Whining liberals and Puritans.
I have spent the past few days/weeks/months etc becoming more and more irritated with the newspapers I've been reading. For a start, one of them used to be a broadsheet, before becoming a pseudo-tabloid.
But more than that, there's a strong streak of goody-goody liberal shite to them. The Guardian, for example, is fond of a "Is it ethical to...." column. "Oh, dear guardian, is it ethical to breathe air that may have been ripped from the lungs of Columbian peasants?" "Is it ethical to eat food when, instead, it could have been shipped in environmentally friendly fashion, to Africa, and used to feed a starving village?" "Is it ethical to utilise huge fucking amounts of paper to sell at what is now 70p a shot, when you could put it on the web for nowt?"
And so on. The great dilemma of the liberal - how to live a life which doesn't cause anyone else harm, whilst still maintaining a house in Islington, a second home in Devon and a holiday villa somewhere south of Spain.
Well, I'm sorry, but you can't. Make your fucking choice. Either you're happy with capitalism, and everyone getting screwed so you can have your luxury goods, or you're opposed to it. Your attempted middle ground won't wash.
And connected to these Liberal types are the new model puritans. Most Sunday broadsheets have covered these. Humourless types who hate the world, and every form of fun available in it. You like to drink? How dare you - you have a drink problem. You enjoy sex? Weirdo! Traitor! To hell with you.
Me? I just hate the world, and get on with it.
But more than that, there's a strong streak of goody-goody liberal shite to them. The Guardian, for example, is fond of a "Is it ethical to...." column. "Oh, dear guardian, is it ethical to breathe air that may have been ripped from the lungs of Columbian peasants?" "Is it ethical to eat food when, instead, it could have been shipped in environmentally friendly fashion, to Africa, and used to feed a starving village?" "Is it ethical to utilise huge fucking amounts of paper to sell at what is now 70p a shot, when you could put it on the web for nowt?"
And so on. The great dilemma of the liberal - how to live a life which doesn't cause anyone else harm, whilst still maintaining a house in Islington, a second home in Devon and a holiday villa somewhere south of Spain.
Well, I'm sorry, but you can't. Make your fucking choice. Either you're happy with capitalism, and everyone getting screwed so you can have your luxury goods, or you're opposed to it. Your attempted middle ground won't wash.
And connected to these Liberal types are the new model puritans. Most Sunday broadsheets have covered these. Humourless types who hate the world, and every form of fun available in it. You like to drink? How dare you - you have a drink problem. You enjoy sex? Weirdo! Traitor! To hell with you.
Me? I just hate the world, and get on with it.
4 Comments:
I disagree. I am a "liberal" to the extent that I think, by and large, our society permits us freedoms that are worth having, and that people should be free under the law to do what they want providing it doesn't harm others.
Determining what is relevant harm, given chains of complex causation, is one of the problems of classic liberalism. Which actions should be proscribed?
I believe in a much stronger regulation of capitalism to promote equality and limit the predation of monsternational corporations, since this clearly harms others. It should be made illegal to own a second home, for example, or to speculate on currencies.
Even if these examples do not fulfil the harm condition (as the causal connection is too distant) I would argue that we can have it both ways. We have it both ways all the time. Taxation and the welfare state profoundly illiberal, for example - we haven't agreed to our money being used (and our freeedom to spend consequently being limited) in this way.
We should force our ideas to fit our purposes, to some extent, and cobble together compromises. The pure fanatics are the dangerous ones.
I agree with your comment about capitalism, Puskas. Half-hearted measures like Kyoto or "doing your bit" by listening to Live 8, recycling etc are not sufficient to address the huge problems of inequality and environmental destruction. Only really radical change in power relations is going to begin to solve these problems.
Neb - why not post that poem on CV?
Yep, all that hand-wringing doesn't ring true at all.
Especially where the environment and education is concerned. I'm totally dubious about the new measures to allow the middle classes more choice about which school to send their kids to and would be interested to see how the liberal press are covering this.
My placements (School A and School B) are supposed to provide a good degree of contrast. They are in fact falling off opposite ends of a spectrum rather than 'contrasting'. They're located within a mile of each other. Shocking and saddening that their clientele are neatly divided by social class. Anyone who claims that schools are not *already* two-tier (the good and the adequate or failing) is lying.
I agree that it's sad. The whole fetsh about choice in education and the NHS is just nuts! People don't want choice; they just want a bloody good service in every school. Social services do not operate according to the same dynamics as markets, and the government can't seem to see this.
Post a Comment
<< Home