Just read Madelaine Bunting’s piece on Scandinavian social policy. Without any evidence, she says “it’s not hard to see this conformity can also be stiflingly oppressive”. Is it not hard? The piece relies on a shared knee-jerk Anglo-Saxon reaction based, presumably, on a weighted preference for individualism over social justice. She does not even say this, I am having to infer what her meaning would be.
What is the point of writing the article if she won’t even make her point properly, let alone justify it? This is an example of arbitrary opinion passing for commentary, and on such an interesting and vital topic it’s unacceptable, especially on the Guardian site, where you should be able to get some kind of intellectual engagement. Arthur Scargill’s pollution/radiation challenge article made more sense, for God’s sake, even if he was dead wrong.
The underlying assumption seems to be that individual freedom and social justice are incomptable at some basic level; that freedom from is more important than freedom to. These are arguments that have their own logic, even if they are ultimately misguided. But you can’t counter an argument that hasn’t even been made. Making bald statements with nothing to back them up belongs to the kind of vapid media which exists purely to confirm the prejudices and assumptions of its readership. It adds nothing to debate, and as such does not belong on CiF.
“It adds nothing to debate, and as such does not belong on CiF.”
You’ve read CIF before, right?
I’ve never read CiF before either, but it seems odd to me that one would want their government to set a rule for all social activity. She called it “consensual authoritarianism” in her article. I’m a simple Yank raised on capitalism, but we’ve always had a political debate about consensual crimes. We have a lotto, but gambling is illegal in all but a few exceptions. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs, but we ban certain substances becaue they have no medical usage..as if ciggaretts do! To me nothing should be illegal unless it deprives another of their Natural Rights, namely life and to be left alone by governemnt. Should a society shun those who are considered louts and obnoxious to others? Maybe, but only if those currs are allowed a place to be loutish and nasty. To expect these people to adhear to a ‘code of conduct’ that they don’t ascribe to, simply to get along or for someone’s idea of ’social justice’, your asking for a fight….at least here in the states that is the case.
I agree with your statements about drug policy. A clear case of the government intervening to protect citizens from themselves; an infringement of civil liberties.
Freedom, however, is not the only good. Different people’s freedoms must be balanced each other, and freedom itself needs to be balanced against other goods. The social contract may be flawed, but there needs to be something, or people suffer. Suffering is a bad, and a certain amount of curtailment of negative freedom is not only necessary but desirable. Instances: smoking in bars vs. workers dying from passive smoking; freedom from taxation vs. decent social programmes, health services, etc.
Americans are in no position to lecture others on freedom. Beyond the drug policy McPhatty mentions, look at government surveillance, high rates of incarceration, and its constant meddling in the other affairs of other nations.