What is the place of a sense of proportion and common sense in the teaching of liberalism?
In particular, I am also interested in the answer to the question: is liberalism for liberals themselves a dictatorship of their own sense of proportion, based on common sense? Will a true liberal be able to deny himself the pleasure of withdrawing abroad the profits received in the Russian Federation, with the intention of investing it here, even with less profit, but for the benefit of his own Homeland?As everyone knows, rights also impose proper obligations.Are these obligations imposed by society, from the point of view of liberalism, an unacceptable infringement of human freedom?
From the point of view of liberalism, the set of ridiculous fantasies that is called liberalism in the brains of domestic thinkers from ploughs is completely unacceptable. However, this applies not only to liberalism, the entire political philosophy of the second millennium AD was reinvented by them, with sad consequences for consistent thinking.
Here is a typical example. Who knows? How do you know? Why do they suddenly impose it? What obligation does the right to life impose on me? If we open the declaration of human rights, there will be nothing about the obligations arising from rights, and even more so about the fact that failure to fulfill obligations deprives fundamental rights. Nevertheless, this nonsense is constantly replicated on all corners. This is also a gentle formulation, sometimes I see statements about “equality of rights and obligations”, as if somewhere there is a chamber of measures and weights for rights and obligations, where you can weigh both of them to check whether their equal volume is issued to this or that person.
The entire political vocabulary has been lost, the meaning of all terms has been given anew, to the extent of the giver's depravity.
It was a cry of the soul, now to the question. Liberalism does not at any point declare that the state should not restrict people's rights. It declares that:
Different versions of liberalism assess in different ways in which circumstances the state should intervene, which grounds are sufficient and which are not. There are different ways to evaluate how the restriction should be designed.
Libertarianism will tell you that it is possible to restrict the withdrawal of capital abroad, but only if it was written in advance in the contract and the person to whom you are going to prohibit the export of capital earned it by signing the contract. So you are free to create any restrictions, but people are free to simply not make money where there are such restrictions.
Classical liberalism allows the restriction of rights and without having to conclude a contract with everyone whose rights the state is going to restrict – no one asks you if you agree to comply with the Criminal Code.
But in most countries, including our own, there is a clause about the absence of retroactive force of the law – that is, you can not suddenly prohibit the withdrawal of capital and extend it to capital earned before the law was adopted. That is, liberalism, like libertarianism, is limited by the willingness of people to live with such restrictions – the right to export capital is not in the declaration of human rights, but the right to export oneself from the country is, that is, you can vote with your feet against any ban.
To limit the withdrawal of capital, it is necessary to justify it – why can't I suddenly withdraw capital, if I have paid all the required tax on it and the capital itself has earned legally. If there is such a justification, nothing prevents you from prohibiting withdrawal, although it is ideologically correct not to prohibit it, but to create conditions under which a person will want to carry capital to you, and not take it away from you.
A person's personal opinion on whether the state should now restrict their rights is the last thing that anyone is interested in in this matter, as long as they are ready to comply with these restrictions. And if you begin to restrict your rights in circumvention of the grounds required by article 29, then citizens also lose their obligations to comply with your restrictions.
And whether to be guided by considerations of personal gain or patriotism is a personal matter for each individual, liberalism does not prevent being a patriot.
The rest of your question is an orthogonal fantasy of liberalism.
There is no teaching of liberalism. There is another, the idea that it is good if the individual is free and there is nothing like slavery in society. It is difficult to argue with this idea, although one can give an example when the entire society must be mobilized in order to survive, for example, in a war. This is where the unsolvable disputes begin – whether you need to be mobilized or you can be polyberal. The answer, as history shows, is different in different circumstances. Here is a place for common sense to understand what is more important now – tightening the screws or making all the flowers bloom.
If we talk about the “teaching of liberalism” itself, and not about its carriers, then the expression “sense of proportion” does not apply to it, since feeling is initially a phenomenon of exclusively individual consciousness, and “teaching” is social.
In the abstract, liberalism is quite sound. Yes, he claims the individual as a social actor, which is quite reasonable, whereas traditional social models discriminated against him on the basis of social status and not on the qualities inherent in him. Since freedom in society is objectively conditioned, and not invariant, there is no strictly defined correspondence between individual free will and individual social responsibility. Liberalism only declares a greater degree of individual free will than traditional rigid role norms, nothing more. The idea of a “social contract” is historically incorrect, but as an abstract assumption it is quite sound, it allows “to achieve a social balance between anarchy and dictatorship.” Real liberalism is a compromise between these Scylla and Charybdis of society (the communist alternative is not considered as a qualitatively different state of society).
Individual adherents of the “liberal teaching” are free to interpret it and act to the best of their own understanding and social responsibility. This does not apply to the “teaching of liberalism” in any way, just as the behavior of a Christian does not apply to the teaching of Christ.
“Will a true liberal be able to deny himself the pleasure of withdrawing abroad the profit received in the Russian Federation, with the intention of investing it here, even with less profit, but for the benefit of his own Homeland?”
It can. I consider myself a liberal. Of the two products that are comparable in quality and price, imported and domestic, I prefer domestic, and of the two products produced in different regions of the Russian Federation, I prefer “my own”. I can't answer for other liberals)
Liberalism, as we know from the definition, puts personal freedom and independence of a person at the forefront, and the interference of the state, religion, etc., is limited by the Constitution. If we understand the essence of this provision, it becomes obvious that the desire for freedom is the desire to completely free oneself from the influence of national, traditional, religious, civil, and moral fetters that bind a person to society from birth. If we bring this desire to its fulfillment, we can discover the monstrous result of such an aspiration. I want to explain this with the example of an atomic explosion. A huge amount of energy trapped in a metal capsule is rushing towards the exit. And, having found this way out, there is a release of energy of great power, unrestrained, which destroys all living things. So it is with the human desire for freedom. If you do not restrain it with civil, moral and religious laws, then getting rid of the imposed obligations to obey them, a person will simply perish. Liberalism, proclaims the freedom of every person as the highest value and establishes them as the legal basis of social and political order. But personal freedom cannot be the basis of law. The law should limit the personal freedom of members of the community, setting criteria for what is permissible both in the economy and in socio-political practice. Otherwise, the freedom of some will turn into the slavery of others. As it actually happens in the world. 1 percent of the world's population owns 90 % of wealth. Other people account for less than 10 %. Consequently, this model is deeply flawed, completely devoid of any justice whatsoever, and has no right to exist. Moreover, all state institutions are involved in a complex and sometimes criminal form of interaction. We can clearly see how the freedom of the majority of society's members is actually restricted to please the minority. Just as all the laws in force in the liberal-democratic model of the state are subordinated to the functioning of large capital, its unhindered movement in all spheres of the state's life. Up to its direct opposition to the interests of citizens and the country. As is the case in all commodity-producing countries. Our country is no exception. We see the enrichment of a small part of the population and the impoverishment of the majority. So liberalism has neither a sense of proportion nor common sense, but only an ordinary desire to earn as much money as possible. And in this desire, society loses its mind. It ceases to be a community of people, it becomes a disjointed, fragmented gathering. Everyone is united only by one desire to have as much money as possible. The legal basis should be civil laws, which are based on moral laws. Yes, of course, people should have the right to work. The State must guarantee this right. And not only this, but also to ensure the human right to medicine, education, and the protection of citizens ' property. After all, in fact, the current model rejected the concept of private property, since we pay taxes on our property every year. And this is already similar to the right of use, which is not a property right. And, really, why do I have to pay tribute for my housing, car, land plot or bank deposit every year, if it is mine, and not someone else's, which I use by renting it?. Liberalism is evil, it must be destroyed. Otherwise, it will destroy the person.
Conscience and LIBERALISM :
Conscience is the instinct of COLLECTIVE self-preservation in a person !
Since “homo sapiens” is born as an animal with the potential capabilities of walking upright, speech, and working with hands,
BUT ALL THIS POTENTIAL IS BEING REALIZED,
only, in the human environment, which forms from the animal man !
Selfishness is the instinct of INDIVIDUAL self-preservation in a person !
(Egocentrism is a hypertrophied, unhealthy form of selfishness !)
That is why THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY ARE ALWAYS HIGHER THAN THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL !!!
Since a person is a product of society, it is precisely his CONSCIENCE that makes him overcome his selfishness for the sake of public interests, even at the cost of his own life !!!
And for those people who have a poorly developed conscience, society has invented a religion, so that if people are not respected, then at least they are afraid of God !!!
Ideology is the rules of life !
In CONSCIENCE, ideology is FREEDOM, as a conscious necessity !
In EGOCENTRISM, ideology is LIBERALISM, permissiveness of the individual who considers himself the center of the surrounding world !
In the Russian village they said :
“To God is high, to the king is far away, but you must live according to your conscience !”.
This was considered fair !
In the film “Pokrovskie Vorota” there is a phrase :
“They live not for joy, but for conscience !”
This is for a free person who understands the need !
And to live, making all the meaning of her constant desire for joy, is to be a slave to her egocentrism !
I will try to tell you about liberalism in a primitive way. Liberalism is the ideology of private owners. In general, it appeared as a reaction to state interference in their activities. The state is evil to them, some currents of liberalism believe that it is a necessary evil, but that is not the point. The bottom line is that patriotism is love for the motherland, the state. And to love evil is somewhat un-liberal. A real liberal can't even be an official in the west, so a liberal politician is almost an oxymoron (although under current conditions, the self-designation liberal usually has little to do with ideology). This means that a liberal cannot have any obligations, even voluntary ones, to the state. This does not mean that a liberal cannot also have other ideological views, but it does mean that his patriotism arises in spite of liberal views.
Well, to finish the story about liberalism, we need to talk about how they decided to defend themselves from the arbitrariness of the state. They decided that everyone's opinion and interests were important. True, initially a private owner, but with a creak they decided that everyone (in fact, every liberal still has doubts about this issue, but this is not the point). Here, and one of the ways not to violate the interests of other people for them was democracy, but again, the liberals themselves are not too enthusiastic about this option. Well, they just consider private owners the foundation of the state, its backbone, and the rest of the freeloaders on their neck, cattle, although again not all, and not so obviously.
Liberalism is dominated by the freedom of human thought, so any dogmas that do not go hand in hand are always denied, under the alleged violence against the individual. Madness and lawlessness, this is the true face of liberalism. Freedom must be free from all dogmas.
Some ridiculous ideas about liberalism. The question concerns morals and honor rather than socio-political orientation.
Another thing is that people without morals and honor, or just idiots, often call themselves liberals. For this reason, liberalism became identified with unscrupulousness and immorality. In fact, liberalism is the foundation of any developed society and state. Including Russia.
Liberalism does not negate loyalty to society, responsibility and morality. But it imposes certain boundaries on political orientation. It is not compatible with Marxism, communism, fascism and other totalitarian social systems that oppress the individual in favor of society. For it is based on personal freedom and respect for the personal freedom of others.
For the classical liberal, the state is a hybrid of service and insurance organizations, it pays it insurance fees in the form of taxes, it builds infrastructure at their expense, maintains defense, education, science and medicine institutions, and pays pensions and benefits…. After the liberal has paid off all his debts, he can dispose of the balance as he sees fit, he can invest in some business, distribute it, burn it, transfer it to an account in the bank he likes. And whether he will listen to the opinion of the grandmothers on the bench or other elements of the society around him is unknown, but unlikely.
In the very doctrine of liberalism, everything is theoretically correct and balanced;: both a sense of proportion and common sense, but in fact his followers have a clear overlap, so they often go to extremes, and a significant part of the so-called liberals are not really such – they only pretend to be liberals
The author of the question does not understand what liberalism is at all. And what does this have to do with a sense of proportion and some common sense? And in general, what does “the doctrine of liberalism” mean?
Liberalism has neither a sense of proportion nor common sense. Liberalism is a momentary tool in the hands of political adventurers of all stripes. This is complete unscrupulousness and cynicism, and they are bottomless, because they are fueled by greed. And how can greed have a sense of proportion? No. Otherwise, it's not greed. Common sense? And the liberals don't have that. There is its substitution, a clever substitution, but a series of substitutions, a system of substitutions, where the apologetics of liberalism always win. The liberal is a misanthropic weapon of a new generation that has replaced primitive and compromised fascism. It will be the same with liberalism when it solves the problem set for it by its ideologues under the guise of various humanistic programs on a global scale. What will replace it? Total control of a handful of post-liberals over all the others who will still be alive by then.
A person should serve society. Where private property and oligarchs who are foreigners cannot be a liberal country.Punishment based on rights and obligations should not be aversive. Justice is established by compulsion, so it does not take root.
I think that a sense of proportion and liberalism as an ideology are incompatible. This is confirmed by the experience of the evolution of Western liberalism.
Born as an ideological justification for bourgeois individualism, liberalism, despite its alleged humanism, pursued a policy of genocide during the colonial conquests. Marx perfectly defined the measure of common sense in bourgeois psychology when he spoke of the dependence of this measure on the measure of profit on capital. Liberalism did not prevent, but rather contributed to the formation of fascism. Well, recent history after the collapse of the USSR shows that liberalism, brought to its logical conclusion, as an ideology and regulator of mass consciousness in the period of postmodernism, turned into an instrument of consumer society leading people to degradation.
And you try to turn the question around, for example, will an American liberal be able to invest money earned in the United States in Russia ? Will they throw shit at him in the US for this ? And what will Russian society say to him? The public will immediately tell him that you are not welcome here, we don't need your money, you want to interfere in politics, undermine our bonds, etc.etc. – all our money should come from Putin and the company, because we are patriots. And where did you see common sense in this society, if a person is considered a priori in it ?..with luck ? Are these your social restrictions ? If the restrictions imposed by society are alien to a person, he will not invest in this society, but will find something more comfortable for himself, and this is correct. Therefore, there are leading societies that can attract people and investment, and there are societies that push people away from themselves. And your digging into the souls of liberals will not change this reality.