Peterson delivered a keynote address at last week’s ARC conference in Sydney, which was also broadcast on Sky News Australia. His speech repeatedly invokes terms like “voluntary” and “responsibility” while praising free enterprise and individual initiative.
Yet beneath this liberal vernacular lies a vision that should trouble anyone committed to liberalism, including those attending the ARC conference.
Like many critics of liberalism before him, Peterson appears to see individual freedom primarily as a problem to be solved rather than a value to be protected.
Take his central claim. Our salvation, he tells us, lies not in individual liberty but in discovering our place within what he calls “harmony.” This harmony subordinates individual identity to a hierarchical structure. It runs from family through community to state, all under some undefined “transcendent unity.”
While this might sound appealing to those yearning for order and meaning, it invokes a form of social engineering that places collective goals above individual freedom. His hierarchy offers a solution but at the cost of the very freedom that enables genuine human flourishing.
Indeed, Peterson dismisses what he calls “fractionated individual liberalism” as a failed experiment leading to “nihilism.”
But this characterisation fundamentally misunderstands classical liberalism. The liberal tradition does not atomise individuals - it creates the framework for voluntary association through property rights, the rule of law and limited government.
This mischaracterisation of liberalism is not merely academic. It allows Peterson to present a false choice between atomised individualism and his prescribed hierarchical order. This false dichotomy ignores liberalism’s rich tradition of voluntary community-building and social cooperation.
Peterson’s vision becomes more concerning when he discusses responsibility. He emphasises that responsibility must be “voluntary.” Yet he simultaneously insists there is “nothing better to do than to adopt the path of maximal responsibility.” This path, he declares, is “proper.”
Thus, Peterson presents this course not as one path among many but as the universal solution to life’s challenges. In doing so, he transforms classical liberalism’s emphasis on personal responsibility. What should be freely chosen becomes an obligation to conform to his prescribed social order. One might reasonably ask: how voluntary is a choice when we are told no legitimate alternatives exist?
Most troubling is Peterson’s conception of society. He argues that “people who attempt to find their redeeming identity in their own fragmented individuality will fail” and insists that we find our purpose only through “sacrifice of narrow self-interests” to family, community and ultimately the state. This amounts to a direct assault on individual autonomy - the cornerstone of classical liberalism.
When Peterson proclaims that “there’s nothing naive about that, there’s nothing jingoistic, there’s nothing propagandistic,” we must ask why he feels the need for such assurance. The reason is clear enough. His vision of individuals finding meaning only through submission to a hierarchical social order is precisely what classical liberals have long resisted.
Peterson declares, “We’re not built for comfort and pleasure. We’re built for adventure.” But pay attention to his definition of adventure. He is not talking about individuals freely choosing their own paths. Instead, “adventure” means subordinating individual choices to what he calls “heroic, romantic invention” in service of collective goals. It is a clever rhetorical move that makes submission to collective authority sound exciting rather than restrictive. This reframing of submission as adventure provides the emotional fuel for Peterson’s broader attack on individual autonomy.
Peterson’s praise for free enterprise also sits uneasily with his broader vision. He rightly celebrates the role of markets in creating prosperity. Yet his hierarchical framework suggests something different. According to Peterson, economic freedom, like other individual liberties, should ultimately serve collective goals determined by his preferred social order.
None of this is to deny Peterson’s insights about personal responsibility. Nor the importance of meaning in human life. His message clearly resonates with many people seeking purpose in an increasingly rootless world.
But his solution - a vision of hierarchical order justified through a blend of evolutionary claims, religious imagery, and appeals to transcendent meaning - raises more questions than it answers. It risks replacing liberal principles of individual rights and voluntary cooperation with a prescription for collective control cloaked in spiritual language.
Classical liberals should engage seriously with Peterson’s critique of modern atomisation and meaninglessness. These are real challenges. But the solution lies in reinvigorating liberal principles of individual rights, voluntary association and limited government - not in Peterson’s vision of hierarchical integration under “transcendent unity.”
The enduring success of liberal democracy depends on maintaining the delicate balance between individual liberty and social cohesion. Peterson’s rhetoric may be seductive, but his “better story” threatens to upset this balance in favour of collective authority cloaked in the language of voluntarism.
As history shows - whether in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Korea, or elsewhere - subordinating individual liberty to collective entities, however well-intentioned, leads not to adventure but to stagnation. The twentieth century provides ample evidence of the human cost when individual rights are sacrificed to collective visions, no matter how noble their stated aims.
Classical liberals would do better to tell their own story: one of prosperity and human flourishing through genuine voluntary cooperation and the protection of individual rights.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
Take his central claim. Our salvation, he tells us, lies not in individual liberty but in discovering our place within what he calls “harmony.” This harmony subordinates individual identity to a hierarchical structure. It runs from family through community to state, all under some undefined “transcendent unity.”
While this might sound appealing to those yearning for order and meaning, it invokes a form of social engineering that places collective goals above individual freedom. His hierarchy offers a solution but at the cost of the very freedom that enables genuine human flourishing.
Indeed, Peterson dismisses what he calls “fractionated individual liberalism” as a failed experiment leading to “nihilism.”
But this characterisation fundamentally misunderstands classical liberalism. The liberal tradition does not atomise individuals - it creates the framework for voluntary association through property rights, the rule of law and limited government.
This mischaracterisation of liberalism is not merely academic. It allows Peterson to present a false choice between atomised individualism and his prescribed hierarchical order. This false dichotomy ignores liberalism’s rich tradition of voluntary community-building and social cooperation.
Peterson’s vision becomes more concerning when he discusses responsibility. He emphasises that responsibility must be “voluntary.” Yet he simultaneously insists there is “nothing better to do than to adopt the path of maximal responsibility.” This path, he declares, is “proper.”
Thus, Peterson presents this course not as one path among many but as the universal solution to life’s challenges. In doing so, he transforms classical liberalism’s emphasis on personal responsibility. What should be freely chosen becomes an obligation to conform to his prescribed social order. One might reasonably ask: how voluntary is a choice when we are told no legitimate alternatives exist?
Most troubling is Peterson’s conception of society. He argues that “people who attempt to find their redeeming identity in their own fragmented individuality will fail” and insists that we find our purpose only through “sacrifice of narrow self-interests” to family, community and ultimately the state. This amounts to a direct assault on individual autonomy - the cornerstone of classical liberalism.
When Peterson proclaims that “there’s nothing naive about that, there’s nothing jingoistic, there’s nothing propagandistic,” we must ask why he feels the need for such assurance. The reason is clear enough. His vision of individuals finding meaning only through submission to a hierarchical social order is precisely what classical liberals have long resisted.
Peterson declares, “We’re not built for comfort and pleasure. We’re built for adventure.” But pay attention to his definition of adventure. He is not talking about individuals freely choosing their own paths. Instead, “adventure” means subordinating individual choices to what he calls “heroic, romantic invention” in service of collective goals. It is a clever rhetorical move that makes submission to collective authority sound exciting rather than restrictive. This reframing of submission as adventure provides the emotional fuel for Peterson’s broader attack on individual autonomy.
Peterson’s praise for free enterprise also sits uneasily with his broader vision. He rightly celebrates the role of markets in creating prosperity. Yet his hierarchical framework suggests something different. According to Peterson, economic freedom, like other individual liberties, should ultimately serve collective goals determined by his preferred social order.
None of this is to deny Peterson’s insights about personal responsibility. Nor the importance of meaning in human life. His message clearly resonates with many people seeking purpose in an increasingly rootless world.
But his solution - a vision of hierarchical order justified through a blend of evolutionary claims, religious imagery, and appeals to transcendent meaning - raises more questions than it answers. It risks replacing liberal principles of individual rights and voluntary cooperation with a prescription for collective control cloaked in spiritual language.
Classical liberals should engage seriously with Peterson’s critique of modern atomisation and meaninglessness. These are real challenges. But the solution lies in reinvigorating liberal principles of individual rights, voluntary association and limited government - not in Peterson’s vision of hierarchical integration under “transcendent unity.”
The enduring success of liberal democracy depends on maintaining the delicate balance between individual liberty and social cohesion. Peterson’s rhetoric may be seductive, but his “better story” threatens to upset this balance in favour of collective authority cloaked in the language of voluntarism.
As history shows - whether in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Korea, or elsewhere - subordinating individual liberty to collective entities, however well-intentioned, leads not to adventure but to stagnation. The twentieth century provides ample evidence of the human cost when individual rights are sacrificed to collective visions, no matter how noble their stated aims.
Classical liberals would do better to tell their own story: one of prosperity and human flourishing through genuine voluntary cooperation and the protection of individual rights.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
Classical liberalism is dead, certainly in New Zealand. In a country like New Zealand where most people want to protect their livelihoods it is risky to voice any opinion contrary to the ideological norms of progressivism and Maori ethno-nationalism. Karl du Fresne once said that New Zealand's conservatives are hiding in fox holes. Unfortunately to fight back and regain freedom of thought it will take a lot more than a live and let live philosophy.
Roger, you pretty much have pulled every little negative detail out of Jordan's work. He too is a work in progress and a shining light in this lunatic world.
I have a feeling that you probably have a very firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick in this instance and Jordan's work is revolutionary.
I hope he continues to fight the great fight against this evil cancer that has appeared on this earth. His takedown of the cancer is legendary (just watch youtube)....he fights the cancer with facts.
Appreciate these thoughtful comments. But I am with Peterson on this one.
Yet another person taking a shot at Jordan while demonstrating their own superficial ideological possession.
Jordan’s hierarchical order that you see as problematic can be illustrated with birth certificates. Your version of classical liberalism would be happy for a birth certificate to list two or three mothers on it (or more!) and no father. Your ideology sees nothing wrong with that if it can be done with individual freedom and social cohesion.
Jordan says there is a deeper order in life that ought to be respected to have a successful society for both individuals and the collective. That’s a social order where the birth certificate lists the biological mother and father (ie reality.)
Unfortunately you compare his way of thinking to submitting to the collectivist philosophy of the Soviet Union and North Korea. Give me a break. Open your mind and hear what he’s actually saying.
Beware of the "mainstream" alternative media guru's. Controlled opposition comes to mind.
Since experiencing 6 years under the last Labour govt my trust in any form of centralised hierarchical control is non-existent. I’m with Roger on this one. The freedom to take personal responsibility and exercise individual autonomy gets my vote every time. Jordan’s “harmony” sounds as suspect as Jacinda’s “kindness”.
W
Post a Comment