Liberalism

[mirrorshard]

This article in the Guardian boggled me, rather. It seems that liberalism means something completely unrelated to what I thought it might have. Or is this Oaten just a right-wing lunatic who'll probably start in on car seatbelts, water fluoridation, and gun control next?

Mr Oaten also warned that some Lib Dems were failing to live up to their liberal belief in individual freedom by falling in with "nanny state" proposals to ban smoking or outlaw foxhunting.

He said: "A lot of my colleagues would support a ban on smoking, but as a liberal I'm uncomfortable with that, so I do challenge the party to be tough about its liberal values and stick to them even when it challenges something we believe in."

I don't for the life of me see how either the ban on smoking or the ban on foxhunting could be considered nanny state proposals. The latter is justified on cruelty-to-animals grounds (I'll leave aside the arguments about it, since I'm still not convinced either way) and the former is a pretty unexceptionable health and safety issue. As I understand it - and, as always, correct me if I am wrong - a "nanny state" issue is one where the state seeks to protect people from themselves.

In this case, I want the state to protect me from other people. Market forces won't do it; they have more money than I and the people like me do. Does liberalism mean that more money means more rights? Or do liberals not believe in rights?

I may be slightly irrational on this issue, since I'm strongly phobic about smoking. But it's an absolutely basic network-effects issue. Here, as my old Physics teacher would have said, is how to explain network effects to a barmaid.

A person does stuff, it has small local effects. Lots of people do stuff, it has a large effect, and not only that, but once you start scaling up, it starts acquiring knock-on effects too, because that's how complicated systems like economies work. If you don't like those effects, you have to do something about them. It's necessary for that "something" to happen at an appropriate level. Some things are best dealt with locally and specifically; some need larger, more wide-ranging solutions.

Game theory also comes into this: it's no good one area jumping the gun and banning, because then they'll be isolated and at a disadvantage. So what's needed, clearly, is a body that has national authority and consensus-finding ability, and isn't afraid to use it - furthermore, one which was specifically designed to deal with issues of this scope, and which does not have vested financial interests militating against any change in the status quo.

So, parliament. Or do liberals believe that any attempt for government to do something is bad?

Comments

[sugendran.livejournal.com]

You see the brainless sheep in the quote is in fact an American. In America they have the liberals (like labour in the UK and Australia) and the Conservatives (like the liberals in the UK and Australia).

And government is there to provide what the market can't due to market failure, which in many instances is some nice gossip in the local rags :)

[sugendran.livejournal.com]

oh wait.. i miss read the quote and the whole rant.

But the guy is still a brainless sheep.

[eddie777.livejournal.com]

Here's a problem. Politically, as I'm sure you know with no help from me, the ideology of liberalism is a very broad church indeed. Most will agree that liberty should be maximised. There is very little agreement on how best this should be done, or indeed which liberties. Mrs. Thatcher was a liberal prime minister for example; a free-market liberal. For clarity, I am in favour the ban on fox hunting because I acknowledge the right of animals to be free from unnecessary cruelty, and oppose smoking in public places. It does not surprise me at all, though, that the umbrella of liberalism includes such a man. The word, if the not the party, includes the Libertarian Alliance, after all.

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

It doesn't surprise me that such people exist in the party's ambit, but I am surprised and disappointed that he appears to view these issues solely through the libertarianesque "personal freedom" lens. I suppose it's been broadly true for a long time now that political parties are about tribalism and alliances rather than shared beliefs or even shared politics.

[eddie777.livejournal.com]

The trouble with such an article, admittedly, is that it piques our curiosity without giving us a full run-down of why he believes what he believes, though I doubt very much that I would find any of it convincing.

[vashti.livejournal.com]

The Lib Dems are currently split between real liberals and economic wankers like Oaten. If they take over, welcome to the world of the three identical party system.

[sugendran.livejournal.com]

Australia has two almost identical major parties. Only difference is that one has a quasi leader.