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 »

Once upon a time there was a prohibition time about alcohol. Well, it failed. But nowadays there is still a prohibition on drugs. Prohibiting the use of drugs when the use doesn’t harm others is an unacceptable limitation of the individual freedom (because no one else is harmed).

I believe that as long as using drugs doesn’t harm others it should be legal. Everyone should be free to do whatever they want to as long as it doesn’t harm others. However if someone harms another as a result of using drugs, she or he should be sentenced to treatment and be forbidden to use drugs in the future. The same thing would be the case for the drugs that are already legal: tobacco and alcohol.

Instead of criminalizing drugs the state should rather regulate them. By regulating I mean taxing them, informing about the potential harms and offering help to drug users. The state could also have a monopol on the drug market and it would manufacture and sell drugs itself. This way we could ensure that the quality of drugs is controlled and thus avoid deaths and major health problems that are due to unclean drugs. Furthermore by having a state monopol on drugs the number of selling places could be regulated (thus limiting consumption).

Those opposing the legalization of drugs often argues that drug consumption almost always leads to other crimes. This is not the case just as it is not true that drinking alcohol always leads to crimes. Furthermore if the drugs were legal and sold in state owned stores consumers would no longer need to be in contact with dealers belonging criminal gangs. An exception to legalizing drugs could be made for those hard drugs that have a very high likehood of leading to harms on others.

It is probably true that legalizing drugs would lead to some increase in their use, but at the same time legalizing them offers better possibilities to control their damages.

Shortly: forbidding the use of drugs when it doesn’t harm others is a violation of the individual freedom and of individual rights.

3 Comments »

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 »

A US army officer who refused to go to Iraq is facing court-martial (source: CBS News). Ehren Watada risks up to four years in prison for refusing to fight in Iraq and criticizing the war publicly.

Watada claims that the war on Iraq is illegal according to US laws. He claims also that he has a legal right and obligation to refuse to follow unlawful orders (ie the order to fight in Iraq).

This is once again an example of a totally unacceptable violation of the individual freedom. Refusing to serve and saying what you want to are basical rights that everyone should always have.

The state doesn’t have the right to limit the individual freedom unless it is necessary for the freedom of others. And it’s not the case here.

The court case already seems to have started in an unfair way as the court refused to analyze the legality of the war. The trial is unfair, because if the war is illegal Watada hasn’t actually committed a crime. Now he doesn’t have the chance to prove his innocence.

I see this court case also as an attack on the freedom on speech: Watada can face a jail term for publicly questioning the legality of the war in Iraq.

It’s very unfair that an army officer wouldn’t have the right to the freedom of speech (which is guaranteed in the first amendment of the American constitution). I’m not a law specialist so anyone who has more information about the first amendment in this case is welcome to comment.

Watada’s courage to stand behind his convictions can only be admired.

4 Comments »

The news that a Russian hospital taped the mouths of small babies to stop them from crying
has created a scandal in Russia (see link for a picture). The hospital staff allegedly did it so that babies cry wouldn’t bother them as the hospital lacked staff.

This news raises the question of what rights babies and children should have. I personally believe that taping the mouth of babies is unacceptable. It is hard to understand why children shouldn’t have rights when adults have them.

If it is not okay to tape the mouth of an adult why would it be okay to tape the mouth of a baby?

I think it’s the same thing with corporal punishment of children by their parents (for example smacking): We are not allowed to hit an adult as a punishment even if he behaves in a disturbing way or does bad things so why should we be allowed to hit a child?

Unfortunately only 16 countries have laws forbidding completely the hitting of children. Sweden was the first country in 1979.

1 Comment »

Today as I surfed around the web this news hit my eyes. The Chinese Communist party chief Hu Jintao has announced he wants to “purify” the Internet. Whatever it means in practice this time it may be again bad news for the freedom of speech in China.

The Internet is heavily censored in China. The Great Firewall, as it is called, blocks the access to many websites.

Many of the blocked websites contain information or comments criticizing the Chinese government. Also websites containing information about events the government wants to hide are censored (like the Tiananmen Square events in 1989).

This censorship is a serious violation of the individual freedom. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want to with only few restrictions (which are for example libel, threatening someone, encouraging someone to seriously harm another or privacy reasons).

I personally could confirm the censorship when I traveled in China in winter 2006. Many major foreign press websites were censored (as the BBC). I also tried to access websites about the Tiananmen Square events of 1989 and Falun Gong, without much success.

I however realized that accessing censored website was quite easy using foreign proxies. However some proxy websites were also blocked. I also suppose that using proxies in China to access censored websites can potentially lead to troubles with the police.

For more information about Internet in China I recommend the following page from Reporters Without Borders: link

It will be interesting to see if my website too will be censored in China.

1 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 »

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 »