04
nov

Before I hugged it, I thought that liberalism consisted of a bunch of hippies in caravans traveling around the world, which this doctrine was opposed to anything that meant order. I’m the son of Benemetría, so imagine what it means for a teenager to give up everything that has been instilled, even if is indirectly. 

I learnt to use a computer before I learned to read. My sister read to me what he didn’t understand, memorized where I had to click, and, to tell the truth, I managed. that’s where the passion comes from – which has now become a necessity – to Google everything.

I still remember the first time which I asked this searcher about liberalism. I was just finishing High School, and I spent the whole afternoon reading about this ideology which seemed to describe exactly what I thought. That afternoon turned into months, and these into years, during which I continued to read inform myself and study. Of course I haven’t finished yet, as this keeps evolving, and seems that some liberalists have confused the term, or have edited it to their liking. Of those who are not, I don’t speak, because, with all the respect, most of them do not even know what it is about. They confused it with capitalism; this, with communism,  the free market, with protectionism; savings, with investment, and we could continue until my phalanges hurt from all the writing. Incidentally, speaking of the phalanges, I have been even told that liberalists are fascists, that we are against immigrants, and, of course, against the employees and pensionists. The uninformed are unaware that we are in favour of freedom, to the extent that we have it engraved in our names. As long as you don’t restrict my freedom (or the freedom of others) do what you really want. 

If you’re liberals, I’m sure similar things have happened to you. They won’t even ask you what it is. There’s nothing worse than a convinced fool. i’m always willing to explain,to develop, to debate; I love to do so because, in its day, it was good for me that others (although through books), clarified the nub of the issue for me. 

To be liberal is to respect, to be tolerant, not to impose, to argue, to love the freedom above (almost) everything. To be in against a law making it compulsory to pay for health, education and pensions for retired and disabled  people. When I say it, I’m immediately branded an unscrupulous person, so I’ll try to explain. I object to being forced to helped them, not to help them. Whenever I can, and indeed I do it, I try to contribute to welfare of those who have had worse lose than me, but this doesn’t stop me from hating with all my might to be forced. 


Liberalism is the only ideology in which all the systems are possible


And, of course, they always argue: “what do you care if they demand it to you if, equally, you agree to help others, or to contribute to a common fund that allows everyone, regardless of their financial situation, to receive good service. Well, I don’t mind, because, just as I’m in favour of contribute to many things, I’m against of doing so with many others. It’s all about incentives. If law forces you, it means that even if the funds disappear (see corruption), you will still be forced to pay, because the State hold the monopoly in this meaning. However,  if it is voluntary, these funds will certainly be more careful. Additionally, as a liberal, I have to respect (even if I don’t like it) that there are people who decide not to help. It is their decision, not mine. Everyone has their on preferences. From this reasoning the second statement is born: “it’s that then nobody would pay”. 

Everyone says the same thing. I guess the speak for themselves. There is no one who has let slip the possibility which we agreed to help pensioners, the disabled, on a voluntary basis, to create a commun fund to enable those less well-off to pay for education or health care. ¿Isn’t that communism? No, communism forces you. Liberalism doesn’t. That is why it is the only ideology, or however you want to label it, in which all systems are possible. Even communism, if we all agreed to live by this formula, and as long as the decision was free and voluntary, no one would impose it on us. In fact, although a system with a communist essence would have a place in liberalism system, this is unlikely to happen. Everyone sees the world in one way, hence the difficulty that we all agree on this point. 

Is all this really possible with liberalism? It is not what you will read about it, but what is described above (being supportive on a voluntary basis) is perfectly feasible.  It does not contradict any of the liberal principles. The emphasis is always placed on the fact that these defend meritocracy, the maxim that the best should win, and it is true that the individual who ‘has done himself’ is often praised. However, there is nothing to prevent funds from being devoted freely to helping others. That’s why I declare myself a liberal. Because I can be like I really am, without fear, without social judgment. Therefore, based on the fact that liberalism supports all possible systems, without restricting freedoms, it can be understood that those who criticize it are afraid of others, or of themselves. Fear that, because they do not voluntarily pay for the health of others, they will be labeled as having what is really inside them.



Leave your comment