Introduction
This article analyzes the crisis of contemporary liberalism, which has become a hostage to its own success. The system has evolved toward technocratic management and social engineering, losing its foundation of epistemological humility.
The reader will discover how to reconstruct freedom as a state of non-domination. The text explains why institutional pluralism and the voices of working people are essential to protect society from expert hubris and algorithmic determinism.
The Paradox of Liberal Success and the Shift Toward Freedom as Non-Domination
Liberalism became oppressive when the victorious doctrine began to treat its own interpretation of 'the good' as a neutral description of reality. Power shifted from the hands of tyrants to technocrats armed with data and models.
Today, freedom should be understood as non-domination. It is not merely the absence of formal prohibitions, but a situation in which no one possesses arbitrary power over us.
A prime example is the gig economy worker. They may be formally free, yet they remain dominated by opaque algorithms and rankings that they cannot effectively challenge.
The Material Foundations of Freedom and the Social Nature of Humanity
Public services, education, and social safety nets do not restrict liberal freedom. Rather, they are the material instruments that enable its actual exercise.
A human being is not an abstract individual, but a social being who learns through social learning in community. Community is a prerequisite for autonomy, as it provides the language and categories necessary to understand the world.
Economic security constitutes the infrastructure of freedom. The right to dissent is an illusion if refusing to cooperate with a monopolist or a bureaucrat results in existential catastrophe for the citizen.
Liberalism as a System of Collective Error Correction
Freedom and decentralization are essential because knowledge about society is dispersed. No single entity possesses it in its entirety, resulting in a state of inevitable ignorance.
Liberalism thus becomes a technology for collective error correction. It requires freedom of speech and self-governance as mechanisms of self-correction, ensuring the system does not merely produce 'good news' tailored to the demands of a central authority.
Expert knowledge is valuable, but it must engage with local knowledge. Only such a confrontation prevents technocratic blindness and allows society to avoid the pitfalls of social engineering.
Conclusion
Modern power no longer needs to employ censorship; it is sufficient for it to be written into the code of choice architecture. Freedom is shifting from the realm of law to the sphere of algorithms.
True liberalism is a system capable of surviving its own mistakes and correcting them. It requires an acknowledgment of the fallibility of every center of power and the protection of citizens' real agency.
The greatest challenge today is not the fight against state tyranny, but resistance against the invisible cage of digital norms.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has contemporary liberalism, despite its successes, become an oppressive system, and how should freedom be understood today?
Contemporary liberalism has become oppressive because, after achieving success, it began to treat its own interpretation of the good as neutral reality, and its institutions transformed into technocratic hierarchies and opaque bureaucracies. Freedom today should be understood as non-domination—a state in which no one possesses arbitrary power over another—making economic security an essential element of the infrastructure for real autonomy.
Do public services and social bonds limit liberal freedom, or are they a necessary condition for it?
Public services, education, and social security do not limit liberal freedom; rather, they constitute the material instruments that enable its realization. This stems from the fact that a human being is not an abstract entity, but shapes their preferences and skills through interactions within a community.
Why are freedom and decentralization essential from the perspective of acquiring knowledge about society?
Freedom and decentralization are essential because knowledge about society is dispersed and local, and no one possesses it in its entirety. They allow for experimentation, the competition of information against orthodoxy, and mutual learning, which makes liberalism a technology for collective error correction.
Why are freedom of speech and self-governance necessary to prevent the system from becoming a closed loop producing only 'good news'?
Freedom of speech enables the detection of errors and the functioning of a self-correction mechanism, preventing a situation where an institution unable to accept bad news begins to produce content tailored to its own desires. Self-governance, on the other hand, counteracts centralization and paternalism, making the citizen a co-creator of the order rather than merely a recipient of decisions made by experts or administration.
What is the difference between helpful expert knowledge and harmful technocracy?
Expertise consists of providing data and arguments within a learning process, whereas technocracy is the transformation of specialized knowledge into a claim of political and moral superiority. A technocrat believes that because of their knowledge, they know better what others should choose, treating the consent of others as secondary.
What is 'working-class liberalism' according to Acemoglu, and on what principles should modern liberalism be based to avoid becoming a system of domination?
Working-class liberalism is a concept in which working people become co-authors of institutions and regain economic and cultural agency through shared prosperity. To avoid becoming a system of domination, modern liberalism should be based on institutional humility regarding human fallibility, the decentralization of knowledge, and the provision of material security and institutions for collective voice.
What is the new proposal of liberalism based on, and why is acknowledging one's own fallibility crucial for the functioning of the state and institutions?
The new proposal of liberalism is based on epistemological humility and the recognition that everyone is fallible; therefore, we need each other to discover errors. Admitting one's own fallibility is crucial because it allows institutions to be built in a way that enables the correction of mistakes and prevents the creation of systems that reward persisting in error rather than improving the alignment of beliefs with reality.
Why are diversity and decentralization essential from a cognitive perspective?
Diversity and decentralization allow for the testing of alternative solutions, enabling them to be compared with the dominant solution and increasing the chance that the most effective practices survive. They are essential because the knowledge needed to solve problems is dispersed and local, and the freedom to experiment allows for unpredictable discoveries unavailable to a central planner.
Why is expert knowledge alone insufficient for managing a system, and what is the role of the community in acquiring knowledge?
Expert knowledge is insufficient because it can be blind to the local context and the experience of people directly affected by a given problem. The community serves as an environment for verification, accumulation, and transfer of knowledge, enabling social learning and the passing of practices between generations.
Why are freedom of speech and critical education essential from the perspective of the theory of knowledge?
Freedom of speech serves as an epistemic safety valve that allows erroneous norms to be questioned and transforms private doubts into public signals, enabling the gradual correction of knowledge. Critical education is essential for building the cognitive autonomy of citizens, providing them with tools to examine opinions and distinguish evidence from propaganda instead of imposing ready-made answers.
How does the theory of knowledge translate into specific institutional solutions, and why is the voice of employees indispensable in this process?
The theory of knowledge translates into institutional solutions by promoting experimentation, self-governance, and non-domination, so that collective knowledge serves real well-being and human agency. The voice of employees is indispensable because they are carriers of unique practical knowledge, the absence of which in the decisions of system designers leads to costly epistemic errors.
Why does the mere possession of vast amounts of data by algorithms not replace the distributed knowledge of humans?
Algorithms process codified data, whereas the distributed knowledge of humans encompasses tacit and contextual information, as well as that resulting from practice and professional intuition. The centralization of information is not identical to the centralization of knowledge, because AI systems synthesize existing texts instead of actively observing phenomena and gaining new experiences.
Why is acknowledging human fallibility essential for creating a system free from domination?
Acknowledging human fallibility leads to the postulate of non-domination, as the lack of a monopoly on knowledge removes the justification for arbitrary power. This is necessary because any power can be cognitively mistaken, and the concentration of power makes the cost of a mistake by the center very high.
In what way can theoretical moral principles lead to the restriction of citizens' freedom?
Theoretical moral principles can lead to paternalism and administrative uniformization when a legislator deems certain behaviors improper and forbids them to citizens, even if they only affect the individuals themselves. In such a case, a person ceases to be a subject of choice and becomes an object being protected from error, which may result in the deprivation of their freedom in the name of respect for their humanity.
Why does the belief in knowing the 'true good' of a citizen lead to systemic domination, and how can this be prevented?
The belief in knowing the "true good" of a citizen allows authority to treat their opinion as an error and invalidate opposition, which can lead to coercion in the name of alleged freedom. This can be prevented by adopting fallibilism—recognizing the symmetry of fallibility across all groups and treating citizens' opposition as a source of information.
How does a real social pact differ from theoretical models of the social contract, and what role does deliberation play in this process?
A real social pact, unlike a hypothetical contract, is a process of actual negotiation of norms between people with different interests. Deliberation serves as a mechanism for acquiring knowledge from citizens that experts may not possess, enabling an actual change in the draft decision under the influence of arguments.
Where does the state's right to impose norms end, and where does unacceptable indoctrination begin?
The state may impose norms and require specific behaviors if they serve to protect the conditions for the coexistence of free people and are open to challenge. Unacceptable indoctrination begins at the moment this coercion turns into an attempt to shape a citizen's inner convictions and eliminate the possibility of questioning the transmitted values.
Why does liberalism defend freedom, and how does it understand the relationship between the individual and the community in the context of domination?
Liberalism defends freedom to enable people to be the authors of their own lives and to realize personal projects without having others' visions of the good imposed upon them. In the relationship with the community, it recognizes that although humans are social beings, they cannot be dissolved within it nor subjected to arbitrary power; this requires protection from domination and ensuring a real right to exit structures that could become a form of servitude.
Why are material security and the fair distribution of profits essential for the functioning of a liberal system?
Material security and a fair share in the fruits of growth are conditions for real freedom, as they protect individuals from dependence on a stronger entity. They prevent situations where citizens feel redundant despite the country's economic success, which is essential to avoid political tensions and ensure the actual ability to exercise one's rights.
Why is the mere pursuit of the good or being right not enough to avoid creating a system of domination?
The mere pursuit of the good or being right is not enough, because just values can be defended using authoritarian and illiberal tools. A system of domination arises when the conviction of one's own moral righteousness leads to the exclusion of others from the process of collective reasoning and the destruction of their agency.
What distinguishes ordinary public policy and education from social engineering and indoctrination?
Public policy and education establish rules of operation and transmit knowledge along with the tools for its verification, allowing for the possibility of criticism. Social engineering and indoctrination, on the other hand, are top-down attempts to shape values and thoughts in order to limit debate and eliminate the possibility of challenging the assertions being conveyed.
How can the pursuit of eliminating ignorance in liberalism lead to technocratic dominance and the control of citizens?
The pursuit of eliminating ignorance can lead to technocratic dominance when elites consider their own views to be unquestionable and treat citizen opposition as a symptom of a lack of education. In such a system, political dispute transforms into a relationship between teacher and student, and the citizen ceases to be a co-author of the order, becoming merely the recipient of a modernization program.
Why does state administration often fail to recognize the real needs of citizens, and how can this be countered?
Administration seeks to simplify reality through categorization (so-called legibility), which leads to the omission of information that cannot be encoded in tables and registers. To counter this, institutional pluralism is essential—including local governments, civic organizations, and free media, which function as sensors providing local knowledge.
Where is the line between justified expert knowledge and harmful technocracy in the management of society?
This line is crossed at the moment of transition from stating that one possesses more knowledge in a given field to the belief that this grants the right to define what life is appropriate for others. Harmful technocracy begins when specialized competence is mistakenly equated with omnicompetence and the authority to set the boundaries of permissible social dispute.
How can contemporary institutional and cultural language become a tool of power and exclusion?
Language becomes a tool of power and exclusion when proficiency in using codes of institutional correctness is equated with a higher value of one's political voice. This leads to a situation where individuals unfamiliar with the professional idiom of post-industrial elites are marginalized and symbolically humiliated.
How should contemporary liberalism respond to populism, and in what way is technology changing the nature of dominance over the citizen?
Contemporary liberalism should respond to populism by separating the content of the protest from its ideological form, listening to opposing groups, and persuading rather than disciplining. Technology changes the nature of dominance over the citizen by shifting power from officials to the code and architecture of algorithmic platforms, which shape the space of views and the process of forming beliefs.
