Do self described 'liberals' (the 21st century variety) believe in free will? I ask this because although they may answer in the affirmative I doubt, when push comes to shove, that they really do.
Why? Let’s take an example – free speech.
While I was at university, there were often debates and some were ‘controversial’, however, the would-be debate over whether the Holocaust really happened or not was deemed too controversial to take place. On the issue of the Holocaust, I had no qualms, I had studied the history and came to the conclusion that the Holocaust happened, was planned (Heydrich at the Wansee Conference in 1942) and that millions of people were treated as disposable objects.
However, when the university’s debating society invited the controversial British author David Irving to debate the history of the Holocaust insofar as whether six million Jews were murdered * and whether Hitler was responsible or not, a huge furore spread across the university especially among the student populace. There were protests and demonstrations against giving Irving a platform and, what was claimed as, ‘legitimizing’ his views.
Pressure was put on the debating society to cancel the debate and the society succumbed.
The feeling of outrage on behalf of the protestors towards the invitation of Irving struck me as rather odd. Here was a man who had been invited to participate in a debate. All that he was going to do was speak, not commit battery towards another person. So on what grounds, apart from disagreeing with Irving’s views, was it legitimate to organise demonstrations and put pressure on the debating society to cancel the debate?
The protestors, who were largely made up of self described liberals, claimed Irving’s views amounted to hate speech and such speech would incite violence.
I’m not sure who these liberals were protecting from Irving’s views, but the liberals certainly didn’t have a protective nature. Their demonstrations had a righteous and militant feel about them. They were hot-headed to say the least.
Aside from that, the arguments against Irving’s visit because his speech could result in violence seemed to me to have a sinister undertone. Namely, a belief that humans are drones – free will doesn’t exist. By Irving’s appearance on stage, his speech and by virtue of its flavour would result in violence.
What despicable thinking. To think humans are incapable of tolerating certain views and that the airing of those views would lead to violence.
If ‘free speech’ is to be meaningful, then it is particularly applicable to those whom we disagree with. As Milton Friedman eloquently wrote; if we are to have free speech “it is that we do not believe that it is desirable that momentary majorities decide what at any moment shall be regarded as appropriate speech”.
The proper recourse of the demonstrating liberals would have been to engage Irving, debate him and make a mockery of his arguments instead of demonstrating and claiming to be acting in the interests of the ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘violently-prone’ who need to be protected against Irving’s views.
If liberals thought Irving’s views were disgraceful, then perhaps they should have taken Thomas Jefferson’s advice: “ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible positions”. State your case, use speech against speech, instead of threatening, intimidating and bullying those who are just hosting the debate. Act liberal. But most importantly, stop treating individuals as if they have no free will.
* presumably he had no issue with the figure of non-Jews who were killed.
I don't believe in free will...
I'm not sure how this approach by liberals has anything to do with metaphysical free will. They could easily say that, however erroneous it may be, the speaker will influence persons to freely choose "violence" of some variety of another.