Freedom, Responsibility and ACT on Campus
Serendipity. I was just about to post on the subject "Freedom with Responsibilty" when I read Andy Davies' comment on my last post. Andy was commenting on my description of new ACT on Campus president, Helen Simpson as a "social liberal".
This is what Andy, a committed Christian and "classic liberal" has to say about "social liberals".
"However, over the years I have become wary of anyone who calls themselves a social liberal. It seems that in advocating social freedoms they overlook the responsibility that goes with it. They are then no different to the socialists who advocate wishy washy anything goes type of liberalism that promotes freedom with impunity. This provides yet another excuse to redistribute wealth which is why wishy washy liberalism is so beloved by socialists. Consequences of actions should remain with those who cause them, anything else is actually socially repressive. Classical liberalism however requires freedom with responsibility."
The reason I was about to post, was a well reasoned speech at the ACT on Campus retreat by Lincoln Uni's, P.J. White.
In a discussion on how far AOC should go on promoting socially liberal ideas, P.J. made the point very strongly that if we're going to talk about social freedoms, we also have to talk about the responsibilities they bring. He emphasised very strongly that the "two must go in tandem"
P.J. used the drug example. Many AOCers would like to see marijuana and other drugs legalised, as do many Greens. The difference as P.J. pointed out, is that true liberals believe people should bear the cost of any arising health problems. The socialists want the freedom and everybody wears the cost.
I look askance at those who say that ACT has more in common with socialists on social issues than they do with conservatives.
To me the key word is responsibility. True liberals,libertarians and enlightened conservatives all share a degree of belief in personal responsibility and individual liberty.
Socialists say they believe in freedom, yet abhor personal responsibilty, so that any "freedom" they achieve will be very temporary.
I had this debate more than once with Bruce Logan. What Bruce would call "liberals", I would call socialists. AOC is full of true liberals. They very well understand that freedom cannot exist without responsibility.
I shouldn't really be talking on behalf of AOC, but I think I'm accurate in my analysis. Perhaps someone could back me up, or tear a few strips off me?
This is what Andy, a committed Christian and "classic liberal" has to say about "social liberals".
"However, over the years I have become wary of anyone who calls themselves a social liberal. It seems that in advocating social freedoms they overlook the responsibility that goes with it. They are then no different to the socialists who advocate wishy washy anything goes type of liberalism that promotes freedom with impunity. This provides yet another excuse to redistribute wealth which is why wishy washy liberalism is so beloved by socialists. Consequences of actions should remain with those who cause them, anything else is actually socially repressive. Classical liberalism however requires freedom with responsibility."
The reason I was about to post, was a well reasoned speech at the ACT on Campus retreat by Lincoln Uni's, P.J. White.
In a discussion on how far AOC should go on promoting socially liberal ideas, P.J. made the point very strongly that if we're going to talk about social freedoms, we also have to talk about the responsibilities they bring. He emphasised very strongly that the "two must go in tandem"
P.J. used the drug example. Many AOCers would like to see marijuana and other drugs legalised, as do many Greens. The difference as P.J. pointed out, is that true liberals believe people should bear the cost of any arising health problems. The socialists want the freedom and everybody wears the cost.
I look askance at those who say that ACT has more in common with socialists on social issues than they do with conservatives.
To me the key word is responsibility. True liberals,libertarians and enlightened conservatives all share a degree of belief in personal responsibility and individual liberty.
Socialists say they believe in freedom, yet abhor personal responsibilty, so that any "freedom" they achieve will be very temporary.
I had this debate more than once with Bruce Logan. What Bruce would call "liberals", I would call socialists. AOC is full of true liberals. They very well understand that freedom cannot exist without responsibility.
I shouldn't really be talking on behalf of AOC, but I think I'm accurate in my analysis. Perhaps someone could back me up, or tear a few strips off me?
posted by Trevor Loudon at
1/16/2006 10:34:00 AM
5 Comments:
On the money Trevor.
Why should anyone else be made to pay for the consequences of stupid choices I, or anyone else makes?
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
Socialists want power and control therefore they will advocate for anything that creates dysfunction. The more dysfunction the more dependency on govt programmes and repressive laws which results in more power and control and so on.
Andrew Davies
I'll stick my neck out here.
A lot is said about the positive intent of socialists to wreak destruction and make people dysfunctional and dependent.
I don't believe that intent exists in leftists in NZ today.
Not that people aren't rendered weak and powerless by their policies but this is an effect rather than an aim.
I am not making apologies for the socialists. They are misguided in the extreme because they refuse to see what they are doing by persisting in their faith that "social justice" can be achieved by the great state levelling and redistribution machine.
I don't think they have the energy or intellect to tackle what they have bequeathed to us. It is just easier to sing from the same old song sheet and find scapegoats for the failure of collectivism to deliver better outcomes.
There is too much said that smacks of conspiracy. Frankly I don't think the left are smart enough to have a grand plan. There is almost something of the invisible hand (sorry to Adam Smith for using it in this context) that has worked over the last thirty years of social policy. The pieces have come together to give us much that is tragic and should never have come to pass but I do not think, in the developed world, this was part of some great scheme.
Lindsay, i think there is certainly malicious intent by some highly warped individuals. Most socialist just go along for the ride as they're not great thinkers.
My own research has shown me that some socialists have a very clear idea of how they are going to bring down our society. We didn't get maori "sovereignty", the "peace" movement, paid parental leave, MMP, the overturn of the Employment Contracts Act, etc etc etc etc, by accident. They all happened, because people with a plan made them happen.
A "classic liberal" who is opposed to being a social liberal is neither classy nor a liberal. He's a conservative. As a conservative he is as opposed to freedom as a socialist.
Conservatives are no more friends of freedom than the socialists you spend such vast amounts of time exposing. Being the enemy of your enemy does not mean they are friends.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home