is also a serious philosopher whom I ought to take seriously.
My argument was that classical liberalism destroys itself because it destroys the necessary precondition of a preponderantly Christian population. Silently following Maurice Cowling’s Mill and Liberalism (1963, 1990), I assert that this destruction was intentional, and that classical liberalism is therefore like the Loony Tunes character who saws off the branch he is sitting on. I assert that classical liberalism saws off the branch because it removes civil disabilities [sic.] from apostates and infidels. The result is fewer, if perhaps better, Christians, and less, if perhaps more ardent, support for classical liberalism.
BV is a philosopher and I’m just a wiseacre on the internet, so I will not answer his objections point by point. I also need to go to work, and so must finish this post as I finish my oatmeal.
BV accuses me of making a fallacious “slippery slope” argument. I confess to having made such an argument but deny that slippery slope arguments are necessarily fallacious. It is of course a logical fallacy to state that slope implies slippery, but this logical fallacy does not disprove the slipperiness of this, that, or some other particular slope. Some slopes are slippery and some are not, as many mountaineers and alcoholics have learned to their sorrow.
Whether real or metaphorical, the essence of a slippery slope is that it accelerates rather than retards the descent of any object that begins to slide down it. A slope of wet clay is, for instance, far more treacherous than a slope of wet sand because clay particles are slippery and sand particles are frictional. A metaphorical “slope” is metaphorically “slippery” because the process (the “slope”) is governed (or is at least in some cases governed) by positive feedbacks.
I just mentioned alcoholism as a slippery slope. It is true that many alcohol drinkers do not begin to slide down the slippery slope of alcoholism, but the unhappy alcohol drinkers who do begin to slide down this slope find their descent governed by positive feedbacks. Their drinking fundamentally exacerbates the problems that their drinking superficially palliates. And so they slide faster and faster, like a hiker who has slipped on wet clay, until they are stopped by the absolute friction of “rock bottom.”
Social trends are not slippery slopes when they are governed by negative feedbacks. Such trends decelerate gradually, like a pendulum rising to the apex of its swing, because frictional drag increases. In the 1960s men’s hair grew longer and women’s skirts grew shorter, but these trends ended when the marginal returns on additional inches added or subtracted declined. By 1980 the pendulum was swinging in the other direction.
There is for every social trend the absolute friction of “rock bottom,” by which I mean the hard constraints of material reality. Some social trends decelerate gradually before they reach “rock bottom,” others accelerate towards this arresting termination, where they decelerate suddenly.
The second sort are not like a pendulum that decelerates gradually as it rises to the apex of its swing, but are rather like a falling mountaineer who decelerated suddenly when he arrives at the base of the cliff. The great revolutions in France and Russia followed this second pattern. Their radicalism accelerated until it reached “rock bottom,” where it suddenly decelerated in the despotism of Bonapart and Stalin. Some social trends accelerate until suddenly there is no food and everyone starves. Rock bottom is a bitch.
Some social trends are governed by negative feedbacks and therefore terminate in corrections. Other social trends are governed by positive feedbacks and therefore terminate in crashes. Gradual deceleration or sudden deceleration? That is the whole question when it comes to “slopes.”
My philosophy is to pray for corrections and prepare for crashes.
The Orthosphere 
Good analysis of slippery slopes.
One of the major ideas of classical liberalism is impartial institutions.
But the idea of impartial institutions is historically unusual. Furthermore, it isn’t the default by any means. The natural assumption is that institutions will be partial to a particular group.
You would need something like a priesthood dedicated to maintaining impartial institutions which preserves the understanding of what impartial originally meant and can pass it down to their successors.
Without that, classical liberalism too easily degenerates into abstractions. Real principles, that people will live and die for and will sacrifice for aren’t abstractions for those who believe in them. Even if people who live later have a hard time capturing the original understanding.
There is no such thing as absolute impartiality. The just system is not impartial towards criminals, or it least it shouldn’t be. When I grade student papers I am partial towards good students. So the aim is never impartiality but is always correct partiality–favoring those who deserve to be favored. A truly impartial umpire would call strikes and balls at random, since it is clearly partial to show favor to good pitchers.
“There is no such thing as absolute impartiality.”
I completely agree. You always have to have a universe within which impartiality takes place.
By impartiality, I meant the idea that the rules are interpreted as written and are impartial with respect to wealth, religion, education, etc. I would say that this is one of the core beliefs of many classical liberals.
But that itself is something unstable because that kind of impartiality is a positive ideal; it’s something that you have to try to achieve. It’s not just what is left when you subtract all partiality.
“So the aim is never impartiality but is always correct partiality–favoring those who deserve to be favored”
Right. The genius of liberalism is that hides partiality as if it was impartiality.
What do you favor? The Christian baker not wanting to bake a gay marriage cake? The gay couple wanting this cake from this Christian baker? That law has to choose. Whose freedom is more important? This will depend on the values of the society and the government. So it is completely partial.
But saying “our country is based on freedom” you made it seem impartial.
In fact, you cannot do otherwise. By separating God from civil law, you lose the justification of the law. There is no correct way. The good and the bad is a matter of opinion. Your only solution is claim impartiality and brainwash the masses so they never figure out the fraud
This was one of Zippy’s signature ideas:
>When I grade student papers I am partial towards good students.
Please do not forget that good and bad are not symmetric. A good student can have a bad day by accident and if you are generous about that, that is fine.
But a bad student will not write a good paper by accident. They are obviously trying to become good students and you should encourage that. So partiality i in the form of giving a bad grade to a bad students good paper is bad.
For whatever reason – sin, entropy etc. – the universe is ordered so that bad things can happen by accident, good things very rarely so.
I now have a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase “slippery slope.” YMMV.
“Trump has taken all sorts of unprecedented actions with his executive orders!”
“Almost all of it had an Obama precedent. That’s what slippery slopes do.”
“But what about Bush!!??”
“Clinton. That’s what slippery slopes do.”
I hope this informs the discussion somewhat.
Political rhetoric is a reptilian language of its own. If we are to believe politicians, everything is a slippery slope with, according to persuasion, Nazis or Communists at its bottom.
When there is no repentance “pendulum swings back”. The society get destroyed by God.
Justly so.
The pendulum swinging back is the only chance to save Sodom from the fire.
I have never understood why slippery slope is categorized a fallacy. In fact, I think this categorization is due to bad faith.
The fact that the slope is slippery is one of the more proven facts in the history of mankind. In fact, the last 200 years are full of slippery slopes. Every time the left cries out in indignation “this won’t happen! Slippery slope fallacy!”, it happens and the left makes it happen.
I would classify the slippery slope as a rule of thumb. It cannot be proven that happens every time but it works in the vast majority of times. Occam’s razor is a similar rule of thumb.
And I will classify the idea “slippery slope is a fallacy” as a fallacy
The whole https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ has an air of smug leftism/atheism.
Most fallacies seem useful rules of thumb. Random example: ad hominem. If I caught someone lying several times, obviously it affects how seriously I take his argument. Random example: to quoque. When deciding whom to vote for, if one party is accused of some wrongdoing and it is shown the other is doing that, too, then that argument is not relevant to the decision.
Slippery slopes are only fallacious if the mechanism of slippage cannot be demonstrated. In this case, it can be.
Classical Liberalism was a power grab against aristocratic landowners. Smith and the other economists slammed the rent-seeking aristos who contribute nothing to the economy.
The mechanism of slippage is obviously other power grabs.
The precise mechanism is this (NRx spent a lot of ink on figuring it out). Power grabs require dencouncing the ideology of the ruling elite. But if the ruling ideology says “hot” you cannot say “cold”, they will slam you.
What you can say is “Hotter! Hotter! You guys are all lukewarm!” In this case they cannot harm you, because they already accepted hot is good. You are just basically more zealous, more consistent, more ideologically pure than them. They have to pretend to respect you.
Classical liberalism is stuff like equality before the law, lack of coercion and so on.
So the obvious way to grab power is to say equality before the law does not make people equal enough, you have to have socialism and affirmative action and diversity hiring to make people equal enough. Lack of coercion by the government is not enough of the lack of coercion, social norms or social inequalities of power can also coerce us, true freedom is no norms and complete equality of power.
Exactly. Luther said that he followed the Bible more than the Pope. This was the Protestant revolution: a power grab of Kings and princes against the Church.
Robespierre and Jefferson said that he followed liberty more than the King and the aristocratic landowners. These were the bourgeois revolutions: a power grab of bourgeois against the Kings and the aristocrats.
Lenin said that he followed equality more than the Czar. These were the communist revolutions: a power grab of intellectual/managerial people against the bourgeois, which failed.
The woke (feminism, LGBTI) say that they follow equality more than the non-woke. This is the managerial revolution: a power grab of managerial people and global finance against the bourgeois, which is in progress.
It is always a power grab with the justification of “hotter! you are lukewarm!” Luther created the template and everybody else followed it.
Hilarious alliteration – certain celebrated cuckholds of contemporary conservatism! You made me laugh and made my day, sir!