What should liberalism mean today?

If the tragically expunged and abused notion of "liberalism" is to proceed to keep any logically and ideologically, historically and institutionally attached meaning, it must mean a doctrine that postulates the maximum of individual freedom combined with the maximum of individual work for its actions. As such, it is simply a doctrine derived from the union of the classical doctrine of natural law, the jurisdictional decentralization of medieval Europe and the evangelical vocation to freedom.

It is not derived from the revolutionary doctrine of "human rights", from the "dialectic" or "evolution" imagination of consistent "improvement of the world" or from the "postmodernist" position of identity self-creation. All phenomena contained in the second combination are simply caricatures of classical liberal doctrine, feeding parasiticly on its achievements, excavating its constitutional elements and leading in the practice of social life to more and more absurd forms of enslavement.

Hence, speaking, especially today, about any conflict between “liberalism” and “traditional”, “family”, “community” or “classical culture” is derogatory to all these concepts. Instead, 1 can only talk about today's conflict of pseudo-Pational tribism with suicidal infantilism, no of which has anything to do with realistic freedom, even if the second is much more likely to invoke it.

Therefore, if the love of freedom is to mean anything now, it must mean first and foremost as prudent as the uncompromising fight against both these doomed ideologies, or the steadfast adherence to this narrow road, which alone allows man to hold the dignity of an individual as autonomous as conscious of his limitations, and equally self-government as interdependent.

Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski