Liberalism is just a name. The word (over) utilized for respective centuries in many contexts, constantly ambiguous, prone to malicious misinterpretation, politically exploited to say no more worn out. Therefore, looking at this liberalism, it is worth moving distant from the dry analysis of its philosophical assumptions, and even more from the destructive vivisection through the prism of current politics and its main challenges.
It is worth knowing liberalism as, in fact, an eternal and universal mission, a profoundly humanistic "cruciate", oriented towards good and human protection. As an effort to shield him from the overwhelming forces of the worlds of politics, religion, culture, business or social hierarchy, which want to make him a tiny cog of any larger whole. As such, liberalism is unique, a unique way of reasoning about man and challenges all competitive ideologies. They treat a single man (and his multiplicity) as material to realize global visions. Liberalism of global, political, economic, or macro-social governments, treats as derivatives, if only a means to safeguard the primacy and dignity of individual people. This is the sense of the first thought – the thought of freedom.
Deal behind the curtain
How and why freedom, erstwhile in all age a large part of people do not want it or want it, but are afraid? She has a sense of justice and reason. It is these 2 premises that John Locke and John Rawls mention to, who, in a good 300 years interval, gave the 2 strongest justifications for freedom on the foundation of average logic: concepts of a social contract and a veil of ignorance. Locke was 1 of respective thinkers who noticed that in the “wild state”, that is, in the absence of any socio-political structures, people were completely free. Freedom is so the natural state of existence on Earth. It brings (to this day) blessings and risks. The second proved to prevail over the first in the state of nature, due to the fact that at any time there could have been assault on a individual by others who could have brutally taken his life, health, or possession. It made small sense in specified conditions to enjoy freedom, since the full of specified a happy life could have slipped distant in a blink.
Locke thus pointed out that people hypothetically "agreed" to make socio-political structures and institutions whose task was to defend them from violence. Of these, the state as we know it has evolved to this day. However, the subject of the agreement was simply to limit the risks associated with freedom, in no way its blessings, or the anticipation of same - shaping its individual happiness. Basic reason does not let people to claim that they have agreed to voluntarily surrender to political power. After all, this would mean that they considered it appropriate to replace force by casual criminals with systematic and targeted force by the state apparatus. It would be nonsense.
Since the state has been called up to defend freedom, all time its authorities restrict it, it violates the social contract and goes beyond the mandate laid down for their action. The government has no title to in any way limit the scope of options for people to choose the way of life, whatever to dictate, format or modify. This is unfair, like any breach of contract. To circumvent this, for many centuries the ruling cliques maintained that their chief authority (monarchs) came from God, so it is not limited by a temporal agreement with men. In fact, it is the only logically coherent alternate to the concept of a social contract. Since in the modern world, however, we have departed from the construction of power through the “Anointed 1 of God”, political power cannot restrict individual freedom. Period.
Rawls besides appealed to the justice of the free social order, but above all to the alleged common sense, presenting to the planet the "blind of ignorance". He told his readers to imagine that they did not know what society they would live in. They would know only themselves, and hence their views, beliefs, customs, attitudes, aspirations, values and dreams. Behind the veil of ignorance, however, they would gotta fear that destiny would cast them into a human group, in which the overwhelming majority would have different views, beliefs, customs, attitudes, aspirations, values and dreams, and worse – possibly even they would be opposed to their own. Confronted with specified a possible if they were given a choice of political constitutional order for the collective, to which they would go after lifting the veil, what choice would that be? Would not even fanatics of proselytized religions choose a liberal order, simply out of fear that if they chose a spiritual state, they would go to specified a country, but dominated by believers of another religion, where they would be converted or martyred?
According to Rawls, any reasonably reasoning man, regardless of his own views, would choose a liberal political order behind the veil, alternatively of playing for a alleged full stake, that is to say, to get into a dictatorship the same as him. It's a reasonable choice, due to the fact that it's the safest choice. Regardless of the arrangement of forces of various human passions, liberalism will supply them with peaceful coexistence alongside each other, possibly in any social isolation, but thanks to tolerance besides number and marginal numbers groups will be able to endure and live according to their own individual choices.
Violence, brainwashing, coercion, persecution, discrimination, unwarranted imprisonment – these are only any of the threats to man that bring with them various anti-freedom regimes that abound in the past of humanity (man has unfortunately proven to be highly creative erstwhile it comes to developing criteria, rules and techniques of enslavement). Years and ages pass, the planet changes, material and technological advancement continues, but the unusual request to subdue others and make them unhappy with the first concept of "universal happiness" persists in the minds of many influential people.
Moral Mission
The modern model of liberal democracy is, so far, the most perfect tool for maximising the blessings of freedom and minimising its risks. This democracy is not the sole work of liberal thought, but it is undoubtedly its leading co-author. 2 another large ideological traditions of the Western world, conservatism and social democratism, besides grant a certain degree of freedom to man. However, the full empowerment of man and his dignity is seen only in liberalism. Conservativeism is simply a mission to build the realities of the safe surviving of freedom, the protection of "our lifestyle" by alien influences and pressures, but besides the care of social constituency that prompts the questioning of many possible ways and ideas of people for free life, to cover a scope of choices from any of the options that give emergence to the lifting of the eyebrows of adequate masters at an advanced age. Therefore, conservatism is mainly an institutional-legal mission, with the concern of the continued "tested wisdom of generations" of conventional institutions and structures. Freedom, yes, man, as far as it fits in this template.
Social democratism considers money a fundamental origin of freedom. It so remains focused on modifying the circulation of money so that between freedom and material possession everyone can put a sign of equality, and that soon. Social democratism avoids limiting the scope of options to choose a life project, but the desire to supply the same fans necessarily narrows them down or alternatively standardises them. It is so a social democratism mission primarily social, where justice is expressed in numbers. Freedom, indeed, is man, unless he grows besides much above 1 another.
Liberalism, on the another hand, is simply a mission in a moral sense, possibly to doctrine? erstwhile a social contract has removed the terrible risks of freedom, its insignificant disadvantages are acceptable, especially erstwhile their removal is not possible without limited blessings. There will always be risks, only in murderism can they be completely turned off. Liberalism is simply a moral mission, due to the fact that by the ethics of recognising man and his dignity as the highest value, irrefutable, indisputable and undebateable, he rejects all arguments for denying him freedom and rights. Including both the concern for institutions and traditions and for material equality. Liberalism is simply a moral mission, due to the fact that in collision with the organization apparatus of the state or with the financial interests of large groups of society, the human individual is always weaker. Only liberalism takes her side and does so in the name of values.
Although most modern liberals like not to talk about religion and sometimes declare their disbelief, Christianity is not only the most liberal of religion, but liberalism is besides the most Christian political idea. Liberalism grows out of Christianity and taking it as a moral mission makes it very visible. The full conflict of liberalism with religion is fundamentally a conflict with the political commitment of the Churches, the coercion of a peculiar religion, and the rewriting of catechism to the penal code, making spiritual principles of conduct sanctioned by law, or coercion.
But Christianity is simply a doctrine of freedom to choose the way of life by each individual individual. In his conscience, man is free and has unlimited right to choose between good and evil, which defines catechism. He is liable for his election, just as in liberal terms, with an component of spiritual religion introducing the instance of the final judgement and salvation or condemnation, which goes beyond the competence of liberalism as an thought relating solely to temporal life. So liberalism is besides a moral mission due to the fact that it actually translates the fundamental foundations of Christian morality into a language available to atheists, agnostics, and any innoisseurs. He does much more to carry the Good News than any of the ranks of ministers.
A Good and Strong Man
Unlike a fewer 100 years ago, present it is no longer appropriate to talk in general about human nature. Neither the historical experiences of the 20th century nor the improvement of psychology and social sciences let this. People are just different, different. (This is another strong argument from liberals for individual freedom to choose the way of life and the pluralistic model of a tolerant society.) All the less, at a time erstwhile the 3 top traditions of reasoning about man and his relations with society and the state were developed, more psychologically, more intuitively, and inductively epistemologically. Different views on the alleged nature of man from then, proceed to form proposals for the treatment of people by power.
Conservatives repent to the belief that man is inherently evil and weak. He's angry due to the fact that he's prone to wrongdoing. It so requires the control, supervision, strict law and penal code, the inclusion in the educational framework of the hierarchized social structure and/or the Church, where the authorities, symbols, myths and cults of ancestors will force it to "decentness." Fortunately, the bad man is besides weak and (in his mass) rather foolish, so a well organized structure will easy dominate him, show him a finger what to do, how, where and when, he will lead the hand, defend from dangers, having previously instilled fear of them, even if they are imaginary.
Social democrats dominate the imagination of a man of a good nature, but besides of a weak one. Man has a heart for fellow humans, there is simply a large possible for concern and solidarity, he does not request a stick, alternatively a carrot, to convert the possible to real behavior. Unfortunately, man is besides weak, he is not able to do anything, he usually fails in life, left unattended and dies, he loses himself, he wastes his life. It needs a strategy of global support and concrete material assistance. She is besides crucial to sustain his sense of safety and any optimism.
In opposition to both of these views, early Liberals showed large optimism about the fundamental human nature. Without deluded by the fact that people are so universal (the reality of the state of nature and the force prevailing there has shown that the human attitude is very dependent on the framework and environment), liberalism presupposes that man is both good and strong and capable. The general tendency to choose the good is an argument for minimising the control functions of the state and society, and the limitations on freedom in human individual life excludes as pointless. A man may make a mistake making a free choice, but he will not deliberately choose wrong. Mistakes correct the link between freedom and self-responsibility for its choices. It can be harsh and prompts any people to consider and self-limitation (let us stress: SAMO limitation) of their palette of choice of life path. On the another hand, in another cases, bad choices may appear to us as specified for the sake of subjective assessment: which for any is simply a bad choice, may sometimes be a good choice for the straight curious author of the choice.
Especially since man is besides strong and capable. Man can, has reason, has large potential, creativity, remediation, affluence and courage. Not only does it require control (except for utmost cases), but it besides requires babysitting and continuous material support (except for rather a fewer cases). We give people a celebrated fishing rod due to the fact that they fish on their own.
But human nature is simply a mirage. Not only due to the inherent differences, the different predispositions that we have or do not have. 1 can hazard saying that if the view of the early liberals on a good and strong human nature were entirely correct (and not just the direction closest to reality), liberalism present would be undisputed by the best and widely accepted model of reasoning about man and collectiveity, at least in the Western world. Meanwhile, he's getting more defensive. This is due either to the fact that the dilemmas about human nature are a complete measurement of consideration of the needs of man, or to the fact that any nature may be in us, but external factors with comparative ease distort it.
Fear and anger
Today, in a time of force of political extremism and populism on the foundations of liberal democracy, it is said that the most serious threat and enemy of liberalism is no of the another ideological traditions but fear and anger. The extremists took a lesson from past and accepted that their ideologies would not inspire large enthusiasm in clashing with liberalism, which, however, brought freedom and material prosperity to critical masses in individual Western societies. Thus, they placed not the idea, but the erosion of liberalism, instilling fear (sometimes justified, but by them heightened and sometimes completely irrational) and anger (in all another than them, “the saviors of the world”). It works, unfortunately. possibly in specified strength fear and anger disturb, deform human nature? possibly it's just that a frightened man becomes little strong and a angry man becomes little good, and so liberalism fails to meet the needs of specified a changed man?
About 15 years ago he stopped, but in the erstwhile fewer decades there was a triumphant march of liberalism by liberal-democratic institutions. His success was measured by the "diffusion" of his idea. Like warm gas particles, liberal ideas penetrated conservative and social democratic worlds, bringing them closer, resembling each other, creating more common fields of action and consensus, yet making them of erstwhile competitors (and even more erstwhile enemies) allies and almost perfect friends. As a consequence of this, democratic ideological competition has died, right-wing extremists with partially left-wing features have entered the counterweight of the centre, liberal mainstream. present liberalism faces the real hazard of reversed "diffusion". Will the next decade bring a reverse process, after which the word "liberalism" will change its meaning again, due to the fact that like a sponge, it will absorb radically conservative ideas of xenophobia and close the western fortress to people from another cultures and will face radically left-wing challenges of throwing the thought of free marketplace beyond the brackets of liberalism?
Many who want to see each another as liberals submit to one, the another or both temptations. This seems easier in a difficult, modern political environment. However, the moral mission must not yield to intellectual fashions, pressures of social sentiments or generational perturbations and change its direction. The thought of a man free from coercion, arbitrary restrictions and with the right to individual choice cannot abruptly be filled with completely other content, as the social climate has changed. For hard times you walk standing at the station of values in their bastions, not reporting accession to the storming forehead. Today's most condemned economical liberalism is the least popular in the realities of generational change, fear and anger, and dependence on social state aid schemes due to the fact that it is not, like the remainder of liberalism, the domain of an individual due to its very existence of free powers, but alternatively the domain of work and effort that opens the possibly (no guarantee) way to prosperity. Work is little fun than permissions – it is simply a view that takes on a burden with each next generation since these fresh generations are born immediately in prosperity.
But economical liberalism cannot logically be removed beyond the framework of liberalism without an adjective. It is simply a simple extension of the same values of freedom, freedom, wide choice of way of action on an essential sphere of human life, specified as work, a natural means of achieving human needs as aspirations, ambitions, a sense of success and observing measurable or visible fruits of his own effort. Not all people have specified needs, but inactive many have and place their feet in a form of apparent restrictions on freedom incompatible with Locke's social contract. marketplace competition does not only bring defeat and frustration, but besides the advancement behind which you stand in line with the launch of the 15th Ajphon. Private property collected with its own idea, effort and work, on the another hand, is not only 1 (not the most crucial of course!) of the pillars of human dignity, but besides an crucial aspect of the moral dimension of the liberal mission, subject to its fairness.
Trust and Control
A peculiarly harmful aspect of pushing free marketplace reflection beyond the framework of liberalism is the false opposition to the individual's community and private goods to the public good, or common good. The individual in this communicative is simply a model egoist, and private property is driven solely by greed. In the meantime, the community and shared good, the public, is simply a refuge of solidarity, cooperation, harmony and human warmth.
But the fact is, it's not a bipolar reality. A two-polar approach means willingness to give the concept of community and common good into the state domain, and thus under the political control of the government. And the government, even in liberal democracy, is not always good and smiling, and almost never consists of angels. This is not bipolar reality, due to the fact that there is inactive an instance of civilian society – human units acting together completely voluntarily. specified goods are neither private nor public/government, they belong to citizens. The field of social activity is infinite, inactive not full exploited. Anyone who feels “long” towards the community due to his private success can “pay” him by engaging time or resources in civilian space. Taxing is not the only way here. Similarly, support, especially the handing out of fishing rods, can be effectively, locally and precisely provided by this layer of interpersonal cooperation.
It is said that assurance in political power is in a deep crisis. That would be good news, due to the fact that the people of power shouldn't trust besides much. Rather, they should watch her hands carefully, regardless of who wields her. The problem is that mistrust is alternatively a blunt derivative of people being vaccinated with anger than a constructive civic attitude. Especially since the same people so much distrustful of power and criticizing it for e.g. stealing the state present usually trust their populist political idols and seem willing to follow them into all fire, like a guru ruling a sect. Even stealing a state ceases to be a problem for these supposedly mistrustful citizens erstwhile the thieves in power are their kind.
Liberalism is not the thought of assurance in power. The classical utilized to say that power corrupts, and absolute power (uncontrolled) corrupts absolutely (in an uncontrollable way). In Poland, there were besides many alarms around it and the subject of "eating" even for many good liberals, but there is inactive a tireless work to defender the regulation of law and the limited government. Or a weak government? Not necessarily. The government of liberal dreams should be strong where necessary: in global relations, in national safety policy, in the implementation of laws, in the provision of good school, effective treatment and collective transport, in facilitating innovation of the road to the market. But, yes, he should be weak whenever his strength could strike the freedom of citizens and violate this agreement from the dawn of history. The government must be divided between mutually controlling and limiting institutions, must be deprived of the tools of arbitrary power, must absolutely respect the law, must be transparent, must not monitor the citizen "just in case", must extend the scope of freedom at the expense of his prerogatives and defend him from the social pressures of the actors.
It must keep a liberal-democratic model so that its power and the rights of the majority supporting it do not emergence above the rights of political or social minorities. The rights of minorities, as the weaker ones, must be given peculiar care. Tolerance must apply to all, both as the good to which it has been embraced and as the work to embrace others. Everyone else. Where the logic of democratic choice conflicts with the substantive request to carry out the public mission, liberal democracy can and should be complemented by meritocratic logic.
In the hands of citizens
Liberalism is in crisis, and with it the full Western planet (because it is liberalism and liberalism it). It was not in time to prove the results good adequate to precede the birth and detonation of frustration. A series of crises emerged, and extremists made the remainder with their tools of fear and anger. Our biggest problem is slowness, it's the anti-revolutionary nature of liberalism. Looking for permanent reforms, we have always been focusing on the "table method". We do not face people with abrupt moral, social, cultural or economical changes by legislative means (in the end, the political majority must respect the rights of minorities). Instead, we work at the base and wait, wait, wait. We wait for the improvement to be discussed at kitchen tables in millions of households, erstwhile it is tamed, it will cease to awaken – attention – fear and enter the spectrum of imaginable things, then possible, yet indicated and inevitable. Sometimes it takes so long for the public in their readiness to improvement to outrun politicians. specified reforms are the most effective, sustainable and unquestionable.
But the hazard of frustration with the slow mode of liberal reforming is great. It has always been, but combined with fast social change in Europe over the last 30 years, the following spontaneously, without looking into legislation, generated widespread discontent with the failure of civic control over the course of events. The simplest answer to this dilemma is “the more powerful government power and more restrictions on freedom” and is proclaimed by populists. The Liberals' task is much harder to find a way to increase the power of citizens, their sense of cause, their assurance and their function in the countries. To reduce fear and anger by taking on much greater political responsibility. To live freedom not only in the private sphere and in the 3rd sector, but besides profoundly in the political decision-making process. And to take direct work for the results. This will be the fulfillment of the freedom of the truly adult and liable people.
