Three post-war liberals strove to establish the meaning of freedom
Berlin, Rawls and Nozick put their faith in the sanctity of the individual
ONE definition of a liberal is a person who supports individual rights and opposes arbitrary power. But that does not tell you which rights matter. For example, some campaigners say they want to unshackle transgender people, women and minorities from social norms, hierarchies and language that they see as tyrannical. Their opponents say that this means limiting what individuals do and say, for instance by censoring frank discussions of gender, or forbidding the emulation of minority cultures. Supporters of these kinds of “identity politics” claim to be standing up for rights against unjust power. But their opponents do, too. If both claim to be “liberal”, does the word mean much at all?
This article appeared in the Schools brief section of the print edition under the headline “Rawls rules”
More from Schools brief
AI needs regulation, but what kind, and how much?
Different countries are taking different approaches to regulating artificial intelligence
LLMs will transform medicine, media and more
But not without a helping (human) hand
How AI models are getting smarter
Deep neural networks are learning diffusion and other tricks
The race is on to control the global supply chain for AI chips
The focus is no longer just on faster chips, but on more chips clustered together
AI firms will soon exhaust most of the internet’s data
Can they create more?
A short history of AI
In the first of six weekly briefs, we ask how AI overcame decades of underdelivering