[Politics] The dangers of liberalism

[disgruntled h blocker]

I think the term "liberal" is used quite liberally now (sorry for the pun!) for whenever someone wants to band together everything which does not fit in with the Tory Government or whatever Trump threw up between 2017 and 2021. To me it's seen as a pure defence mechanism, a "them against us" mentality to say that anything other than what is being pushed is "liberal" and bad. But there are liberals across the political spectrum, from free-market liberals, to neo-liberals, libertarians and also centre-thinking parties with the name "liberals" in their title.

Trump tried this during his election, banding everyone against his dogma as liberal...and failed.

But for me, we live in a post-modernist society where there is an incredulity in grand narratives. Thank you Lyotard.

 

[peterward]

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.

Live and let live and freedom of choice are important, but we live in a centralised country that comes under the rule of law. We may all complain about that, but its better than many basket case countries where the law means nothing and backhanders suffice.

So whatever your personal views, you are not above the law.

and we are in the middle of the biggest public health crisis any of us have seen in our lifetime, that doesnt give you the right to do as you please using liberalism and freedom of choice as your excuse. Yes, no government (outside places like China) can forcibly make you take a vaccine that will protect you and others, but that doesnt give you carte blanche to choose your own rules.

People of our age remember well the early years of HIV when many of us old gits were once young too, if someone was unfortunate enough to catch that, that doesnt give them the right to have sex unprotected and infect others.... they also may choose to take no drugs, but their individual decisions cannot be treated with parity, nor do they have any rights to excercise their personal dispensations if it anyway endangers others or contravenes a public health policy.

All Tory, Green, Labour, Lib Dem bitchfestery aside...... I do believe that most politicians would broadly agree on most points and all would be in the main guided by health officials and scientists. This pandemic has destroyed lives, killed over 100K and decimated employment - its been devastating. any government has to act responsibly to reduce transmission in every way possible, to prevent death in every way possible and (the biggie) to re open the economy in every way possible. Thats a difficult balancing act, and you are either a part of the solution or a part of problem.

Why should a vaccinated older couple be prevented from living to the fullest degree because someone else wants to exercise their right not to be vaccinated and thinks its unfair to discriminate against them with thing like vaccine passports.

Tough titties I say, this is like a wartime effort right now, where each of us has to also act for the greater good and not only excercise our views but also act to make sure we are not going to be inadvertently endangering others. The economy is trashed, business need to open, and if that means allowing those who followed public health advice can do so and those that dont want to cant. Thats just too bad.

The tail cant be wagging the dog. Freedom of choice is great but in such times like these, we all need to look beyond ourselves. If you cant, then live with the consequences.

 

[Randy McNob]

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.

You probably think that nationalised means an archaic British Leyland style run organisation, like when the subject of renationisation of railways comes up people think of the bad old days of British Rail. If most other countries in Europe manage it OK why can't we?

 

[beorhthelm]

You probably think that nationalised means an archaic British Leyland style run organisation, like when the subject of renationisation of railways comes up people think of the bad old days of British Rail. If most other countries in Europe manage it OK why can't we?

agree, any yet you didnt give an example of a good British nationalised business. im sure state owned business could be done, need to move beyond the idea the government runs them.

 

[father_and_son]

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.

Wholeheartedly agree with OP - sometimes "Duty of a Citizen" does and should outweigh "Rights of a Citizen" and if you want the latter you HAVE to be mindful of the former.

You have the "right", as a citizen, to not be vaccinated. HOWEVER, choosing to exercise this right means the the rest of society has the "right" to exclude you from indoor venues, air travel, public transport, etc because you have chosen to ignore your "duty" to public health.

I am accommodating of both of these rights, but I don't believe that "liberal" necessarily equates to one and not the other, and certainly in the arguments in the US, Liberal definitely means both are important and Conservative means only the former is important. I'd class "liberal" as used by OP to be "libertarian" which does focus only on individual rights and not duties.

semantics, schmantics!

 

[The Clamp]

Wholeheartedly agree with OP - sometimes "Duty of a Citizen" does and should outweigh "Rights of a Citizen" and if you want the latter you HAVE to be mindful of the former.

You have the "right", as a citizen, to not be vaccinated. HOWEVER, choosing to exercise this right means the the rest of society has the "right" to exclude you from indoor venues, air travel, public transport, etc because you have chosen to ignore your "duty" to public health.

I am accommodating of both of these rights, but I don't believe that "liberal" necessarily equates to one and not the other, and certainly in the arguments in the US, Liberal definitely means both are important and Conservative means only the former is important. I'd class "liberal" as used by OP to be "libertarian" which does focus only on individual rights and not duties.

semantics, schmantics!

Yep.

 

[father_and_son]

Live and let live and freedom of choice are important, but we live in a centralised country that comes under the rule of law. We may all complain about that, but its better than many basket case countries where the law means nothing and backhanders suffice.

So whatever your personal views, you are not above the law.

and we are in the middle of the biggest public health crisis any of us have seen in our lifetime, that doesnt give you the right to do as you please using liberalism and freedom of choice as your excuse. Yes, no government (outside places like China) can forcibly make you take a vaccine that will protect you and others, but that doesnt give you carte blanche to choose your own rules.

People of our age remember well the early years of HIV when many of us old gits were once young too, if someone was unfortunate enough to catch that, that doesnt give them the right to have sex unprotected and infect others.... they also may choose to take no drugs, but their individual decisions cannot be treated with parity, nor do they have any rights to excercise their personal dispensations if it anyway endangers others or contravenes a public health policy.

All Tory, Green, Labour, Lib Dem bitchfestery aside...... I do believe that most politicians would broadly agree on most points and all would be in the main guided by health officials and scientists. This pandemic has destroyed lives, killed over 100K and decimated employment - its been devastating. any government has to act responsibly to reduce transmission in every way possible, to prevent death in every way possible and (the biggie) to re open the economy in every way possible. Thats a difficult balancing act, and you are either a part of the solution or a part of problem.

Why should a vaccinated older couple be prevented from living to the fullest degree because someone else wants to exercise their right not to be vaccinated and thinks its unfair to discriminate against them with thing like vaccine passports.

Tough titties I say, this is like a wartime effort right now, where each of us has to also act for the greater good and not only excercise our views but also act to make sure we are not going to be inadvertently endangering others. The economy is trashed, business need to open, and if that means allowing those who followed public health advice can do so and those that dont want to cant. Thats just too bad.

The tail cant be wagging the dog. Freedom of choice is great but in such times like these, we all need to look beyond ourselves. If you cant, then live with the consequences.

Just to play devil's advocate (because I actually agree) but...

What stops government from over-stretching in these circumstances? It's not like we don't have a HUGE list of examples of "government by fear" from this and virtually every previous government/parliament. Is it not also the duty of citizens (and the media and other non-government organisations) to show some skepticism and shine a light on when a government goes beyond what is reasonable to protect citizens into the realm of supressing (or even oppressing) the general populous because this makes them compliant and easier to govern?! The citizens have only limited options to remove a government over-stretching its authority for its own purposes - elections are set and called by the Politicians themselves. Civil disobedience is one effective method of dissent and denial to a "government by fear".

 

[RexCathedra]

What stops government from over-stretching in these circumstances?

A government accountable to Parliament, and a Parliament accountable to the people.

Unfortunately, 0-2 at half-time...

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think a huge chunk of the electorate never, ever think about what is good for society or mankind and simply focus on themselves and their family. Having a bloke like Boris who is a big an advocate for personal freedom as you can get just makes it easy for them to vote without thinking.

England just a collection of individuals who are loosely connected together by tea, the weather, the Queen and the odd run at a football tournament..