What do you associate Polish liberalism with? Me with Claudia Jacira posting photos of Sunday buying at malls. Z Richard Petruwho has set himself a point of honor to reduce the wellness contribution. With Leszek Balcerowicz, who decided any time ago that – a surprise! – 1 should look for savings in social spending.
You'll say it's a vicious selection of examples. Maybe, but it's representative. A inexpensive state, unlimited consumerism as fundamentally the only manifestation of freedom, low taxes and contributions, social cuts – these are themeswhich go through the full past of liberalism of the 3rd Republic of Poland.
These views didn't come out of nowhere. Polish liberalism was and remains powerfully inspired the most free marketplace branch of liberal tradition. Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Louis von Mises, as well as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher – this is the patron saint of Polish liberal thought.
But erstwhile you look at the wider tradition of liberalism in the world, a different image emerges. 1 of the most important, and possibly the most crucial typical of liberal thought in the 20th century, is the figure of comparatively small known in Poland – philosopher John Rawls. erstwhile Time magazine published a list of the 100 most crucial books of the 20th century, it included only a fewer philosophical positions – among them Justice Theory Rawlsa.
I mention this due to the fact that British philosopher and economist Daniel Chandler has just published a book Free and Equal. It wonders what a society would look like, arranged according to Rawls' principles of liberalism. And you know what? specified a society would be left of the Together organization program.
I would like all individual in Poland who feels sympathy for liberal thought to read this book. Not necessarily to agree with all line of Chandler's text. Rather, the thought is to see what opportunities are behind liberalism as an idea. Remember that liberalism does not gotta come down to idolizing the marketplace or desperately defending the position quo against alleged populism – that liberalism is besides a bold imagination of a better, more just society.
Behind the veil of ignorance
Rawls came up with a simple idea. Imagine that you are participating in negotiations on the foundations of our society. To stay impartial, you do not know who you will be in this society: what will be your gender, color, origin, sexual orientation, wealth or confession of your parents.
What principles would those behind specified a “cover of ignorance” develop?
To begin with, they would consider Rawls that everyone should have basic individual and political freedoms guaranteed. If we do not know who we will be, then we want to be certain that wherever we go, society will supply us with freedom of speech, association, choice of profession, right to vote and participation in political processes, etc.
These freedoms are absolute – they cannot be violated in the name of another principles, even if these principles are mostly right. Rawls, for example, was a supporter of economical improvement due to the fact that he felt that it allowed him to build prosperity for all. However, he did not let situations where this improvement is imposed from above – in an authoritarian way. Thus, both the russian Union and Chile in Augusto Pinochet's regulation fall out. Whether we are talking about social or free marketplace reforms, no of them must violate our political freedom.
The second set of principles developed for the "blind of ignorance" concerns equality. First of all, equal opportunities. one more time – since we do not know who we will be in this society, we want everyone to have the same or akin chance to develop, choose a career or influence on political processes.
Importantly, Rawls felt formal equality was not enough. It is not adequate to deficiency legal barriers. Everyone should have a real equality of opportunity, that is to say, taking into account social and economical inequalities and providing support in overcoming obstacles specified as access to education and resources.
What about economical inequality as such? Even if everyone has an equal start, sooner or later any will get richer and others will get less. Rawls believes that specified inequalities would be acceptable, but only if they were beneficial to the least privileged part of society.
For example, if any inequalities in wages aid economical development, and this improvement in turn makes everything better, then there is no point in fighting them. And erstwhile inequality does not aid development, society has no interest in to tolerate it, especially due to the fact that it can lead to violations of another principles – like equal chances of influencing the political process.
More democracy
Rawls's basic principles of liberalism are rather modest. But, as Chandler rightly points out, if we could draw full conclusions from them, we would gotta seriously improvement our societies. Especially with respect to the principles of political freedom and equality.
Chandler cites 2 studies that show that even in modern democratic states not all citizens have equal influence on political processes. Politologists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page analysed nearly 1800 political proposals over 2 decades in the US. They stated that while economical elites and organised business interests groups had a crucial impact on US government policies, average citizens and mass interest groups had a tiny or no influence. On the another hand, Larry Bartels' analysis based on data covering 30 democracies showed that governments were more likely to respond to the preferences of wealthy voters, leading to the failure of health, education, pensions, unemployment benefits.
What do I do? 1 of the solutions proposed by Chandler is the introduction of a democratic voucher: a certain amount of money available all year for all citizen, for everyone it would be the same amount. This voucher could be transferred to a selected political organization or candidate to guarantee political equality and reduce the impact of rich donors. Democratic vouchers would besides be an chance for fresh parties to gain backing for their first election campaign.
The next step could be to extend the scope of participatory budgets, where residents straight decide on public spending. The example of Porto Alegre in Brazil shows that specified an approach increases social engagement and leads to a fairer distribution of resources, which is crucial to building assurance in democratic institutions.
Although Chandler is simply a supporter of typical democracy, he believes that it could be supported by randomly elected civic panels that would talk on highly crucial issues. It cites the celebrated example of a civilian panel from Ireland, where 99 randomly elected people together with experts developed recommendations on abortion.
But Chandler goes even further. The rule of equal influence on the form of society besides applies to our jobs – he argues. Which means that employees should have more to say than they do now. The author recommends a co-management model, for example by providing employees with a fixed number of seats on the board. Like in Germany, where employees have a 3rd of the board seats in companies over 500 employees and half in companies over 2,000 employees. It besides adds that individual countries should change the law so that cooperatives can be formed more easily.
I'm serious.
Chandler becomes even more extremist as he moves on to the issue of economical equality. It starts by recalling investigation that shows how uneven Western democracies have become and that there is no evidence that specified a scale of inequality supports economical development. In Europe 30% of national income goes to the pocket of 10% of the best earners, while only 24% to the bottom half of the worst earners, even after taxes and social benefits are taken into account.
Moreover, we know that these economical inequalities translate into inequalities of opportunity. Children from poorer homes have a much harder career way than children from rich homes. And that's against Rawls' rules.
Studies show that the crucial period of improvement of the kid starts very early, which means that each parent should be able to send the kid to a public institution after the end of parental leave. Chandler even suggests further changes. As he writes:
"If we truly want equal opportunities, it would be best to ban paid schools completely. It is not about resenting parents who want what is best for their children, but about designing a school strategy that implements the thought of a fair start for each child."
Another of Chandler's solutions is the introduction of unconditional base income. This is not only a substance of financial support, but besides self-respect. The current social assistance strategy frequently humiliates people, dividing them into those who receive support and those who do not receive it. Basic income strengthens the bargaining position of employees, which is crucial in the context of equality of power. It would besides aid any people escape from toxic household environments.
Chandler besides suggests introducing inheritance tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The State would invest these funds in private companies, and profits from these investments would be shared among all citizens in the form of an yearly dividend. An example of this is the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is 1 of the most successful programs of this kind in the world. This could besides aid finance unconditional basic income, which would further strengthen economical and social equality.
Liberal Utopia
Some people may consider Chandler's vision, as well as Rawls's vision, to be utopian – and make it a charge due to the fact that utopias have not been popular lately, especially in liberal environments.
Author Free and equal has a good answer to that. "We request utopia to have a clear imagination of how we want to develop." Utopia is simply a kind of a signpost that allows us to checkWhether we're getting closer or moving distant from the desired model of society.
As far as the way in which this utopia is concerned, Chandler is simply a pragmatist. He readily acknowledges that most of the changes he proposes should be introduced gradually. He is besides a supporter of trial and error. Therefore, it considers that many details request to be worked out in practice – for example, how advanced the inheritance taxation should be and precisely what the income from it should be allocated. Or what function an unconditional basic income in democracy should play: a tiny complement to public services or something that any of them will replace.
Chandler's book is not a recipe for a perfect society, but a test. Open political imagination. The Polish liberalism, who inactive cannot free itself from the heritage of neoliberalism, would surely be for the best. possibly it's time for liberalism to halt associating with buying in buying malls and reducing wellness contributions, and start with real concern for equal opportunities and democracy? We would all do well, including the left, which would gain a partner to argue about how best to implement these ideas.
