[Alricaus]

Hi there,

I want to talk a little bit here about social-liberalism. Here, I talk about the philosophy of social-liberalism, not the decision made by the parties that are (in theory) social-liberalism, since political is more complex than just believe in one or another political philosophy.

If I understand the theory correctly, social-liberalism, like classical liberalism, believes in individual freedom. However, contrary to classical liberalism, social-liberalism think that we have to take liberty of some person (taxation, for example) to enable the poorer to use their liberty (positive right). Like a philosopher told me, liberty should be restrained only for enable liberty (I know that some authors add more cases where we should restrain liberty).

So, if I read it correctly, in a pure social-liberalism society, drugs, prostitutions, same sex marriage (and polygamy) and run in car without our belt should be legal. We can also think that euthanasia should be legal. Am I reading it correctly?

Thanks for help!!

[SpaciousBox]

Firstly, it's worth noting that not all classic liberals are against taxation - they are often just more in favour of lower taxation, or as little as can be created. A social liberal, or contemporary liberal as I believe we're now calling them, is a very wide set of beliefs. You have Liberal Democrats who often come across as left wing with human rights values, and you have conservative liberals who apply a more live and yet let live philosophy. Liberalism isn't really a belief system you can assign specifics to, more general values.

Having said that however, from your list:

drugs, prostitutions, same sex marriage (and polygamy)

Generally, yes.

car without our belt

Although you might assume this would be the case, it is often an issue of dispute. Much of modern liberalism is based off the harm principle, which basically states it should be legal and allowed to be unless it adversely effects another. You can naturally debate the definition of that for a life-time, but it's the general rule and meaning behind the idea that counts. Considering not wearing a seat-belt can endanger others lives, it is often flagged up as something that should remain law-bound for the safety of all.

euthanasia should be legal

This is a good example of where we'll mostly come in conflict with others. As much as euthanasia is a personal choice, and so should not be restricted, it is often a question of how far it is the individuals choice. There have been many examples in the past of people killed who didn't exactly wish to die. So as much as I support it on principle, it's mostly the circumstances that it would be allowed under the law. I would for example be completely against a full legalisation, as that is basically allowing open murder without any justification that the victim actually wished to die.

Classical liberals as you see them are more Libertarians, who do not accept the right of the state. They are not really liberal, more just don't like the idea of society. They will agree with us on most things however, but generally come at it from a point of view that the state shouldn't interfere, rather than the illiberal nature of the law in question. You'll find many Libertarians - especially from the British party - are not actually against laws that restrict liberty, they just don't like the state.

Disclaimer: As always, this is my personal point of view. You'll find many others disagree, but I'd imagine your looking for multiple opinions anyway.

[Daktoria]

Hi there,

I want to talk a little bit here about social-liberalism. Here, I talk about the philosophy of social-liberalism, not the decision made by the parties that are (in theory) social-liberalism, since political is more complex than just believe in one or another political philosophy.

If I understand the theory correctly, social-liberalism, like classical liberalism, believes in individual freedom. However, contrary to classical liberalism, social-liberalism think that we have to take liberty of some person (taxation, for example) to enable the poorer to use their liberty (positive right). Like a philosopher told me, liberty should be restrained only for enable liberty (I know that some authors add more cases where we should restrain liberty).

So, if I read it correctly, in a pure social-liberalism society, drugs, prostitutions, same sex marriage (and polygamy) and run in car without our belt should be legal. We can also think that euthanasia should be legal. Am I reading it correctly?

Thanks for help!!

Positive rights shouldn't be talking about economics at all. If you really want to talk about economics, you should be referring to progressivism, social democracy, or democratic socialism.

Positive rights are where people are entitled to good samaritans in defining the duty of care in society. For example, you would be entitled to someone yelling "STOP!" if you're crossing a street where cars are currently passing. If that person doesn't yell, you do cross, and you get in an accident, you would be entitled to sue for damages or press criminal charges over negligence.

Obviously, this is a very bad idea. It leads to a society where people are allowed to graduate into adulthood while still behaving like children. Over the long run, everyone ends up suing everyone else, and nobody actually takes responsibility for their own actions.

It also leads to a total breakdown of social cohesion even in a legal sense because only elites receive protection under the rule of law. In order to prove that negligence happened, you would have to have witnesses nearby to testify. A positive rights society would end up with people playing dumb over not knowing things happening just so they can't be blamed themselves. It would also lead to conspiracies where people alienate people they don't feel like respecting. This can mean being surrounded by people who should help you, but won't, and it can also means being surrounded by people who claim you weren't helpful despite how you might have helped or there was nothing to help about.