Is liberalism* the logical conclusion of empiricism? * in the

>>1286102

Why would it be?

>>1286119
Because he wants to troll

>>1286119
First of all, basing knowledge on sensory experience automatically puts focus on the individual, since it is always an individual's senses that are experiencing something. Any talk of 'general will', 'spirit of the people', 'historical inevitability' and the such simply has no place in this context. Politics can only be seen as concerning a set of individuals, never a nation or some other collective entity.

Further, any large collective projects undertaken by the government (or some other political body) can never be justified by the before mentioned collectivist understandings or rationalist grand theories. They can only be justified in the utility that they would produce, and that needs to be guaranteed by actual experience of previous such projects.

Therefore, massive changes are something that will always be seen with scepticism, and as such they are more likely to be rejected in favour of smaller, safer, experience-based actions and plans: 'small, limited government', 'letting it trickle down', 'letting things sort themselves out', etc. It basically turns into a sceptic justification of the status quo, as long as the status quo guarantees certain basic rights to the individual.

In the end, just compare the list of famous liberals with the list of famous empiricists (and persons from subsequent schools) and observe the massive overlap.

>>1286188

That was a good answer to an honest question.

Thank you. I wish /his/ was a bit more like this generally.

>>1286102
Most natural right doctrines aren't empiricist though, Locke is a pretty exceptional case.

>>1286288
it was for a few brief, glorious weeks.

>>1286371

I've been here from the start.

You have false memory syndrome.

Still, we have good threads every now and then,

>>1286288
Thanks for a decent response :^)

>>1286354
That's what was troubling me a bit as well desu.

>>1286354

>Most natural right doctrines aren't empiricist though, Locke is a pretty exceptional case.

>>1286510
>That's what was troubling me a bit as well desu.

Can you give anything to back your arguments though?

I'm not saying you're wrong, it is another honest question, but at least OP backed himself with an actual answer.