It is obvious some know nothing about LIBERALISM. They use words used in the US to please the alt-right and the religious extremists.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy.[11]
Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law.
For someone claiming Freedom, liberalism is the way to go.
This being said, Liberalism doesn't belongs to a single political party. In Canada it is represented by most but is more evident in some. In US, it not so clear.
Her is a good reflection on COVID vs FREEDOM: https://www.freiheit.org/western-balkans/coronavirus-crisis-crisis-liberalism
Is Dierksmeier blind to the dangers of the overturning of free orders into authoritarianism, to the manifold efforts and the measures using this pandemic as a pretext for the far-reaching restriction of fundamental rights? Not at all! According to Dierksmeier, we must be on our guard here.
Nonetheless, a proportionate quarantine can certainly be conducive to freedom: if the freedom to shop in boutiques and eat in restaurants is curtailed, while on the other hand the freedom not to fall ill, or even lose one’s own life, is strengthened, then class takes precedence over mass.
In the case of freedom, he says, qualitative evaluation must precede quantitative measurements. The central question is which freedoms and whose freedoms are at stake: “For if we are entitled to freedom simply as persons, then all persons are. Thus, where we limit individual freedom to its compatibility with the freedom of all, the universal idea of freedom is not reduced but realised. In short, temporarily giving up options that threaten the freedom of others to survive may be uncomfortable; but it is not an attack on our liberal order.”
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy.[11]
Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law.
For someone claiming Freedom, liberalism is the way to go.
This being said, Liberalism doesn't belongs to a single political party. In Canada it is represented by most but is more evident in some. In US, it not so clear.
Her is a good reflection on COVID vs FREEDOM: https://www.freiheit.org/western-balkans/coronavirus-crisis-crisis-liberalism
Is Dierksmeier blind to the dangers of the overturning of free orders into authoritarianism, to the manifold efforts and the measures using this pandemic as a pretext for the far-reaching restriction of fundamental rights? Not at all! According to Dierksmeier, we must be on our guard here.
Nonetheless, a proportionate quarantine can certainly be conducive to freedom: if the freedom to shop in boutiques and eat in restaurants is curtailed, while on the other hand the freedom not to fall ill, or even lose one’s own life, is strengthened, then class takes precedence over mass.
In the case of freedom, he says, qualitative evaluation must precede quantitative measurements. The central question is which freedoms and whose freedoms are at stake: “For if we are entitled to freedom simply as persons, then all persons are. Thus, where we limit individual freedom to its compatibility with the freedom of all, the universal idea of freedom is not reduced but realised. In short, temporarily giving up options that threaten the freedom of others to survive may be uncomfortable; but it is not an attack on our liberal order.”
