They argue that universal values are the new imperialism, imposed on people who want security and stability instead. Here is why they are wrong.
They argue that universal values are the new imperialism, imposed on people who want security and stability instead. Here is why they are wrong.
Carl Schmidt was a nazi and an authoritarian. The day he died was a good day for the world.
I am sorry if it was not clear, but this article is endorsing liberal values and democracy. Individualism, acceptance, diversity, etc are allowed to flourish because of the security and stability provided by democratic political systems.
I appreciate the clarification!
If you find the problems inherent with keeping an open society free and open, you will find a lot to like with Karl Popper.
He and Herbert Marcuse agree that tolerance is wonderful, but repressive tolerance is not. Or another way, it’s fine to hate the haters. Popper then describes the core purpose of law in open societies as being a necessary force for preventing suffering. It is not to impose opinions on the public, but to help them avoid pain inflicted on them by others.
The article is right to endorse liberal values, but it is paywalled so I dont know. It is surely influenced by Popper’s writings.
(I see now that you posted the article! thank you!)