Liberal Road Blog Individual Freedom and Equality

More or less official curfews seem to become more common in some countries. Even shopping malls in the United States are forbidding young people to come shopping without their parents (See article of The Times).

In the shopping mall mentioned in the article people under 16 are not allowed to come in the shopping mall after 3 pm on Saturdays and Sundays if not accompanied by parents.

To me it sounds like discrimination and a limitation of the freedom of movement. In the society nowadays shopping malls are such an important place to spend time that it is hard to accept such curfews especially with the starting time as early as 3pm. That’s in the middle of the afternoon(!)

By denying some people the right to come to normal stores based solely on their age is just plain discrimination.

5 Comments »

One option that I think should be much more discussed is the world state. Of course it’s definitely not something that could be realized in a few years. It’s something to create on the long run.

Why a world state? Well, now that we have about 200 nations the world is very unequal and not coordinated. In a more and more globalized world, states lose power if they stand alone. It is also easier for international criminal organizations to take advantage of the fact that countries are not cooperating enough.

What would the world state do? Well, the world state could be a federation, without too much power, coordinating the states. It would have simple principles; it’s goal would be to guarantee the individual freedom and equality between people. Thus it would take care that no state takes measures violating individual freedom or equality.

The world state would also take hand of the taxes and it would redistribute the tax incomes so that the world would become more or less as wealthy overall. The local states could still decide to some extent about for example how they organize the services (health care), but the financement would come from the top. This is a way to ensure that poorer areas are equal toward richer areas.

The world state would also take measures so that the systems of all states are more or less compatible with each other. It means that people would be able to move anywhere without the natural limitations of having different systems (for example having 200 different education systems that are often NOT recognized abroad and so on).The world wouldn’t actually have borders like it has nowadays and everyone would be free to move anywhere he or she wants to.

As I know that these kind of proposals have a lot of critics it may be good to treat some of them. One common critic is that a world state is too utopist. Well, as said, it’s not something that would be realized in a short time. It’s something that could be realized with a lot of time and it also requires that rich countries help poorer countries much more than now. It’s also good to remember that only fifty years ago the European Union would have been something of an utopia.

Another critics is how could different cultures decide together about anything as different cultures and different religions have different perceptions about the society. Well, as long as we try to force other people live like we live we’ll have conflicts. But if we let each individual decide themself how she or he wants to live and don’t require others to live in the same way, we have much less conflicts. Actions hurting others or limiting their freedom need to be forbidden, but otherwise individuals should be allowed to do what they want to.

The world state wouldn’t thus decide how people should live (what religion they follow, if they follow traditions or not etc). The world state would guarantee that everyone can choose themselves their way of life.

1 Comment »

Earlier this week the Immigration court in Sweden decided that some Iraqi refugees can be deported to some parts (mainly north) of Iraq. According to the court there isn’t a military conflict in Iraq as defined juridically. That’s why some deportations are possible. This decision has been criticized and even the minister of foreign affairs has expressed some concerns over the issue (source: Svenska Dagbladet, in Swedish).

I’d like to point attention here to one thing that hasn’t been debated that much. The critics have been about whether or not Iraq is safe enough, but not about why in the first place we are deporting people.

I believe that deporting people is very discriminating: if you are a citizen you can stay, but if you are not you don’t have this right. This puts people in different situations based on where they were born or who their parents are.

Moreover when the deportation is due to crimes committed in the country, it is actually a second punishment you get because you are a foreigner. First you are punished for the crime and if you are a foreigner you get this second punishment: deportation.

Some people argue that the deportation of criminals are right because it protects the country from further crimes. But this is only a way to move the problem to foreign countries, not to solve it. And if we are deporting non-citizen criminals, shouldn’t we actually deport ALL criminals, even citizens, to be consequent? I believe that no: we shouldn’t deport anyone at all.

Basically everyone should be free to go to whatever country they want to and even settle there. Country borders and immigration laws are artificial boundaries violating our individual freedom.

Any opinions about the subject?

Add a Comment »

Animal rights are not accepted as widely as human rights. I believe animals should have equal rights as people. Animals should for example have the right to life, freedom and so on. Using them for medical research, food and other is completely unacceptable. I’m going to explain why.

Most of us agree that individuals have rights. Most of us agree that people shouldn’t for example be killed, assaulted and that everyone should have basic freedom (and the list could go on). Most of us also agree that all of us have these rights - not only some. For examples not only the rich or the intelligent have the right to life and not to be beaten or imprisoned for no reason.

However most people think that these rights don’t apply to animals. Why? One of the most common arguments used is that animals wouldn’t be able to think and therefore inferior. This is a very controversial issue in scientific research and many scientists believe that animals think (link).

And even if it was the case that animals didn’t think it still wouldn’t be acceptable to violate their rights. I give an example: There are some very seriously mentally retarded people that can’t actually really think very much. If it was all right to kill and eat animals because they couldn’t think, then it should be all right to kill and eat these seriously mentally retarded persons. However there is a large consensus that allowing to kill and eat the seriously mentally retarded people in question is totally unacceptable.

Another argument used to argue that animals shouldn’t have rights is that animals “are naturally inferior” because they are not civilized. Here again we have the same situation. What about the persons that don’t live in “civilized” and have no idea of the industrial world? Should it be all right to kill and eat them? No, it shouldn’t; they have rights too is what almost anyone asked will answer. So why wouldn’t animals not living in “civilization” have these rights?

As a conclusion and for all these reasons animals should have the same rights as human beings. A crime against an animal should bring the same punishment as the same crime against a person. Killing animals, using them as food or using them in medical experiments is totally unacceptable and can actually be compared to concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

48 Comments »

A court of appeal has ruled that foreign terrorist suspects (foreign enemy combatants) don’t have the right to challenge their detention in civil courts (source: Times). This is a serious violation of human rights.

The court decision means that detainees in Guantanamo won’t be able to challenge their detention in US courts. The rule in question is a part of the Military Commission Act passed after the US Supreme court declared unconstitutional that detainees in Guantanamo didn’t have the right to challenge their detention. Now the court’s decision keeps in force this part of the Military Commission Act.

One question the media and public opinion hasn’t been discussing that much is the extent to which non-citizens have different rights than citizens. Some countries make little distinction between citizens’ and non-citizens’ rights, while others have bigger differences. The rights of non-citizens’ in the United states have been continuously weakened (Patriotic Act, Military Commission Act, indefinite arrest without trial of foreign terrorist suspects and so on) in the war on terrorism.

But why non-citizens’ shouldn’t have the same rights? After all we are all individuals and it is therefore unfair that your origin determines what rights you have.

In the middle age it was current in many countries that laws had smaller punishments for people from the rich classes than from the poor classes for exactly the same crime. Nowadays this is seen as unacceptable. So why are we still making a similar distinction in practice? Now the distinction is between citizens and non-citizens instead of rich and poor classes.

Add a Comment »

A school in southern Sweden has decided that students are allowed to speak only in Swedish (link in Swedish: Dagens Nyheter). The decision forbids other languages not only during class lessons, but also during breaks.

A wrong decision I think. It’s discriminating foreign students as they won’t be allowed to use their mother thongs even when speaking with other foreign students. I also think it’s an unacceptable limitation of students’ freedom of speech. Why should schools have the right to decide what language students use when speaking to each other?

Sure, the decision has been made for security reasons so that no one will be able to think someone insulted him or her in an other language. The school has had serious security incidents. But still, the cause doesn’t justify this rule. It’s the wrong medicine to the problem. Everyone should have the right to use their language when they want to.

Add a Comment »

Immigration should be completely free. Yes, I support free immigration and oppose immigration laws restricting foreigner’s rights to come in a country. The world shouldn’t have country borders we are not allowed to cross.

I know this is not a widely supported position in the political debates worldwide. It´s a pity : it should be much more discussed as an option.

One of the most basical reasons why I oppose laws restricting immigration is that they limit the freedom of individuals in an unacceptable way. Depending on the nationality you have you will be allowed to move to only certain countries. Other countries you may only visit as a tourist, but are not allowed to move there.

One common argument for limiting foreigners’ right to come and work in a country is that foreigners are taking the jobs and thus creating unemployment. But why should the citizens of this country have a higher right to the jobs than foreigners? Why would some people have a priority to jobs?

Furthermore, immigration can also benefit the country welcoming immigrants: people from different cultures have different points of views, ideas and this enriches the culture of this country.

Immigration laws are also very unfair. Depending of where you were born or who your parents are (and thus the nationality you get) you have completely different rights. If you are from a poor country, for example an African country, you’ll need visas to enter pretty much any country and there are usually loads of requirements to fulfill. If you are from a rich country, you won’t need visas in many cases and the requirements are much smaller.

1 Comment »

The decision of a Scandic hotel in Oslo, Norway to refuse to accommodate a Cuban tourism delegation has caused a major debate in Norway and other Scandinavian countries (source: Yahoo News). The hotel argues that it has to follow the laws of the United States concerning the embargo of Cuba, because the Scandic hotel group is nowadays owned by the American company Hilton.

This is an example of discrimination that should not happen. Accommodation is such a basic need that it’s completely unacceptable to deny it to anyone based on where they come from or what company or country they are representing. If all hotels in Oslo would follow the U.S. laws and the delegation had to sleep in the streets (supposing that the dedication would come anyway), would that be considered fair?

However there is one thing that we have to note: Cubans as private persons are welcome to Scandic hotels in Norway, only official representative are not welcome. This is comforting, but it doesn’t change the fact that the delegation should have been allowed to book rooms in the hotel even if it would have resulted in Scandic or its owner Hilton being fined in the United States.

Now Scandic risks fines in Norway as a police complain for illegal discrimination has been filed by Antirasistisk Senter (link in Norwegian), a center against racism. A trade union has also announced it will boycott Scandic hotels.

We can say that the legal situation for Scandic was not easy: risking fines in the United States or risking them in Norway.
A subject to be followed.

1 Comment »

I decided to start this political blog to comment about political issues from a liberal point of view. In this blog I’ll write my personal opinions about political events worldwide. There are two things I value very high: individual freedom and equality.

I believe that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to unless it harms others or limits the freedom of others. The state has no right to limit the individual freedom unless it is necessary in order to protect the freedom of others or the equality of everyone. Actually the state is responsible to guarantee the individual freedom of everyone.

I also believe that everyone should be equal and should have equal opportunities in life. I believe that the state has the responsibility to do what is necessary in order to guarantee the equality of everyone. Basically the state has two responsibilities: to guarantee the individual freedom and the equality of everyone.

4 Comments »