The article discusses the decline of classical liberalism, arguing that both progressive and conservative forces in modern society share a common desire to control cultural content, particularly in video games. It highlights the irony that both sides disapprove of sexualized characters, leading to censorship driven by a perceived moral imperative. The author presents classical liberalism as a philosophy advocating for minimal interference in personal and societal matters, opposing the pervasive control exerted by both contemporary progressives and conservatives. This philosophy, rooted in individual management and non-interference, contrasts sharply with today’s ideological extremes. Despite their consistent principles, classical liberals find their voices diminishing in a polarized political climate, where meaningful discourse is often replaced by slogans and oversimplified narratives.
Recently, the game “Concord" from Sony suffered a massive failure, prompting widespread cheers from gamers. Many have long been dissatisfied with the meddling leftist intellectuals who interfere in matters both big and small. Their extensive intervention has led to the recent rise of female characters in high-cost productions, often depicted as grotesquely large and rough-skinned gorillas, or influencing Disney princesses to take on darker skin tones. In “Concord,” there are blatantly overweight male support characters and a slew of preachy archetypal characters, which leave much to be desired. So, is the opposite of the left, as the "enemy's enemy," a friend? The reality is that when it comes to regulating game content, the left and its opposing side are essentially on the same page.
In fact, the left's vigorous interference in video games is a phenomenon of the last decade. Prior to this, the groups opposing overly sexualized female characters—arguing that video games were corrupting society—were conservative forces such as parent organizations, moral watchdogs, traditionalists, the educational system, and religious groups. Ironically, both progressive and conservative forces, commonly referred to as leftists and rightists, harbor disdain for attractive and sexy characters. Both believe video games propagate harmful ideologies and degrade social morals, and they converge in their desire to censor content and ideologies they dislike.
Have you heard the story of the North Wind and the Sun? In their contest to get a traveler to remove their clothes, the North Wind attempts to blow them off, while the Sun warms the air until the traveler strips off their clothing out of heat discomfort. Although their methods and motivations differ, the outcome remains the same: the clothing must come off. Progressives view sexy female characters as objectification and a manifestation of patriarchy, while conservatives see them as promiscuity and immoral, a challenge to patriarchy. In essence, despite differing rationales, both reach the same conclusion: if you're sexy, I disapprove.
Given that the left is currently dominant and people feel persecuted by political correctness, many have turned to conservative forces, with an increasing number identifying themselves as rightists in recent years. However, when they directly engage with these traditional conservative circles, they often find them filled with obstinate, unrealistic, and intolerant individuals, not much better than the left. This leads to the realization that progressives and conservatives are fundamentally the same type of people—obsessive control freaks who project their anger onto others. Their only distinction lies in what they believe in. For instance, many support Trump, as few would endorse the left-leaning Kamala Harris. However, in the cases of Taiwan and Hong Kong, there are fewer who can fully accept everything Trump represents; for Taiwan, it's the issue of Olympic boxing; for Hong Kong, it's Trump's apparent disregard for Ukraine or smaller democratic nations, suggesting that if you're weak, you should keep to yourself. In other words, Trump will not support your democratic movements if it is not beneficial to the U.S. and won't hesitate to throw you under the bus.
Progressive leftists are irritants, but conservative rightists are hard to swallow for many people, leading to a prevalent sense of frustration. So, is it possible to be neither a progressive nor a conservative? Is the world of the '80s and '90s left or right? This outcome is due to a sector that has become less publicly recognized over the past two decades: classical liberalism. The so-called "classical liberal" is fundamentally different from the modern liberal you might know today, as today's self-proclaimed liberals often advocate for political correctness, environmental issues, climate change, internationalism, a welfare state, and multiculturalism—essentially the "leftist intellectuals" of the current era, typically portrayed as artsy and progressive. Today's so-called universal value liberalism has merged with the new left.
Both conservatives and progressives are idealists who believe in the potential for a better world, needing to suppress undesirable aspects to improve society continuously. They seek to reshape the world through persistent transformation. In contrast, what do classical liberals advocate?
During the Spring and Autumn period (春秋時期) and the Warring States period, a figure named Yang Zhu (楊朱), an opponent of Confucianism, stated, "In ancient times, if one harms a hair to benefit the world, they are not worthy; if all the world serves one without taking, then that is worthy; if everyone does not harm a hair and everyone does not benefit the world, then the world will be in order." (古之人損一毫利天下，不與也；悉天下奉一身，不取也。人人不損一毫，人人不利天下，天下治矣。) He believed that for humanity to thrive, we should not continuously interfere in others' affairs or ponder grand solutions to save the world. Instead, if everyone merely minded their own business and minimized interference with others, the world would improve.
Yang Zhu's ideas encapsulate the essence of classical liberalism, which advocates for "non-interference in most matters apart from what is necessary" and emphasizes that one should focus on managing their own affairs rather than those of others. (當世顯學)
Thus, classical liberalism stands apart from today's progressives, who excessively impose controls while advocating for freedom. Companies like Facebook routinely claim violations of community standards. How did the previous forms of liberalism foster true freedom? If everyone refrained from meddling unless absolutely essential, it would create a situation where interference could be minimized. Each instance of interference incurs a cost that requires human and legal oversight. More laws translate to higher administrative costs, as the government, by its nature, incurs expenses—leading to resource waste. Thus, the less interference, the less waste of resources, allowing things to manifest in their best forms.
Of course, classical liberalism does not equate to anarchism. The limits for classical liberals are rooted in preventing actions that destroy resources, disrupt order, or damage productivity. For classical liberals, punishment is essential when a criminal causes the death of a skilled professional or laborer. To maximize possibility and efficiency, society should develop freely under the fewest regulatory constraints. As you can see, they are neither progressive left nor conservative right.
In today's world, labels are quickly assigned—generally, if you're not leftist, you get labeled as rightist. For example, if you oppose open immigration, you will be branded as an exclusionary fascist; if you resist the idea of turning Disney princesses or the Assassin's Creed characters black, students may call you a racist. If you advocate for market-led development, aren't you a foe of capitalist social justice? Therefore, classical liberals are often viewed as right-wing, or even fascist, since the current landscape is dominated by leftist ideology.
Viewed from their perspective, such individuals are simply against them. However, those individuals see themselves as distinct from traditional rightists, in opposition for a long time. Historically, the figures who interfered most with classical liberals were those from conservative religious groups, the wealthy elite, and establishment figures with a strong inclination for order. Yet, following the '90s, the influence of academia, media, and finance increased significantly while religious and land-based powers waned, giving rise to a new "everything controlled" hegemony.
As for classical liberals, they have essentially remained unchanged in their expressions; their ideas are consistent. However, their voices have shrunk in the digital age, and their numbers may be dwindling. Several internal and external factors contribute to this phenomenon. Externally, after generations of affluence, academia became dominated by universal values, leading to a marked increase in college attendance in the 21st century—such as in Taiwan, where the majority of people now attend university. Thus, an increasing percentage of young individuals receive education steeped in universal values, typically coming from more affluent backgrounds, which diminishes the appeal of classical liberalism's "low-cost" ideas. Those with abundant resources fail to see the limitations of their resources, believing that good things ought to be realized and that society should improve, making them more likely to adopt progressive ideologies. Conversely, those who feel the pressure of resource limitations are more inclined to value classical liberalism.
Moreover, classical liberalism itself is inherently complex. Progressivism and conservativism can easily recast the world in black-and-white dichotomies. Progressives argue that humanity must be equal and that the environment must be protected, denouncing capitalism as evil—these are their narratives. Conservatives, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of morality and traditional values, contending that issues like homosexuality violate divine will. This stark worldview facilitates the recruitment of supporters. In contrast, classical liberals navigate a space of moderation: they oppose excessive government intervention while recognizing its necessity; advocate for free speech but insist on the strict punishment of defamation and misinformation; believe in market solutions yet acknowledge certain issues require governmental intervention, such as security concerns; and appreciate limited immigration for balancing social labor dynamics without fostering ethnic conflict or resource scarcity due to excessive immigration.
Thus, classical liberalism is less about ideals or divine will and more about meeting realistic needs and aligning with natural forms. In the realm of classical liberalism, each issue is intricate and nuanced, without easy solutions or one-size-fits-all principles; adjustments are made based on actual conditions.
In this era, where soundbites and simplistic answers dominate, classical liberalism struggles to resonate; its slogans are rarely memorable. Even when such phrases exist, they often get distorted, as with Yang Zhu's saying, "One who harms a hair to benefit the world is unworthy," twisted into the idiom "not a hair to spare," thereby altering its meaning from "don't interfere in others' matters" to an insult for selfishness. Consequently, classical liberalism has become a minority perspective in the internet age.
The current ideological landscape has marginalized classical liberalism, reducing it to a minority viewpoint amidst dominant progressive and conservative trends. As society increasingly favors simplistic solutions and soundbites, the nuanced nature of classical liberal thought, which prioritizes individual liberty and recognizes complex realities, struggles to gain traction. This shift reflects a broader cultural dismissal of moderation and critical thinking in favor of more extreme narratives, leaving classical liberalism at risk of being overlooked entirely.
