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]

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