The question of the state of liberalism in the 3rd decade of the 21st century is by no means a question that is unreasonable or even pointless. The question about the state of liberalism in the 3rd decade of the 21st century, is actually about the state of society, state and economy, due to the fact that it is in them that is immersed man – an individual who for liberals of all currents remains the center of the ideological universe. The question of the state of liberalism in the 3rd decade of the 21st century is so a question of the state of individual freedom and rights and the quality of its instruments of protection guaranteed.
Unit safety history
The past of liberalism is simply a communicative of developing mechanisms and legal instruments to defend individual freedoms and rights, while at the same time it is simply a communicative of man's liberation from the shackles of the system, the integral component of which has so far been all man. This does not mean that before John signed the large Charter of Freedom (Magna Kharta Libertatum) in 1215, there were no ones who called for an extension of individual freedom at the expense of the omnipotence of monarchial power. This moment, however, has become a symbolic step in the pursuit of environments which in the 17th and 18th centuries will form the ideological foundations of alleged classical liberalism. As you can see, the conflict for individual freedom and autonomy has been taking place in Europe since the 13th century, and although it took a somewhat different form at different times, and on its front were somewhat different social groups, liberalism inactive has the same central task. The conflict for freedom and autonomy of the individual inactive continues, although each time – after subsequent battles of this war – 1 can get the impression that it is yet over. However, this impression lasts comparatively short and faster than expected, the Liberals begin another fight.
Although 1 may have the impression that the sphere of individual freedom – especially in the alleged Western planet – is constantly expanding, 1 should always be aware that the environment in which it functions is inactive changing. This environment can have a devastating effect on freedom, though it can be undetected. The past of modern Europe and human civilization clearly shows that man's conquests and achievements are not eternal and unwavering. Only the naive will believe that freedom will be given to us erstwhile and for all. Just as the natural condition for a pre-modern man was the enslavement he experienced in the household and local community, so for people in another ages it could be a systematic fresh form of enslavement. Erich Fromm in his own Escape From Freedom He writes that in the pre-modern era, “parents or any another authority are not treated as fundamentally separate beings, they are part of the child's world, and this planet is inactive part of the child; therefore, submission to them is qualitatively different from the submission that occurs erstwhile 2 individuals are actually separated” [1]. It should so be remembered that the enslavement of an individual, if carried out in a systematic and seemingly imperceptible manner, is inactive a immense threat to man's freedom and autonomy, and it is not excluded that in time specified a form of enslavement will have the position of natural state in human consciousness.
All forms of enslavement initially appeared as something natural, as an apparent and undisputable state, as something that is not reasonable to question, for "it has always been so!" Conservative or traditionalist environments have always convinced liberals or revolutionaries that since any phenomena or processes have been taking place for many generations and centuries and since they have grown into the conventional dimension of the functioning of human communities, man should accept that this is the case. At the same time, he should believe that this is clearly how nature is constructed, and that its order must not be undermined. Alexis de Tocqueville at work Old Governments and the Revolution It clearly shows how revolutionary movements in the 18th century began their conflict by undermining the function of church and religion in social and organization life, though besides religion, and the church were at that time the creations—as many believed—which were fundamental elements of natural order. De Tocqueville understands that “it is simply a mistake to presume that democratic societies are inherently hostile to religion. There is nothing in Christendom or even Catholicism that is absolutely hostile to democracy, but there is much that favors it. And the experience of all times proves that spiritual instinct is deep in the heart of the people" [2]. simply the origin of 1 of the first European thinkers' limitations of human freedom was the institutionalized church and religion, so that's where the intellectual crusade for liberation began.
Crusades for Human Freedom
But the crusade for spiritual freedom was just 1 of the many wars that the human freedom fighters fought in the European universe. The next installments of the fight against tyrants and tyrannys of the various ointments were actually held constantly and the very triumph of liberal values or democratic systemic solutions did not end the continuous war in defence of individual freedom and autonomy. The planet in which we live is highly complicated and the tyrants do not always uncover themselves straight with their antifreedom tendencies. John Stuart Mill in an essay Freedom recalls the case of Socrates: “We have all reason to believe that the tribunal has reasonably found him guilty and sentenced him to death as a criminal of a man who most likely deserved humanity more than any of its contemporaries” [3]. Just as we are not always able to see the wisdom and timelessness of certain ideas, so we are not always able to see the dangers to freedom where they actually exist. In different epochs these threats can gain a different face and dimension, while our perception is frequently limited only to our historical experiences. Freedom defenders must always bear in head that those who endanger freedom are always among us, and in all age they will search fresh tools to tame our freedom.
Importantly, threats to freedom can besides flow from centres that have so far earned care and defence of freedom. The volatility of the surrounding reality must make the actual defenders of freedom stay able to be more vigilant and willing that their conflict at any time may take a tangible, physical and real form. The attack on freedom may take place where we would not have expected it. John Locke, who in Two treaties on government notes that “it should not be assumed that it is the public's will that government should have the power to destruct what everyone intends to defend by joining society and for the protection of which the people admit their submission to the legislators whom they themselves appoint. So erstwhile these legislators effort to destruct the property of the people, to deprive them of it or to turn it into slaves subject to arbitrary authority, they themselves enter a state of war with it.” [4] Thus, it should be remembered that erstwhile defenders of freedom can yet become enemies of freedom, and those who liberated may yet become slave traders. Therefore, in the interests of individual freedom and autonomy, we must not halt reading old stories or ideas from the past. The scenery of the conflict for freedom is constantly updated, and those who yet prove to be its allies may sometimes surprise us with their choices.
The full past of modern Europe – and for a minute America besides – is simply a crusade for human freedom. Liberalism – as it turns out – even in times of peace and peace, is simply a liberalism possibly fighting. erstwhile freedom triumphs, liberals enjoy it, they cost it, they share it with others, but it is in the era of triumph that they must hold peculiar sensitivity to the striking abrupt and deceitful threat. John Rawls in Justice explanation He observed that “what truly causes people is different interests, the desire for power, prestige, wealth, and so on. Although they can creatively produce moral arguments to support their claims, their opinions change with situations and do not consist of a coherent concept of justice. At any given time their views are alternatively occasional creations, calculated to support certain interests’ [5]. The origin of the dangers of freedom will so always be, first and foremost, human individual pursuits and desires, desires and interests of all those who consider that they can be achieved in a simpler way by limiting someone's freedom or even by limiting the freedom of many. Paradoxically, it is simply a free man that usually causes a fresh crusade against freedom – it is simply a free man who usually assumes the function of an enemy of freedom.
Troubled Paths to Happiness
The point is not to respect all man as a possible enemy of freedom (although de facto This may be the case). Nor is it that in his human wandering the liberal seeks only his more or little real enemies. The defender of freedom must, however, be aware that anthropological optimism is either a theoretical-conceptual creation or simply depicts the nature of an imagined man surviving in an perfect system. In reality, man has passions, desires, and desires over which reason is not always able to control effectively. Each individual besides defines his own way to happiness, and we are never able to foretell what effects – both for the individual afraid and for the people around him – this will have individual aspirations. Above all – according to what John grey wrote in Two Faces of Liberalism “No liberal strategy embodies only 1 concept of good. All are expressions of local settlements between the claims of competing ideals. Freedoms, which all liberal strategy protects, form part of this settlement. No system, nevertheless liberal, can full meet the requirements of all applicable freedoms’ [6]. The implementation of certain circumstantial freedoms and the choice of a circumstantial way to happiness can consequence in threats to the tribe members and the full community. This mechanics of possible immanent danger is included in the systemic models based on the protection of human freedom, as they presume equality of different concepts of happiness. It is hard to imagine the exclusion of another concepts of striving for happiness than those which, openly and undisputedly, lead to an attack on freedom.
Liberalism so faces further, constant problems – it must fight further, continuous threats to freedom! He can never believe that he will always change things and build a society that perfectly protects and protects freedom. specified claims were made by the creators of utopian systemic concepts which neither their creators nor their descendants succeeded in implementing. Isaiah Berlin in an essay A Pursuit of Perfection Recalls that “we can save people from hunger, poorness or injustice, we can free them from imprisonment or imprisonment and do good—all people have an simple sense of good and evil, regardless of their culture; studies on society, however, show that all solution creates a fresh situation that creates fresh needs and problems, fresh requirements” [7]. No triumph over the enemies of freedom is always a triumph erstwhile and for all! No triumph over the enemies of freedom always ends our continuous war or stops the constant pursuit of freedom and our individual autonomy. Subsequent generations face fresh problems and dangers, and sometimes even face the pains of their grandparents and large - grandfathers, whom their parents have managed to forget.
The constant conflict for freedom so demands not only vigilance and mindfulness, but besides memory – it is the memory of the past and past wars that allows the guards of freedom to scope to past victories as to the manual of conducting the free crusade. past thus becomes not only a teacher of life, but a guide to past victories and defeats. Above all, however, liberals must proceed to convince themselves that their fight is crucial and what its final goal is. Mark Lilla in a bitter book for Liberals The end of liberalism as we know it He argues that modern liberals have "lost their willingness to think about the common and applicable ways of achieving it – and in peculiar the hard and ungrateful task of convincing people very different from them to engage in joint efforts" [8].The task of modern liberals is to constantly show people the importance of their crusade in the fight for the protection of freedom. Who else, if not liberals, should exposure all the dangers to freedom we face in the modern world?! However, Liberals must do so in a decisive and uncompromising way, and this means that these threats must be presented in all area in which they appear today, including in those that have so far been heavy defended, specified as the free marketplace and capitalism, freedom of competition and freedom of speech in the network, globalisation, freedom of contract, limited government, etc.
Humanist Response
As has already been mentioned, certain threats to freedom may besides arise where we have not expected them to be so far. Finally, changes in the social, political, economical and global reality surrounding us must reorganize our reasoning about defending the freedom of modern man besides against fresh – besides unobvious – threats. It's not necessarily about agreeing undisputedly with the powerful Ivan Krastev, who in the book It came tomorrow. How the pandemic changed Europe "The end of a liberal planet born from the demolished Berlin Wall, a planet of global expansion of democracy and capitalism, shaped by the will and power of America along with its European allies" [9]. However, if we accept specified a strong proposal, then there is besides a chance that liberals will transform their strategy of defending freedom in an appropriate way and will choose a more cautious way and, if necessary, more offensive. In specified a fundamentally changed socio-political and global reality, there should no longer be area among the defenders of freedom for disputes about what liberalism we want or what liberalism we are fighting for. The era is coming, in which all actual defenders of freedom must stand side by side and fight together against those who endanger in the modern planet of freedom.
So let us not ask what liberalism we want: social or economic, monetary or keynesist, aristocratic or democratic! Let us not ask whether we are defending the freedom of affirmative or negative, economical or civil, political or identity first! Let us presume that the common denominator of all erstwhile liberalist hypostasis is and should always stay humanist liberalism! Humanist liberalism, which simply puts a man at the centre of its interest, who seeks to safe the widest possible catalogue of freedom, while protecting it from all forms of external interference that are not essential to guarantee the existence of another individuals. specified humanist liberalism should be integrated into the quest to build a society that “allows the individual to decide the most crucial objectives of its life and which lives through the movement in which each of its members puts them” [10]. For humanist liberalism all man is simply a goal worthy of protection, and freedom is simply a determinant of the pursuits of all those who accept the banner of humanist liberalism on their shoulders.
Humanist liberalism is not intended to supply precise guidance on the political model and strategy – it will be crucial to it whether all human individual can participate in this strategy equally and effectively. Humanist liberalism can at most specify the fundamental principles and values that will be effectively protected in specified a country and its model. Humanist liberalism cannot yet blindly and without reflection adopt a peculiar model of the economical system, but alternatively indicate how – through the economical strategy – it will be possible to safeguard the freedom of individuals and defend them from unauthorised interference of economical operators. specified solutions of humanist liberalism will only be regarded as a case-by-case alternatively than essential and inviolable in its doctrine or program context. Above all, however, humanist liberalism is aware of the changes constantly taking place in the surrounding reality and is always trying to make solutions to defend human freedom from further – smaller and larger – tyrants. Thus understood humanist liberalism grows out of conviction, taken from Locke, Smith, and Mill, that "you can reconcile social harmony and advancement with the separation of a broad sphere for private life, which neither the state nor any another authority can be violated" [11]. While the organization framework of this harmonious society and the tools for building advancement can be different, they can never hit individual freedom.
[1] E. From, Escape From FreedomReader, Warsaw 2011, p. 42.
[2] A. de Tocqueville, Old Governments and the RevolutionThu. W. M. Kozłowski, Vis-à-vis, Kraków 2019, p. 14.
[3] J. S. Mill, FreedomThu. A. Kurlandzka, PWN technological Publishing House, Warsaw 2012, p. 120.
[4] J. Locke, Two treaties on governmentThu. Z. Rau, technological Publishing home PWN, Warszawa 1992, p. 320.
[5] J. Rawls, Justice Theory, Przecz. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek and A. Romaniuk, technological Publishing home PWN, Warsaw 2009, p. 553.
[6] J. Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism, trans. P. Rymarczyk, Aletheia, Warszawa 2001, p. 117.
[7] I. Berlin, A Pursuit of PerfectionThu. M. Tanski, [in:] the same, The crooked tree of humanity, Prószyński and S-ka, Warsaw 2004, p.13.
[8] The president The end of liberalism as we know it. Requiem for identity policyThu. Ł. Pawłowski, Library of Liberal Culture,Warsaw 2018, p. 24.
[9] I. Krastew, It came tomorrow. How the pandemic changed EuropeThu. M. Sutowski, Publishing home of Political Critics, Warsaw 2020, p. 19.
[10] J. M. Guéhenno, The future of freedom. Democracy in Globalisation, Przecz. B. Janicka, Social Publishing Institute Mark – Stefan Batory Foundation, Warszawa 1999, p.116.
[11] I. Berlin, Four essays on freedomThu. D. Grinberg, D. Lachowska and J. Łozinski, Profit and S-ka, Poznań 2000,p. 191.
