- 17 Nov 2016 13:07
#14738719
@ TheRedBaron
Of course there are national differences, but they also conflict with regard to ideology. Soon after the publication of the Blair-Schröder paper, the two authors became embroiled. You referred already to Giddens. It is true that Giddens embraces individualism, but he also advocates a number of communitarian policies. Moreover, somewhere on PoFo you mentioned Etzioni, who believes that ethics has priority over individualism. It appears that he has been identified with the Third Way.
I agree, but how can this be reconciled with liberalism? At least classical liberalism condemns both duties (social responsibilities) and positive rights.
TheRedBaron wrote:her most prominent leaders are Clinton, Blair and Schröder
Of course there are national differences, but they also conflict with regard to ideology. Soon after the publication of the Blair-Schröder paper, the two authors became embroiled. You referred already to Giddens. It is true that Giddens embraces individualism, but he also advocates a number of communitarian policies. Moreover, somewhere on PoFo you mentioned Etzioni, who believes that ethics has priority over individualism. It appears that he has been identified with the Third Way.
TheRedBaron wrote:The positive rights contain a clause. Everybody has the obligation to maximize his productivity.
Consequentially the radical centre aims to activate people, who lay claim to social security.
I agree, but how can this be reconciled with liberalism? At least classical liberalism condemns both duties (social responsibilities) and positive rights.