Quote:I would go back to the Enlightenment rather than to the Whigs. I see the many recent S&H crises in Anglo American civilization are moving things from the Agricultural Age pattern of autocracy, absolute values, religious thought, hierarchical class privilege and heavily militarized government towards the Industrial Age pattern of democracy, scientific thought, economic centered government, equality and human rights. I see nothing to be ashamed of in observing and advocating such transitions. The world has been moving in a consistent and to my mind favorable direction.Bob, Bob, Bob, you're embarrassing yourself twice over here. The phrase "Whig History" means precisely that "The world has been moving in a consistent and to my mind favorable direction". And trying to draw a distinction between the Whigs and the Enlightenment means that you clearly know little of either. The Whigs WERE the Party of Enlightenment principles.
Quote:Consistent over a long period of time doesn't mean forever, but I don't see the most recent children of the Enlightenment backing down. The values of Jefferson's self evident truths are still flowing strongly. It's not just the whites or the yuppies or the early 21st Century. For many and for a long time, the Enlightenment principles have been important. I wouldn't underestimate or lightly dismiss them.
The world from 1500-1914 moved consistently in the direction of white hegemony, and yet that has clearly fallen by the wayside, hasn't it? Communism and eugenics were popular amongst your ideological predecessors as well, and thought to have a historical inevitability of their own. The fact that you no doubt think that those things were temporary aberrations from the true path of "history's direction" as defined by your mores now is to be guilty of precisely the belief in "the norms, mores, and values of early 21st century white Yuppies are hardwired into the fabric of the universe" that I accused you of earlier.
Quote:And, sure, yes, I'll poison the well. Can you or anyone make a solid distinction between prejudice against blacks at the Woolworth lunch counter in the middle 20th century and prejudice against someone with non-traditional gender preference in a hypothetical modern bakery? To me, segregation is segregation, bigotry is bigotry, and doublethink to try to hide this needs to be called out. In either case, one is denying a service due to prejudice. Does libertarian 'right to free association' imply those running hotels and restaurants in the south in the mid 20th century had a right not to associate with blacks? Does the government not have the power to enforce the Bill of Rights? Have you read the Constitution recently? Hint: the founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment even more than 21st century white yuppies.
You asked for the Libertarian view of the subject and I gave it to you. It too flows from the Enlightenment, indeed, it is simply a derivation of an older strain of Enlightenment principles, that of Classical/Manchester liberalism.
I like that you acknowledge that you are engaging in extreme partisanship and fallacious reasoning. The fact that you think those things are justified in the pursuit of the cause du jour is precisely the example of "illiberal liberalism" that people like Jonathan Chait have derided.
You mention the Bill of Rights. Alright, point to the amendment in said Bill that supports your position.