What is liberalism?
That’s a difficult question which provokes much debate, but there are some things it is not.
It is not defined by what the Liberal Party or its successors do. True, the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats pursued many liberal aims, but to define liberalism with reference to one party is absurd. It would also mean that the Australian Liberal Party and Howard are liberal, something I think most would disagree with.
Something being proposed by a member of the Liberal Party certainly does not make it liberal - there have been many members of the Liberals and LibDems who have not been liberal, sometimes in positions of power.
It is also not using force to make people behave how you want. It is not banning things on environmental grounds (making polluters pay for the damage would be however). It is not removing choice and freedom. It is not enforcing monopoly. It most certainly is not forcing people to behave in a certain way because its for their own good.
Liberal aims can also be pursued by illiberal means. Something which seems to upset people. The aims do not make the means liberal, no matter how liberal the aims.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Typo in the headline! Edit, edit, edit.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Urgh… That’s what comes of writing a post when you’re in a bad mood…
March 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“It would also mean that the Australian Liberal Party and Howard are liberal, something I think most would disagree with.”
Well, there are some liberals in the Australian Liberal Party, after all it is a successor of a party which was found as the result of the fusion of the liberal Free Trade Party and the conservative Protectionist Party in 1909. But true, simply naming a party “Liberal” doesn’t make it liberal, as prove for instance the Liberal Democratic Parties of Russia and Japan.
One mistake commonly made by the Lib Dems seems to be to think that anything that comes from EU is liberal. There are many socialists and conservatives in high positions in the EU, and each decision that EU makes should be measured by whether it increases liberty or not. They all don’t, though I accept that a common market is a good thing from a liberal perspective, and therefore think EU as a whole is a good thing.
Liberalism means, that everybody should be free to make his or her own decisions, as long as he or she by doing so doesn’t limit the freedom of others to make their own decisions. from a liberal point of view it is acceptable for the state to interfere only, if somebody tries to limit the freedom of others.
Or, like John Stuart Mill put it: “The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right… The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
Though many Lib Dems swear on the name of Mill, they rarely seem to follow his most central principle.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
Surely the harm principle can justify banning some things on environmental grounds?
[Of course the harm principle doesn't demand a ban for every bit of harm found - it is supposed to be a limitation on the use of power not a justification for it.]
But anyway I’m not sure it matters that much what words like liberalism mean. Argue for the principles you think are right, and let the meanings of words that might describe those principles look after themselves.
Be suspicious of anyone using an argument that looks like “word X means Y therefore you should support Z”. They are trying to bait and switch.