The liberal philosophy (as from left to right politic color) is considering that humans have "natural rights", and that nobody, even governement, can deprive someone of its natural rights.
There is a consensus between all kinds of liberals (left and right) on a list of these natural rights. It concerns :
- right to live
- right for freedom
- right of safety (that government must to provide)
- right of travel/circulate
- right of property
The most hard to understand is the last (property natural right). However, I have an easy example to understand it.
Imagine that you are in a desert island, and all the human society is to build. The first form of property right, is the property of your body. To survive, you will have to use of this property, and your neighbors will do the same. You will become surgeon and get wood while some others will get fish, and other will build houses, other will make business...
How would you feel if a superior authority will dictate you the price that you will sell your wood at a price who won't be the best for you (too expensive reducing customers, or not enough, making you earn less for a lot of work) ? Probably you will consider that you must to change of work.
This is a form of property right : the right to enjoy of the fruits of its efforts/work. Another right is to do what you want of the fruits of this work : if you want to give a part to your family, a friend, a poor, or to invest it in something else, nobody have to block you.
Administration, then, must to protect people for these rights, not reduce them as nowadays.
Moreover, it implies that administration must to be really secular. No one law can reduce freedom of others. Christianism traditions could not reduce muslims/non-believer freedom. Muslim could not as well. Non-believers could not as well. It is as simple as that (example : the administrative baptism certificate reduce freedom of non-believers).
However here is the cleavage between left liberals and right liberals :
- Left liberals like me consider that equal opportunities at birth to study any diploma is necessary to make a fair and stable society. Taxing to ensure free studies and social living helps for serious students (universities as well as vocational) is required. The Finland system is for us, an example.
- Left liberals like me consider that to ensure the natural right to live and to circulate, taxing a bit to provide an universal allowance to eat and ride public transports is required, and without conditions (contrary than the additionnal social help for students who would require the presence in class of the student).
Advantages ?
Individually :
- A fair society where no one kid is penalized by its family origin.
- A society where nobody can force you of anything, even not the administration. The only reduced freedom are taxes to allow the administration to protect your natural rights.
- A society where someone who work is sure that its money is well used (only for the protection of natural rights).
Economically :
- Free trade will allow companies to make more profits in short term (then bigger salaries and/or less unemployment)
- In a middle and long term, free trade will increase the power purchase of citizen (by reducing prices)
- Concentrating regulation only sectors where it makes consensus that it will help everybody (no one tax in agriculture, housing, energy, transport, export), but nothing else.
- The non-regulation in everything else will push Philippines companies to make profits (and then, bigger salaries, less unemployment)
- The non-regulation in labour law will allow companies to hire and fire as they need, to allow them to make more profits. The only regulation that I consider would be some work standards to increase life expectancy in good health (and then, having more wealth creators). And eventually require 2 rest days per week, and 3 weeks of paid vacation per year.
Also, but I don't call this "regulation", the company must to count the salary PER HOUR, and must to provide the average hourly local salary for the job in question (if available) : to allow the employees to negociate well their income.
- The best argument is that would make easily a wealth Philippines. Why ? It would push investors from anywhere in the world to invest their money in The Philippines. The "Ireland miracle" prooved it in Europe.
Today ? Investors can not own totally companies in the country (or because of the business laws, or because they can not own a land/lot). So of course they prefer to invest in another country, even more expensive.
Tomorrow ? Investors could own their company and land/lot/house, and enjoy of economic freedom to make the system simple.
Socially :
- With the universal allowance, no one could die of lack of money.
- No one kid would growth up in the street.
- Condoms, pills and other contraception would be free. Because it's less expensive to make it free than to provide more family allowance, and because it makes incomes growth up faster to have less demography.
- Everyone could expect to study anywhere in the country without any money problem as long as they study seriously with the additionnal social help for these persons and with studies free of tuition fees.
Societally :
- Everyone shall be responsible of its acts
- The Liberal reform need a new constitution : this one would respect more the local freedom of people.
There is too many people unable to talk correctly English or Tagalog. This is not their native language. And because of this forced system, they can not even learn their own language (especially Cebuano). In a liberal decentralized constitution, people will choose locally which language to teach to their children, and to leave this unfair tagalog domination, English would be the only one unity/togetherness language : the language of administration, and the only language education required by federation.
- People could create referendums locally (under condition of petition). It implies that if local people in Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao REALLY want to be independant or join another country like Brunei or Malaysia, they could with this referendum. Useless to create deaths in civils and soldiers just to force people to live together.
Left Liberal parties ? No one in Philippines. Only Akbayan, a little party is near than this Philosophy. The liberal party of Noynoy is more a center-right party than a left party.
Abroad ? Left parties from Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, UK, Australia, Ireland.
No comments:
Post a Comment