[Politics] The dangers of liberalism

[A1X]

Isn't it more "libertarianism" than "liberalism", as in the more extreme version?

 

[1066familyman]

Isn't it more "libertarianism" than "liberalism", as in the more extreme version?

Realistically, you can add...free market... In front of that too. That's actually where we're at.

 

[Nitram]

Isn’t the whole point of this type of liberalism a vehicle for conservatives (US and UK) to use to promote the freedom of the individual, then assert ascendency on those that don’t agree, thereby apportioning blame and gaining absolution from accountability?

 

[Weststander]

It frustrates me to hear on programmes like Today on Radio 4 in the morning, presenters interviewing holiday makers 'stuck' in places like Portugal and wishing them 'good luck' in getting back in time to beat the quarantine deadline. As if anyone scrambling to get back to save their own arses is realistically going to bother with self regulated isolation anyway. I very much doubt it.

Seems to me that anyone so desperate for their holiday abroad or their mental health will suffer, doesn't know they're born, as my old mum would say. And I speak as someone who knows from years of personal experience what mental ill health is all about. No, it's not the same for everyone, but it really isn't being denied holidays abroad, that's for sure.

Spot on.

When I booked those holidays (and I’m looking again now), it’s very much at my risk and my self-created hassle of seeking credits/refunds if it all goes belly up. A calculated risk as skiing means everything to us and we simply can’t do it in Sussex! [I remember your green views on flying etc, which I respect. It’s the main area where I’m far from perfect environmentally].

Yep, agree about mental health. I live with it on a daily basis with three people close to me and I have some knowledge myself. Not knowing if someone will cut their life short!

On a different scale and some, from those furious that their holiday plans are curtailed or shortened. What I call an irrational Low Frustration Tolerance.

 

[Lower West Stander]

I totally agree that everyone going abroad gets everything they deserve - it’s just asking for trouble. The desperation for beaches and sunshine is a very British thing. I live near Chichester and never consider going near the town on a sunny weekend due to half the population of London wanting to sit in a two hour traffic jam on their way to the Witterings.

But to me being a liberal is the ability to make a choice based on known facts. Whilst in no way being an anti vax this pandemic has massively changed my view of what I thought was a free press. The way this has been reported has been far too one sided in my view. The information disclosure has been highly selective - this has created an almost McCarthyite world where anyone who doesn’t agree with all aspects of lockdown have been vilified.

The press thought it was ok to send reporters into deserted cities during the dark days of lockdown to tell everyone they were deserted. They continue to quote the views of a publicity hungry scientist who got kicked off Sage because he went to a swingers party. Yet anyone who doesn’t agree with the line being pumped by the mainstream press is told it is their fault if they kill granny.

Don’t get me wrong - I’ve followed the rules to the best of my ability. But as a liberal, I do not believe we have been living in a liberal society for the last 15 months.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Weststander]

I totally agree that everyone going abroad gets everything they deserve - it’s just asking for trouble. The desperation for beaches and sunshine is a very British thing. I live near Chichester and never consider going near the town on a sunny weekend due to half the population of London wanting to sit in a two hour traffic jam on their way to the Witterings.

But to me being a liberal is the ability to make a choice based on known facts. Whilst in no way being an anti vax this pandemic has massively changed my view of what I thought was a free press. The way this has been reported has been far too one sided in my view. The information disclosure has been highly selective - this has created an almost McCarthyite world where anyone who doesn’t agree with all aspects of lockdown have been vilified.

The press thought it was ok to send reporters into deserted cities during the dark days of lockdown to tell everyone they were deserted. They continue to quote the views of a publicity hungry scientist who got kicked off Sage because he went to a swingers party. Yet anyone who doesn’t agree with the line being pumped by the mainstream press is told it is their fault if they kill granny.

Don’t get me wrong - I’ve followed the rules to the best of my ability. But as a liberal, I do not believe we have been living in a liberal society for the last 15 months.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

..... and German & Swedish. We have Swedish friends.

All obsessed with The Med, Canaries or Maldives.

 

[Wardy's twin]

our society is based on a structure which expects people to generally conform to the rules it sets because the existence of that society is better the alternative i.e. an anarchic existence where according to HOBBES life is nasty, brutish and short. This was evolved as the 'common wealth ' of nations ( really meaning the common good) by later political philosophers. In this model individualism is ok as long as it does not conflict with or damage the interests of the common good. So with regards lockdown , the jab, wearing masks and closing borders allowing individual choice should not come into it, implementing all 4 rigidly and properly have a positive impact on all people within that society.

So vaccination should be compulsory unless there is some underlying issue which put person at risk.

People saying I 'need' to get away on a holiday really don't understand the word need , the borders should remain generally closed (need to allow some trade) . The problem is there is a generation (or 2) which does not understand the reason we have a society and increased wealth (for a big group) has driven people to think about themselves (and how they spend that wealth) more than the common good.

COVID has killed more people in this country than the germans did in any year of WW2 yet we have treated the situation much, much more lightly.

What people forget when they start talking about 'i know my rights' is that it is a structured society that has given them those rights and if that society fails those rights disappear completely.

 

[GT49er]

our society is based on a structure which expects people to generally conform to the rules it sets because the existence of that society is better the alternative i.e. an anarchic existence where according to HOBBES life is nasty, brutish and short. This was evolved as the 'common wealth ' of nations ( really meaning the common good) by later political philosophers. In this model individualism is ok as long as it does not conflict with or damage the interests of the common good. So with regards lockdown , the jab, wearing masks and closing borders allowing individual choice should not come into it, implementing all 4 rigidly and properly have a positive impact on all people within that society.

So vaccination should be compulsory unless there is some underlying issue which put person at risk.

People saying I 'need' to get away on a holiday really don't understand the word need , the borders should remain generally closed (need to allow some trade) . The problem is there is a generation (or 2) which does not understand the reason we have a society and increased wealth (for a big group) has driven people to think about themselves (and how they spend that wealth) more than the common good.

COVID has killed more people in this country than the germans did in any year of WW2 yet we have treated the situation much, much more lightly.
Trouble is we've reached a point now - Lord knows how we got there - where parts of the population perceive it as a violation of their human rights if they can't go abroad on holiday at least once a year ......... how are they supposed to live and function under any restrictions. Second trouble is that the arch liberal Boris has the sme view, hence the failure under li
What people forget when they start talking about 'i know my rights' is that it is a structured society that has given them those rights and if that society fails those rights disappear completely.

Trouble is - and Lord knows how we got into this mess - that some parts of our society now perceive it as almost a violation of their human rights if they can't have at least one holiday abroad a year. Second trouble is the arch liberal Boris thinks the same, hence hardly any of the Covid measures were made really effectively 100% compulsory - yes, the odd fine here and there, but the police weren't interested in enforcement, and they certainly came under no pressure from the government to do so.

 

[father_and_son]

Imagine having a political doctrine that individual freedom is the lynchpin with which to test any policy?

Let's imagine there is a pandemic, and there is a vaccine that appears to offer an individual a vanishingly small risk of catching the virus or passing it on. Imagine having the ability to issue an individual a vaccine passport that would allow them to travel.

If you are a liberal, this will never work. The passport would mean an individual is having to prove they have been vaccinated. What if they don't want to be vaccinated? The passport scheme would disadvantage those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to reveal to all and sundry whether they have been vaccinated. So a vaccination passport scheme is out of the question.

If you are a liberal, also, if you wish, as an individual, to make a personal choice about whether to wear a mask, or to travel hither and thither, and indeed decide how many people to mix with, this should all be personal choice. A liberal would never agree to telling people they must wear a mask, or that they must not see their friends. Yes, yes, give strong advice, but none of this should be law. We should not and never force people to wear masks and stay at home.

Of course, eventually, if you are a liberal, when you have any number of chief medical officers and the like shouting at you, you may agree to last ditch measures. Hands, face, space! No large classroom teaching at our nation's universities. But your instinct is to wait till the last minute before jumping.

Any of this sound familiar?

Our vaccination programme is amazing. But numbers of cases is going up. HMG will dountless react to this. Recently people who were booked to travel to Portugal suddenly had the green regime changed to yellow (I have not looked up what this means because I have no interest in travelling abroad, but I'm guessing this may mean quarantining when you get home).

Any idea what will be happeining to football next season? Some fans? How many? Which?

The sight of a liberal pursuing a liberal agenda and then having to apply last ditch fixes, time and time again, is a sad sight indeed.

And.....exhale.

Honest question.... Is it not the "liberals" arguing for comprehensive vaccination and the "conservatives" arguing for personal choice in the US.
Is liberalism not arguing for duty over rights and conservativism arguing for the opposite?

 

[Live by the sea]

Liberalism taken to the degree it has in today’s world is potentially dangerous . You only have to also look at the so called woke culture and cancel me culture . All nonsense that few sensible people would entertain but the kids think it’s cool !

There has to be law and order and liberalism does not make allowances for that .

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Honest question.... Is it not the "liberals" arguing for comprehensive vaccination and the "conservatives" arguing for personal choice in the US.
Is liberalism not arguing for duty over rights and conservativism arguing for the opposite?

I think you are conflating liberal philosophy with the Liberal Party. Liberalism is all about small Government and individual rights. When applied purely to social issues it can be a powerful force for progress as its ‘live and let live’ principles encourage tolerance towards minorities and anybody who self proclaims as different. Another part of the philosophy though is the freedom to do as you please if it suits your individuality and regardless of the effects on society. The point being made by the OP is that this approach does not work when society itself is in danger.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Honest question.... Is it not the "liberals" arguing for comprehensive vaccination and the "conservatives" arguing for personal choice in the US.
Is liberalism not arguing for duty over rights and conservativism arguing for the opposite?

Yes, that's right. I think the words mean different things in the US. I'll read about it later but I'm now whooping that the news that Ben White is in the England squad!!!!!

 

[Randy McNob]

I think you are conflating liberal philosophy with the Liberal Party. Liberalism is all about small Government and individual rights. When applied purely to social issues it can be a powerful force for progress as its ‘live and let live’ principles encourage tolerance towards minorities and anybody who self proclaims as different. Another part of the philosophy though is the freedom to do as you please if it suits your individuality and regardless of the effects on society. The point being made by the OP is that this approach does not work when society itself is in danger.

small government means neo-liberalism, less regulation and more of our country assets and interests in the hands of the private sector, but is sold to people as personal freedom, less state control and lower tax. A bigger state and higher tax regime means people have more of a stake and control in their country and a fairer society

If you can't afford to buy a house, can barely afford rents, pay huge utlities / energy bills, pay the highest train fares in Europe and basically just work to make ends meet, where's your freedom? People just become slaves to the capitalist machine which only works for the wealthy few at the top

 

[boik]

As someone who loves the peace and quiet of campervanning in remote beauty spots I can't wait for people to be able to go and bake in the sun again. So many beautiful places in the UK are getting trashed by people being "forced" to have a "staycation" and they seem to have no idea how to behave in these places. I hope they are soon free to go and do their stuff in Paddys Bar in the Costas again.

 

[beorhthelm]

small government means neo-liberalism, less regulation and more of our country assets and interests in the hands of the private sector, but is sold to people as personal freedom, less state control and lower tax. A bigger state and higher tax regime means people have more of a stake and control in their country and a fairer society

If you can't afford to buy a house, can barely afford rents, pay huge utlities / energy bills, pay the highest train fares in Europe and basically just work to make ends meet, where's your freedom? People just become slaves to the capitalist machine which only works for the wealthy few at the top

error. small government means enough to meet the needs of the public, sufficient regulation to guide people and organisations and curb excesses. look for a solution to a problem, dont default to look to government for a solution.

meanwhile high housing and utilities costs are directly related to high regulations - we tightly restrict building and tax energy and water to reduce their use!

bigger state rarely fixes any issue, just means more political interference and attempts to control, which when they fail lead to calls for more government and control.

 

[The Clamp]

Imagine having a political doctrine that individual freedom is the lynchpin with which to test any policy?

Let's imagine there is a pandemic, and there is a vaccine that appears to offer an individual a vanishingly small risk of catching the virus or passing it on. Imagine having the ability to issue an individual a vaccine passport that would allow them to travel.

If you are a liberal, this will never work. The passport would mean an individual is having to prove they have been vaccinated. What if they don't want to be vaccinated? The passport scheme would disadvantage those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to reveal to all and sundry whether they have been vaccinated. So a vaccination passport scheme is out of the question.

If you are a liberal, also, if you wish, as an individual, to make a personal choice about whether to wear a mask, or to travel hither and thither, and indeed decide how many people to mix with, this should all be personal choice. A liberal would never agree to telling people they must wear a mask, or that they must not see their friends. Yes, yes, give strong advice, but none of this should be law. We should not and never force people to wear masks and stay at home.

Of course, eventually, if you are a liberal, when you have any number of chief medical officers and the like shouting at you, you may agree to last ditch measures. Hands, face, space! No large classroom teaching at our nation's universities. But your instinct is to wait till the last minute before jumping.

Any of this sound familiar?

Our vaccination programme is amazing. But numbers of cases is going up. HMG will dountless react to this. Recently people who were booked to travel to Portugal suddenly had the green regime changed to yellow (I have not looked up what this means because I have no interest in travelling abroad, but I'm guessing this may mean quarantining when you get home).

Any idea what will be happeining to football next season? Some fans? How many? Which?

The sight of a liberal pursuing a liberal agenda and then having to apply last ditch fixes, time and time again, is a sad sight indeed.

And.....exhale.

The problem with neo-liberals is that they wish to do as they please but distance themselves from any consequence of this. Adult-babies, basically.

 

[Wardy's twin]

error. small government means enough to meet the needs of the public, sufficient regulation to guide people and organisations and curb excesses.

meanwhile high housing and utilities costs are directly related to high regulations - we tightly restrict building and tax energy and water to reduce their use!

bigger state rarely fixes any issue, just means more political interference and attempts to control, which when they fail lead to calls for more government and control.

small /big government are very modern terms invented to confuse the argument and is divisive. A more simplistic approach is just to evaluate whether 'something ' benefits or threatens the quality of life for the majority of society but which does not split society into have's and have nots i.e. individuals can develop wealth but not to the extent that it creates poverty. In this particular debate case COVID is a clear threat to people in that society it needs to be treated as such.

Regards the two examples you give , controls on building houses should improve the quality and stops developments on green sites what isn't done well enough is to enforce control , there are thousands of empty properties and offices in Brighton which should be forcibly re-used. Regards utilities , some of the the increased water costs are to improve on practices like dumping sh8t close to beaches. The bigger issue is that these utilities have been privatised.

Looking after and improving society should not mean bureaucracy.

 

[Randy McNob]

error. small government means enough to meet the needs of the public, sufficient regulation to guide people and organisations and curb excesses.

meanwhile high housing and utilities costs are directly related to high regulations - we tightly restrict building and tax energy and water to reduce their use!

bigger state rarely fixes any issue, just means more political interference and attempts to control, which when they fail lead to calls for more government and control.

yes, small government isn't working given the examples I gave. It's simply handing our wealth and power to private sector. I'd like to see a bigger state, higher tax regime and money INVESTED in the country, massive house building program, renationalisation of the railways. That's REAL taking back control

 

[zefarelly]

If you can't afford to buy a house, can barely afford rents, pay huge utlities / energy bills, pay the highest train fares in Europe and basically just work to make ends meet, where's your freedom? People just become slaves to the capitalist machine which only works for the wealthy few at the top

It's been working well the last 40 years. A lot of people seem to like being downtrodden and JaM . . . as long as they get their annual treat in a trip to Greece/Spain/Portugal and get pissed and sunburned for a few weeks in the summer. Its the English way.

 

[beorhthelm]

Looking after and improving society should not mean bureaucracy.

agree, which should tend towards smaller government. example of water is useful as we've got better water at some cost. that cost came from regulation, which generally the public want and come through in higher bills as a consequence. the subject of privatisation is emotive because people dont like the form of privatisation, personally i'd prefer not for profits running utilities, the couple of % profits reinvested. i dont want government running it, with a raft of civil servants poking around and a minister in charge who knows sfa about running a utility.