Although the spirit of liberal states in the seventeenth century., The term "liberalism" is unknown to the great liberal thinkers until the eighteenth century, and entered for the first time in the political language only in 1812, and then spread rapidly in the West, taking on different connotations in different countries.
There is no definition unambiguous term "liberalism" and "Even today the word liberal has different meanings for different nations" (Matteucci 1983: 593).
The only common element is the defense to the various conceptions of the sphere of autonomy of the individual from the intrusiveness of the institutions and the state. Fukuyama called "liberal democracy that recognizes the" right to free economic activity and economic exchange based on private ownership and the market "(1996: 65), in other words, capitalist democracy. According Viroli, "the individualistic liberalism is a political theory that says the principal end of the political community protection life, liberty and property of the individual "(Virola 1999: 44).
The idea of \u200b\u200bthe state as an instrument of the city is ancient. Indeed, Cicero wrote: "Above all to ensure the security of private property were established cities and states. It is true that men united in society to the natural impulse, but it is also true that they, in the safety of the city, sought the protection and care of their property "(De officiis II, 21). However, it is only a couple of centuries that this idea has taken on the dignity of a real political doctrine. The l. spread in Europe in the period from the Reformation to the French Revolution, having its main expression in natural law, in contractualism, in some of the principles established themselves at the time of the Glorious Revolution, such as habeas corpus (to safeguard against arbitrary detention) and the parliamentary system, in the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Declaration of Rights ( 1789 and 1793).
Liberals support the existence of universal human rights, inalienable, and prior to every society, the so-called inherent rights, before which even the greatest kings must bow, and they see a product in the state of man and an instrument in the hands of citizens, whose function is to act as guarantor of those rights. According to the liberal view, the state is a necessary evil and must be minimized through the creation of a political system which combines the freedom of man with the slightest interference by the government.
Among the liberal thinkers, which include Montesquieu, Smith, Burke, Kant (XVIII century), Lord Acton, Ricardo, Say, Malthus, Constant, (XVIII-XIX century), Comte, Tocqueville and JS Mill (XIX century) Hayek, Popper, Nozick, Fukuyama, Leoni, Einaudi (XX century), prevailing in the individual and unlimited confidence in the free market. In the microeconomic field, the l. argues that "the individual is the best and only judge of its special interest and that the company has the right to regulate its actions only when feels wronged by him, or when he needs his help "(Tocqueville, Democracy in America, I, 5). In terms of macroeconomics, however, that the famous Say's Law, which states that supply and demand balance always automatically. [Malthus is one of the few who do not share that optimism and to draw attention to the risk that the population growth is not automatically accompanied by an equally rapid increase in resources.]
13.1. Liberalism
According to HJ Laski, liberalism expresses the view of a new social class, the bourgeoisie. The middle-class citizen (who can read and write, who knows the history and traditions, the foundations of legal and administrative nature and philosophy, science and techniques, oratory and political) and develops a new consciousness will no longer be driven from outside and from above. Presuming to know their interests and, believing that they have the means to satisfy them, he refuses to be led by the hand like a child by a paternalistic state, and aims to be an adult, free, independent and master of its own destiny. Strong both in knowledge (culture, information and expertise are increasingly controlled by this new class, which includes writers, free thinkers and practitioners) and in the money (increasing amount of money circulating through the work and initiatives of the middle class, which, therefore, assumes an increasingly important role in many sectors of society that were previously the preserve of the nobility), the middle class first confronted with the old masters, the nobility and the clergy, and then they displaces.
liberalism is tied to an individualistic conception of society, for which "the man as a rational being is a person, and has an absolute value, before and independently of the relations of interaction with his fellows" (BEDESCHI 1996: 261). Humboldt and Constant believe that the real protagonist of civilization and progress of both the individual and not the State. Assuming that everything is relative and questionable and there is no absolute good and objective, Kelsen says that each is the best judge of what is good for him and not given to anyone to impose their point of view. Of course, since everyone makes mistakes, it's best to get back to the will of most. However, even if a value was expressed by the majority, it is still a relative and disputable, and can not be imposed on anyone. For Green, it is worth anything is to realize the greatest extent possible, the faculty proper to man, all that promotes the human person and makes what should be, like God is good and private property would be Hopefully, everyone was owners.
For liberals, every community is the person who forges, and determine the decisions and preferences about what makes a life worth living, all actions are intentional and meaningful, and only these conditions, they can be understood ; the rules of conduct and ethical values \u200b\u200bbelong solely to the private sphere and should not be a topic of discussion, much less public scrutiny. The hero of the liberal society is the individual who aspires to be left free from any interference of the state, free to pursue their interests and to follow their impulses, even selfish, thinking that by doing so, the market is lively circulates more money and increase welfare for all. The liberals are fighting for the freedom of (religion, speech, press, assembly, association, economic initiative, participation in political power) and freedom from (from want, fear, ignorance), in conviction that freedom of individual initiative is good and desirable. In this respect, liberalism and DD are: for both the starting point is the individual link on the individual and both independent and responsible. This is exactly the opposite of what they say el'organicismo communitarianism.
Bruno Leoni, who, along with Einaudi, is one of most prestigious exponents of contemporary Italian liberalism, shake the principles of liberalism in opposition to socialism. According to him, socialism is directed, gray, boring and negative in the rise in weakest segments of the population feelings of envy towards the upper classes, then the envious promises a comfortable life regardless of their merits. In contrast, the liberal freedom is chaotic, yes, but productive and stimulating, like the crowd: the crowd is also chaotic, but everyone knows where it goes and what he wants. The social order is like a military parade: in it everyone has to go where they ordered to go (RICOSSA, Preface to LEONI 1997: pp. 7-20).
13.2. From the "first man" to liberal democracy: the thought of Fukuyama
appeal to authority of Hobbes and Hegel, Francis Fukuyama speaks of the "first man" or the state of human nature and argues that, unlike animals, this 'man could sense a desire for glory ( thymos ), which led him to show courage and to risk their lives (Fukuyama speaks of megalotimia ) while in captivity the recognition of others (1996: 164ss). But not everyone felt the need, indeed, most men were content to be recognized as equal ( isotimia ). According to Fukuyama, all that is good in its history has been created by men who wished to be better recognized (1996: 318), which, rightly, have become masters of the world. For Fukuyama, liberal democracy (DL) is the best possible form of government: "Today we can hardly imagine a better world than ours, or a future that is not essentially democratic and capitalist" (1996: 67). In short, we came to an end and we can enact the "end of history" (1996: 9).
13.3. Liberalism and democracy
liberalism "during these two centuries, it is not state and is not synonymous with democracy "(PONT 2005: 110), it is not an egalitarian doctrine. In liberal thought, "Freedom and equality are antithetical values, in the sense that one can not fully implement one without the other severely curtailed" (BEDESCHI 1996: 273). The l. disagrees with Rousseau, who argues that nature has made men equal and civil society makes them unequal, while agreeing with Nietzsche, according to which men are by nature unequal, while the company, with its moral of the flock, they makes it equal.
egalitarian doctrines require that everyone has enough and no one has too much and, therefore, tend to set the minimum amounts and maximum income. Liberalism, however, sees social life as a great competition, where it won the most capable and where those who have more is better. Thus, poverty becomes a vice and the poor are citizens of Serie B. The only two equalities are allowed from liberalism to put together all the competitors in the same starting conditions and that all should be equal before the law. But both are illusory. In fact, the first is just a theoretical statement and is used as an excuse to justify the inequalities of arrival and the second is belied by the fact that, even today, the rights of citizens are largely conditioned by the creation and budget.
Online Overall, the liberalism is in favor of separation of powers, the constitution and federalism, but not necessarily democracy. A Liberal government, in fact, can also be a constitutional monarchy or parliamentary, or an oligarchy or aristocracy, provided that it respects the freedom of individuals. The only conceivable form of democracy, liberalism and representative, which must be practiced with respect for minority rights and avoiding degenerate into a tyranny of the majority, and no matter that the suffrage is universal suffrage would be fine too restricted type of census.
DD and liberalism must instead be considered as incompatible because they support two different conceptions of the individual. In fact, while the individual liberal compete in a world full of traps and sees the State as a necessary evil to protect his rights, the democratic individual is an active and responsible part of the free association that is the people and sees in the State an irreplaceable and valuable ally. Furthermore, liberalism tolerates inequality of people at birth, DD no.
13.4. The state minimum according to Robert Nozick
The starting point of Nozick is by individuals, all of which are all unique and different "in temperament, interests, intellectual ability, aspirations, natural inclination, spiritual pursuits and way of life who wish to lead "(Nozick 2000: 315). According to the scholar, "There are only individuals, different individuals with different individual lives. Using one of these individuals for the benefit of others, uses him and is beneficial to other [...]. Use a person in this way reflects neither takes sufficient account of the fact that this is a separate person, that his is the only life he has to live "(2000: 54).
Nozick's liberalism is strictly individualistic in the sense that conceives the individual as an absolute point of origin and the end of all social facts. The collective are just sums of individuals. The state is a derivative of individuals and its role is only instrumental and service the diverse needs of individuals. Now, one state is good or bad depending on who you judge. It follows that there can be an ideal society for all, "we drop the false assumption that there is only one kind of better society for all" (Nozick 2000: 323). Eventually, the state is best which intervenes as little as possible in the lives of citizens. In short, power to the state minimum, maximum individual freedom. The theory of the state minimum is dictated by an optimistic view of the individual, that, for Nozick, is first "person, a being capable of self-management and to give full meaning to their lives. Well, as a person, every individual is equal to each other.
For Nozick, the State must be a sort of 'night watchman', which should interfere as little as possible with the life plans of individuals and limited to ensuring their safety. "Our main conclusions on the state - Nozick writes - is that a minimal state, limited strictly to the functions of protection against violence, theft and fraud, protection of contracts and so on. Is justified, that any kind of been longer ends with the violate the rights of individuals not be forced to do certain things, and it is unjustified and that the state minimum desirable than that right "(2000: 17). "The state minimum - continues our - we as individuals are inviolable, that the other is not allowed to use in certain ways as a means or tools or instruments or resources, treat us as people with individual rights with the dignity this entails. Treated with consideration, respect our rights, we can, individually or with whom we want to choose our life and to realize our aspirations and the conception of ourselves as much as we can, with the help of the voluntary cooperation of other individuals with the same dignity "(2000: 337).
must add that, like Locke, also the individual Nozick is an individual-owner. Well, the state must have at least one task: to ensure citizens' rights, foremost among them the property. Nozick is contrary to the welfare state and to every form of legal equality, including equality of opportunity.
13.5. Advantages and limitations
In general, the main advantage of liberal thought is to have made possible the proclamation of the inalienable human rights, of which there is no evidence in our Constitutions and Declarations of democracy. If anything, you can complain about the discrepancy between what is proclaimed in words and the reality that unfolds before you eyes. In Basically, the liberal principles remain largely unnoticed. In particular, no company is practiced equality of opportunity for the citizens, while there are still prejudices and differences by birth. It continues to flaunt the principle of meritocracy, but then not explain why it should be meritorious born into a family rather than another, in a country rather than another. The people on the scene, as a unitary body, only when he went to the polls, and then practically disappears. Expressed his 'general will', it disappears and in its place are the elected representatives who exercise, they alone, the political power.
Beyond of purely ideological principles, liberalism asserts in defense of private property of the bourgeois class, which is elevated in natural human right, as he begins to give the State the role of policeman, which ensures that this right is not violated. This can be seen as beneficial by the bourgeois class, but not from the working class and salaried workers.
In this respect, the l. has been criticized inside and outside. Among the first, stands the criticism that he had "conceived the right to private property as the right to Excellence" (BEDESCHI 1996: 267). According to Constant, for example, private property is not a law of nature "because without the combination that gives a guarantee that it would not be the first occupant of the law, in other words, the law of force, that is a right that is not such "(BEDESCHI 1996: 268). Also according to JS Mill, the land is "the original heritage of the whole human species" and no one can claim exclusive rights over it. Private property can be justified only in relation to work: I can say 'this land is mine' and only to the extent that the cultivation and making use of my arms and I take care of my brain. In reality, however, the l. allows the existence of property and income from work independently and, therefore, deemed lawful a person can be rich without working.
The main criticism coming from external social-communist and the Roman Church (see individual entries).
0 comments:
Post a Comment