Poland is simply a mediocre country. That's what they said, that's what they said, and no 1 denied it for a long time. Kind of like a phraseological relationship, the separation of which cannot fit in the head – we are poor, chasing the mythical West. 1 day we'll catch up to him, but not yet, not in our lifetime. How much can you do? The fact is that poorness is not missing in Poland – but it is not missing in Germany, France or especially the USA. The scale of homelessness that can be seen on the streets there, we did not have in Poland even in the heaviest years of transformation. Only utmost cases of poorness and prosperity happen in absolutely all country in the world. Even though the present state of affairs is far from our ambition, we are objectively not a mediocre country – we occupy a place possibly at the bottom of the table, but this is simply a table of 30-40 richest countries in the world, to which the remainder can only look with envy.
The evidence of the change in our country's position is besides the appearance of a political organization like the organization Together – the far left, which is in fact a communist organization alternatively than a social democratic party. In fact, the distribution of parties to the political dispute – post-PRP and post-solidarity – had small to do with the realistically proclaimed demands. All governments since 1989 with different deviations, but professed a free marketplace model of economy and society. Coming out of actual poorness and achieving a decent level of improvement led to a theoretically absurd thing – a contesting the legitimacy of the economical model that allowed this poorness to emerge. What is even more ridiculous – to protest it by the model that led to this earlier poverty. Although the economical losses of 2 planet wars cannot be overlooked, we were not the only country to endure specified losses. However, alternatively of doing these losses, we gave ourselves 60 years of socialism – first sanitation, then Bolshevik. In fresh years besides written. The question is, “What went wrong?” If everything seems to be going in the right direction, why do societies choose populism? Not a few, but a fewer twelve percent of the population can be seduced by the message of simple solutions to all problems. Moreover, these successes of populists not only in times of economical crises but besides in general prosperity. It seems worth asking ourselves what the liberal economy is, what we as liberals are at all different from the remainder of the political scene. At the end it is an election run – lasting respective weeks – but respective years of government with circumstantial actions creates social sentiments and a sense of satisfaction or discontent. The last 3 decades across Europe have unfortunately been a regression of liberalism – social and economic. Liberals, although they proclaim the slogans of reason, erstwhile they have taken power, frequently do the same as their predecessors. alternatively of reducing the full amount of regulation, prohibitions, deregulation of the market, lowering employment in government administration or fighting economical interventionism, they do precisely the opposite. alternatively of focusing on improving Europe's competitiveness and innovation, we get nuts attached to bottles or ideas of standard mustard jars. Although this is hard to believe, it was truly 1 of the Polish MEPs who promoted the thought that a single food jar covered by the bailout strategy should function throughout Europe. Among the frequently needed projects we lose the foundation of liberal identity – live and let others live. The state should not interfere more with citizens' lives than is necessary, and it should surely not tell people how they live. The cited nuts are a superb example of how making life miserable (even for the right purpose) combined with the deficiency of adequate social communication antagonizes society. erstwhile liberals take over, the previously criticized evil and harmful regulations are corrected – they are not removed, although they should completely disappear.
The question is how to adjust, not why to adjust anything at all. However, this question is not a zero-one choice between totalitarianism and complete anarchy, as any would like to present it. What is most amusing, these 2 utmost worlds combine with their inverse, depending on whether it's about morals or the economy. The increasingly fraternizing liberals with the left lose their voice of reason in this progressive radicalism, which they should naturally become. The planet does not gotta become either an anarchy of spiritual fanatics or a large commune with basic income alternatively of individual careers. Free marketplace societies and the economy are a strategy of maximum values limited by common sense. States that make supervision, but besides an impulse to improve what the marketplace itself does not regulate, but at the same time to take these actions with awareness of the functioning of marketplace mechanisms alternatively than trivial slogans about bad everyone who temporarily benefits from marketplace failures. As the communists erstwhile pursued speculators, so present their successors fight with developers, rental housing investors, energy companies, automotive companies and the remainder of humanity's obstacles to happiness. Besides, the full planet is expected to be a conspiracy, and we're ruled by respective families with names unknown to anyone.
However, the automatic mocking of these most frequently absurd demands does not origin real problems to cease to exist, and if problems exist, the economy – including the liberal 1 – should find a solution to them. While ideas specified as guaranteed income can only be laughed at, it is offensive to bring all supporters of this communicative to the serial Ferdinand Bad, and it is besides for your own intelligence. Waiting for honest workers to gain a decent surviving is normal. The fact that the average man will be able to lead average life for the level of improvement of a given country, and that existing inequalities will not be extreme. Recognizing the burning social needs is an chance to prevent what drives populism – a sense of collective injustice. While during the transition it was possible to explain the essential sacrifices to the society, it is so hard to realize much of it why the country is rich and they benefit nothing, although they work honestly. Hitting these chords, the election won the PiS in Poland and behind the Trump ocean. On a different definition, but besides a sense of injustice, their successes are built by French or Italian nationalists and the utmost left. Liberals, alongside the most legitimate criticism of the left-wing folly, must come up with a proposal and explain why their thought is better. Although explaining to the public that they will solve not only a temporary effect, but the full problem, starting with its causes. due to the fact that this is actually the biggest advantage of liberals, which leads the economy to success – liberals solve the problem at source, without disrupting the free marketplace with its most crucial mechanisms. They remove its handicaps without creating artificial regulation, which most frequently solve 1 problem, make respective fresh areas.
Liberalism is besides the most democratic social strategy – democracy is not the same as democracy – the blind tyranny of the majority that we see, even in Scandinavian countries. Democracy is specified a common area that, on the 1 hand, we can jointly manage what is common and, on the another hand, that as much of life as possible remains at the individual disposal of each of us. It's besides a transparent system, where, in creating rules, it clearly explains what they are and why they are needed. Transparency of the rules is safeguarded by the regulation of law, where the work for breaking the law is borne not only by citizens but besides by state institutions. It is only then that individual rules can be firmly respected and severely pursued. Poland is simply a disgraceful example in this matter, and unfortunately this is not casus only the last 8 years. Although we had a real lawlessness festival during this period in the execution of various state institutions, this tradition is much older, and erstwhile we talk about civilian rights, it can be devastating to disrespect them, and this is rooted in our social mentality. The police's overstepping power is always on the agenda, the D.A.'s office has ordered detention only to press charges and release home, the courts are slapping in custody like they haven't even reviewed the file. In fact, traffic is not police, but a taxation collector, we have successfully forgotten what the city guards utilized to do with photo-radars. president Komorowski accepted the signing of laws as a regulation and only subsequent directing to the TK, alternatively of doing what he considered remuneration for among others – protecting the legal strategy from entering into force for even 1 day of laws he had doubts about. erstwhile a citizen falls in his pocket with a twist for his own use, the full state device is activated to punish him. For what? For trying to hurt himself at worst? erstwhile it is apparent to all that the Law and Justice's violations of electoral laws and the usage of all available state institutions in the electoral run for their own benefit, which is designed to defender the election of the Polish National Court of Justice, there is an argument in which paragraph the comma stands, without the courage to make a fair and legal decision. By demanding harsh penalties for road pirates, we ignore the origin of specified widespread velocity overruns – 20-30 km and reflection on the adequacy of existing restrictions. Are all drivers crazy, or is the regulation besides much? This is besides a question of transparency and fairness of the state towards citizens, which is forgotten by liberals, who, a fewer years ago, were beating the alarm on the threat of the regulation of law. All judicial independency and another instruments intended to give the applicable authorities the comfort of work do not service to make the employees of these institutions comfortable, just so that they can work as well as make fair decisions as they please.
This political and legal culture is missing from us, and at least any people voting for populists make a rational choice. The existence of utmost parties – like the organization Together – is an expression of the economical request of that part of society that feels hurt. Although 1 can look at these demands through the prism of greed, the desire to live at the expense of others or even to turn their heads, the existence of these economical expectations is simply a reality in all developed countries of the world. The question to liberals is how to respond to this social phenomenon, due to the fact that it is not actual that a twelve percent of society expects a prosperous life for the very fact of stepping on the surface of the earth. These people, of course, exist, but they are a marginal group and only receive their organization groups Together, she wouldn't cross the electoral threshold. Meanwhile, we see reasoning – if liberals do not warrant me the regulation of law and freedom anyway, what am I losing? I'll vote for those who at least give me the money. By choosing a kind of murderous act, they pay with our freedoms, which they themselves do not benefit from. The liberal model of the state and economy guarantees everyone the maximum possible freedom and prosperity. Freedom is not easy – it requires responsibility. Therefore, in order to convince people, he must show everyone the benefits of it – not utopian, high-flying – those that he will benefit from and lose if the strategy changes. This has been lacking in the transmission of liberals so dangerously approaching the left.
