Individual,

I am talking society in general.

I believe liberal democracy does give all individuals and interest groups the most opportunity to influence the policy mix in a pragmatic way though freedom of association, a free press and elections.

Whether the outcome or trend is towards a lesser or greater role for government, will be the will of the society.

In liberal democracies, we have seen both trends emerge and dissipate during the last 70 years, as it will be in the future.

Most importantly, the outcomes will be legitimised by the make up of a liberal democracy and the will of the people

Chris Lewis said-

Most importantly, the outcomes will be legitimised by the make up of a liberal democracy and the will of the people

Answer-

As ABC journalist Josh Szeps on Late Night Live said in his interview with Patrick Deneen- The Death of Liberalism "when anyone challenges an orthodoxy as widespread as liberalism people are going to find it difficult to swallow".

Other quotes from the interview...

There is a connection between the things that obsess the political right and the political left- (Liberalism vs Traditionalism. Both left and right have traditional beliefs).

Whether the left or right win the argument the solution is more liberalism.

The solution for many lies in our extension of our control over nature rather than take responsibility and controlling our own lives.

The liberal order would collapse in the absence of a growth economy due to the massive inequalities that the liberal order creates (a world liberal universal order will create the biggest hierarchy with the vast number of powerless people at the bottom).

Liberalism can't work in a finite world.

What is the solution? Discipline of consumption discipline of ordering ourselves around smaller communities. What would it take to allow people to control their own fates.

The future is unwritten.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-death-of-liberalism/9380788

In small communities Liberal Democracy isn't really required perhaps.

I understand Chris that you are well educated (as I understand you're a professor from western Canada from memory) by I'm not sure that your understanding of the history and functioning of "Liberal Democracy" is the same as mine. This makes me question where you have got your information- ie. where you have been indoctrinated- everyone's indoctrinated but there are ways of seeing through your own sides propaganda.

In a sense adding the word "liberal" to "democracy" seems to have additional perhaps in some cases undesirable consequences.

Generally I dislike the word "legitimized" as it implies the validation of a paradigm that isn't inherently valid. In a sense many things are not as clear as some would like them to be. In engineering things are more clear perhaps. Some seek to "legitimize" by artifice.

The "will of the people" is an interesting concept that at first glance appears valid.

At the end of the day the institutions (including the government) will try to "legitimize" whatever it can get away with. Many things are complex in the biological and social spaces and there isn't one right way to do things. It's a matter of priorities and beliefs and culture.

Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" the "four fold root of reason" perspective seems useful here.

I've come to the belief that at some point it comes down to cultural tradition.

This is analogous to the evolution of the Philosophy of Science through Popper (Falsifibility), Kuhn (Majority of practitioners), Feyerabend (Existential Subjective Science).

The universalists of course believe that everyone should follow the same set of rules within a universal hierarchy- probably because they have contrived a position above the bottom of the hierarchy. Some such as the communists believe that tyranny begins with culture so they seek to create a blank slate. Schopenhauer (and John Locke father of Liberal Democracy) also believed in the "tabula rasa" paradigm. Interesting that Nietzsche being the intellectual progeny of Schopenhauer in a sense is so much reviled by the so called left. I've taken a Nietzsche's lead on coming to the conclusion that much is subjective perspicacity. The same is true of academics- they find it hard to get out of the office.

In some cases cultures are incompatible (probably all cases) and just need to stay on their own side of the fence. Over time perhaps the world's peoples will come closer together. There are those that want change there are those that don't- why is change inherently better than not?- it isn't- it's a rhetorical device.

Satire- Those that believe in change should not live in the past- stability is the new good.

So for me just because something has become "legitimized doesn't make it right".

The biggest problem is too many people.

CM, I am no professor.

I have a PhD, and have worked at a few Australian universities.

And I can tell you I am no expert on political theory. I am more an observer of policy trends.

I will provide some of my pieces, so you can see where I am coming from in terms of trying to be balanced.

This is based on my PHD.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00516.x

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361140903296602?src=recsys&journalCode=cajp20

Chris Lewis said-
I will provide some of my pieces, so you can see where I am coming from in terms of trying to be balanced. This is based on my PHD.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00516.x

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361140903296602?src=recsys&journalCode=cajp20

Answer-

Thanks for providing these links to your research- hopefully I will read it today- I might take a while to understand it. I was able to obtain the first article but only the citation for the second. I'll have to also read some material from Prof Keith Dowding to get a good overview of your context. You do work in the Political Science Department so you would have at least some background in the corpus.

My implication of bias wasn't only focused on yourself- everybody's biased- indoctrinated- but one would hope that across the faculty and universities there would be a breadth of opinion- seemingly lacking. Dissenting academics such as Drew Fraser have been cancelled- Jordan Peterson lectures accompanied by violent protests- this reflects on the credibility of the university system as a whole- and it's future.

A far cry from an image of "The Young Ladies and Gentlemen of Universities"- savages.

I admire your brevity and humility