Liberty, Equality Vs Country, God...

studiorat

Can it be said that politics in this country falls into two camps?

Those who believe in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
And those who's subscribe to Work, Family, Country and possibly God?

It would seem to me that there has been a switch from the former to the latter in recent times.

AngryHippie

Well you could argue that Liberty represents the freedom to work, and to generate income from manual or intellectual labour.
The Family structure is one of the cornerstones of Equality, and the altruistic emotions and actions that arise from family allow for far more complex social interactions from which the strengths of fraternity (brotherhood) arise.
As for country and God, well there is considerable reference to both when the the old LEF gets hashed up to make some sort of point. The arguement can easily descend into some sort of patriotic mishmash, but then again, If you have a country that protects liberty, freedom and fraternity, is it not worth protecting ?

studiorat

'Tis true, that would refer to Positive Liberty.

Positive liberty refers to the opportunity and ability to act to fulfill one's own potential, as opposed to negative liberty, which refers to freedom from restraint.

Berlin, Isaiah. Four Essays on Liberty. 1969.

It has been argued that Positive Liberty concept has been used to cover up abuse, curtailing peoples negative liberty, "for their own good".

I think the "family" has become such a broad term and I don't believe it is a corner stone of Equality, like you state. The rights of the individual should be the that corner stone. Membership of a family unit isn't a guarantee of equal rights.

And I believe the notion of Country or State as it stands does curtail the equal rights of individuals from outside that state as well as the rights of the citizen out side of his country.

DadaKopf

I never felt Berlin's dichtomy was tenable. I understand it, but I don't accept it.

ChocolateSauce

studiorat wrote: »

Can it be said that politics in this country falls into two camps?

Those who believe in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
And those who's subscribe to Work, Family, Country and possibly God?

It would seem to me that there has been a switch from the former to the latter in recent times.

The first one is my most cherished principle, the next three are all great, the one after that is important, but not in a moral sense, the one after that shouldn't exist (ideally, though I accept for the foreseeable future it will be needed) and the one after that doesn't exist.

asdasd

I never felt Berlin's dichtomy was tenable. I understand it, but I don't accept it.

Negative freedom uses the word "freedom" in a way unrelated to how freedom is used to denote a political or civic liberty. "Freedom from" implies no physical, civic of political freedom . A prisoner is free from want, but still locked up.

As for the OP, there are more than these two camps in Ireland, or any other country. And the two camps are not necessarily exclusive. I could believe in family and liberty; or fraternity and God; or fraternity and Country; or Work and Equality; or work and freedom. And pretty much all other combinations.

asdasd

the one after that shouldn't exist

Lover of empire, then?

ChocolateSauce

asdasd wrote: »

Lover of empire, then?

I was referring to countries. All countries. For the time being, they're needed, but ideally all humans would live in one federation of many states and nations, but not "countries", IMO. Countries encourage nationalism which is a negative concept.

asdasd

For the time being, they're needed, but ideally all humans would live in one federation of many states and nations, but not "countries", IMO. Countries encourage nationalism which is a negative concept.

So you are in favour of Empire, then? Sorry that we left the Empire? The union.

This "no country" nonsense is bollocks. The Saudis and us are not going to live under the same legal, and cultural system, nor us and Iraq, nor China and Russia. And so on. In fact the number of countries is increasing. and will no doubt continue to do so.

And long may it. Nationalism protects small nations. The other option is an amalgamation into a monculture of one 6 billion person State, which would be run by the biggest baddest ethnic groups on the block, even if you had democracy which most of that 6 billion dont. Long live nations.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

IMO. Countries encourage nationalism which is a negative concept.

Ah yes, we can all be like the Goobacks from Southpark.

ChocolateSauce

asdasd wrote: »

So you are in favour of Empire, then? Sorry that we left the Empire? The union.

This "no country" nonsense is bollocks. The Saudis and us are not going to live under the same legal, and cultural system, nor us and Iraq, nor China and Russia. And so on. In fact the number of countries is increasing. and will no doubt continue to do so.

And long may it. Nationalism protects small nations. The other option is an amalgamation into a monculture of one 6 billion person State, which would be run by the biggest baddest ethnic groups on the block, even if you had democracy which most of that 6 billion dont. Long live nations.

When did I mention Empire? Or are you putting too much stock in my devil's advocate stance in the British Empire thread? Empires are bad. I was referring to an equal and democratic federation of many states, not one big unitary state.

I agree that at present, it is impossible to expect all humans to live in one country, but I do think it is possible someday, maybe in three or four hundred years? For all of human history, we've been divergent, but now we are getting closer for the first time, thanks to modern technology. You mention "bad" states like China and Arabia, and I wouldn't want to be in a union with them, but I would like to be in a union with "good" states like Norway and Denmark, for example.

Nationalism does not protect small nations, far from it. Economic nationalism for example leads to situations like Italy had 1922-1942, and like Iceland has today. Nationalism also leads to wars, fanaticism and is a thinly veiled form of racism. This "Us before them" approach is selfish and short sighted. Nation-state RIP.

Mikel

DadaKopf wrote: »

I never felt Berlin's dichtomy was tenable. I understand it, but I don't accept it.

Could you explain?

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I was referring to countries. All countries. For the time being, they're needed, but ideally all humans would live in one federation of many states and nations, but not "countries", IMO. Countries encourage nationalism which is a negative concept.

Both countries and xenophobia predate nationalism by thousands of years.