Liberalism is no religion, no world view, no party of special interests,” claimed von Mises. Liberalism wasn't supposed to define 'the good', but rather ensure the individual freedom to define it ourselves. But opponents argue liberalism's supposed neutrality is an illusion, and that it is in fact universalist, prescriptive, and obstructive to alternatives. The Russian philosopher and critic of the West, Alexander Dugin, argues, “the individual subject is no longer the result of choice, but is a kind of mandatory given.” Indeed, for some, the label 'liberal' is no longer immediately associated with freedom or tolerance and equates with intolerance and censorship.
Was it a profound mistake to see liberalism as neutral? Is the new world one in which liberalism is seen as an ideology alongside other political beliefs, and no less partisan, and no more desirable? Or does liberalism allow for the only freedom which deserves the name, and must it therefore be fought for and defended?
