That the main topic of today is already there are no taxes and economic regulations, is probably obvious. The importance of topics has shifted much more to social topics - topics such as migration, housing, LGBT+ topic, education and others are gaining in importance as people get richer in society.
How to react to it classical liberalwho has always been strong on economic issues? What can be done to ensure that the classically liberal worldview can still respond to what is important?
Freedom is for everyone
The classically liberal or libertarian worldview, which has always been presented as an "idol of the boys from the University of Economics," cannot be left to economic topics alone. They are not so important today, so current. However, the classically liberal worldview has a lot to offer.
The basis of liberalism is respect for freedom and individuality. Freedom of life, freedom elections, freedom of decision, v personal autonomy. Historically, it was classical liberalism that stood in defense of the citizens against the state, slaves against slavers and thus built people's freedom over the power of "lordship". That sounds pretty social, doesn't it?
There is something to start from - the classically liberal stream of thought has something to offer, because freedom is a universally valid value, freedom is for everyone. Consistent application of the principle live and let live you can suddenly get into the position of a defender minorities, different social groups people, a fighter against racism or various phobias.
Some conservatives then confuse the topic with opinion. That there are also queer topics does not make you "Progressive neo-Marxist". Once even the most ardent conservative begins to address this, he too becomes part of the debate on the subject - and he probably wouldn't call himself a "progressive Marxist", would he?
Topics like same - sex marriages, registered partnerships, adoption of children by same - sex couples, trans-themes and others are current topics and there is nothing wrong with responding to them from liberal positions - on the contrary, it is a desirable alternative.
Freedom is for everyone. After all, it is not a problem that the given topic exists - it is a problem that someone tries to solve the problems around which the given topics revolve. violence from a position of state power. The use of state power means the artificial induction of conflict, which is, however, unnecessary. Negatively conceived freedom is the answer to the given problems - do you want marriage Please. Don't you want to marry a same-sex couple in your faith? Please. Do you want to adopt a child? If it is in his best interest according to the court, please. Do you want to change your gender? Please, who am I to talk to you about?
Who are we to judge how others should live their lives? This principle has such universally valid force that it can be used as a solution to all the problems that are now usurped in the "public debate" by regulators of all parties and colors.
Freedom as a real alternative is lacking. Being "conservative-liberal" and at the same time talking about current issues in the intentions of freedom is possible and above all important for the survival of this worldview.
In order for a worldview to gain popularity and survive in the long run, it must stick to its own principles. How do we want to defend the freedom of others when we restrict others under "specific conditions"?
For a society to be free, every single person in it must be free. If not, it is not a matter of real freedom, but only a "permission" to behave under freedom under certain conditions. It is about the same social engineering and effort to manage human lives as the different statisticians who try to regulate every part of your life.
Defending religious freedom while the secular state is classic theme of liberalism. To be a "conservative liberal" and to oppose religious freedom it is not even conservative, nor liberal - it is a betrayal of one's own opinions and principles.
- The classical liberal thus defends the right of a Muslim to his faith.
- Classical liberal rejects forced relocation of people due to "quotas" - People have freedom to move at will, not at the discretion of the official
- Classical liberal defends open borders - it is everyone's freedom to seek their happiness differently around the world
- Classical liberal rejects managed migration as social engineering
- Thus, in the current "migration crisis", for example, the classical liberal cannot fight against migration itself, but against it officials and politicians if they try to evoke and artificially manage it. He is in the concept of a liberal migrant victims, not the culprit - the migrant's right to free movement is what we defend and the will of officials in "forced relocation" is what we fight against.
- Classical liberal insists on the enforcement of law and justice.
And this is quite a significant difference from the position of many Islamophobes who defend antiliberal positions.
It may not be as pleasing as it may seem at first glance to shout "stop Islam", but to say that "people do not understand" is the same. social engineering, like any other, it is the same regulation and effort to control the lives of others - this time through their own beliefs about the stupidity of others and their exceptional intelligence.
Sorry like, I believe people are not stupid.
The second huge strength of liberal belief is individualism. I don't judge a Muslim / gay / trans person, though that one particular person who stands in advance. What is? How is he treating me? That's what I'm interested in.
Classical liberal rejects the principle of collective guilt, collective thought, collective / societal interest. Collectives are made up of individual people and they interest me - they are different.
And that gives the classical liberal the strength to defend religious freedom and the freedom of movement of Muslims, at the same time be against "migration quotas", at the same time to stand up for equal access from the point of view of the law to possible criminal offenses of all people.
Classical liberalism must be relevant - just so he survives the superiority of all the different currents of thought that want to control your lives.
PS: The text was created in response to a recent accusation that I am a "progressive neo-Marxist."