Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I think you're confusing liberalism with laissez-faire anarchy. Liberalism imposes restrictions on liberty to preserve greater liberties, and clamping down on radical Islam (which is a threat to things like the right to life) is a defense of liberalism, not a betrayal of it.
|
I don't. I believe that as soon as politics leave the central balancing point, they are destined to go wrong somewhere. Further they go, more wrong they tend to become. In fact, they only go in opposite directions in the beginning, as they leave centre; but once they go far off they bend into a circle and meet at the point diametrically opposite to the centre (i.e. fascism vs communism). So, why should the expectations of the "regressive left" be any different than those of the "regressive right"?
Liberalism is rooted in the ideals of equality and personal freedoms for all. But this is possible only in theory. One person's freedom often is another person's nuisance or insult. Whose freedom do you protect in the name of liberalism, as a philosophy, and liberal democracy, as a form of government: majority's or minority's? As soon as the freedoms of one group are being limited in the interests of another group, liberalism is no longer pure but selective, which brings us back to common sense being more meaningful and practical than liberal ideals in real life...
I really didn't (and don't) want to get dragged into this discussion any deeper, because it is practically impossible to have an intelligent chat on a serious and very multi-faceted topic without facing an opponent. Plus, this should be an entertaining conversation, not a confrontation.