Every day as I read the news and listen to the radio I dread the erosion of Liberal principles across the globe and there seems to be an increase in extremism and antagonistic attitudes toward the most seemingly inoffensive issues. Due to the growth of fascism both in the UK and particularly across Europe it feels as if Liberal ideology is utterly at threat.
The LibDem fight back is about more than a party but an ideal. We need to convince people that we can moderate as well as keep the door ajar to our left wing allies. We must fight the corner for workers and the poor and those lives that have been utterly ruined by the Conservative party cuts. We must keep a balance of sensible politics and reject extremism in any form, right or left. It is not a healthy route to achieve political, social and geopolitical cohesion. Liberal ideas must be kept alive and not end up squeezed out and squashed into nothingness.
The ideas of being Liberal must be at the nucleus of our thinking, behaviour and actions. We need to embrace our historical “founders” Erasmus, Montesquieu, John Locke, Simone de Beauvoir or whoever else you choose as your own personal poster person for liberalism. We need to keep the best of their ideas alive. If we don’t, we risk losing the liberal ideal and getting left behind.
Erasmus believed in Humanist principles, one of the building blocks of liberalism. He advocated freedom of will to an extent unheard of at the time. He was a man who wanted to be in the middle during the reformation, taking elements from different doctrines that were relevant for his theories. He rightly held a centrist position during this fractured time throughout the turmoil seeping in and around Europe. Like Spinoza he believed in our freedom to be able to learn, the basic fundamental principle of a human being to strive to “know”.
John Locke, the “Father of Liberalism”, believed that we each had a right to personal independence. Montesquieu had forward-thinking ideas of constitutional reform and equality; and Simone de Beauvoir’s social theories, existential and feminist thought, as well as sexual freedoms, are still vastly ahead of our times today.
Whoever your idol or influence is (and I know I have missed out many) it is their ideals we must remember. Whichever bits we wish to cherry pick or update it is these theoretical and ideological principles that we must uphold, particularly in these turbulent times when liberalism will be really tested. We must fight for truly liberal ideas in order to keep our place in the political landscape and to fight for an ideological spirit.
We must argue with sound and free-thinking liberal argument for a respectful and free society. A society which strives to understand those that are different (whether it is race, religion or wealth) that has a liberal heart at its core. Let’s revive that heart before it’s too late.
“This argues fruitfulness and liberal heart” – Othello, Act III, Scene iv, By William Shakespeare
* The author is an actor, writer and Lib Dem member
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We have no idea what history will say about Keir Starmer and it may not be right anyway
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
David Raw
Jana
Peter Black
Nigel Quinton
Chris Cory
38 Comments
“Is Liberalism Dead?”
No.
Andrew is right it is about much more than our Party but the battle within the Party has to be honest and informed.
Neoliberalism is forcing the gap between the super rich and the rest of us ever further apart. The world is facing, in my belief, ever greater risk of unrest, disaffection, revolution etc in all its forms as a result of that. All of which will impact on the UK in one form or another.
If Liberal Democracy is to play a part in our future then we need to look very carefully at the role money (power) plays in determining the Agenda that we will follow and to acknowledge how that power is being used.
If we are to control our destiny as a Party and our influence on the destiny of our country we must know where the power strings are that are jerking us around and most importantly, who is pulling them.
.
Liberalism is an idea, and they are very hard to kill (see the refusal of those supporting communism after the disasters of the 20th century, or the anti-science religious hardliners). Liberal ideas will still be around in the future, the question is will the LibDems be the ones promoting them.
“Neoliberalism is forcing the gap between the super rich and the rest of us ever further apart”
If you only care about the difference between those at the absolute top and the majority then the question skews all of your answers to attacking them. If your concern is about the absolute position of the vast majority and those at the bottom then the answers are more likely to be about raising the majority up (and probably indirectly then bringing the gap down) the answer is more likely to be one more likely to actually achieve something.
“we need to look very carefully at the role money (power) plays in determining the Agenda”
Isn’t it funny how everyone is obsessing over David Cameron’s tax arrangements and so little scrutiny to any donors in the leaked documents? A system that allows one party to spend £50m when the rest are severely restricted is hardly going to be the best.
Whenever I feel down about the state of the World I try to imagine what it must have been like for a Liberal to live through the 1930s, 40s & 50s. Economic collapse, mass unemployment, deflation, riots, the rise of Fascim & Communism & the retreat of Democracy, War, The revelations about Death Camps across Europe & Asia, The Atomic Bomb …
How did anyone keep faith in Democracy, Internationalism & Civil Rights ? Liberals kept believing then & they were proved right; we can do the same.
Like David, I fear a resort to violence if prosperity is denied to the average citizen whilst the media continues to portray the mega rich at play.
Not that a revolution would do the revolutionaries any good. Have a look at the aprons of Farnborough, Blackbushe, Luton and any of the smaller airports around London. Row upon row of executive jets. At the first hint of trouble the big boys will be off and away to safer climes. The revolutionaries would then, as usual, turn their anger to their harmless neighbours.
I am an arch pragmatist and I can’t help pondering where the lofty and pure ideals of liberalism meet the real world?
For example there are millions of decent people in squalid refugee camps and millions more in even worse favellas. Would a true British Liberal suggest that they all be rescued and brought to Britain? The answer might be “We should work to make them safe where they are ” ( = “”NO”).
My view on liberalsim is that its rock and foundation is a revulsion of both dog-eat-dog capitalism and the statist slavery that is socialism’s inevitable end point and that Liberals, working together can find a way to create a humane, compassionate, tolerant and fair society together with energy, enterprise and the legitimate creation of wealth.
Ideas don’t die but liberalism is struggling because it’s been hijacked from within.
Neoliberalism is economics, but when Neoliberals try to hijack a liberal party it causes problems.
Likewise, social democrats are not liberals either. Liberals and social democrats often agree, but for different reasons and sometimes their ideas aren’t compatible but because social democrats are often part of the liberal movement the liberal ideas get overshadowed. This is what happened to the lib dems and why they can’t agree on issues such as drugs, the sex industry, free speech and positive discrimination.
Ideas often change. Take feminism. Old style feminism is completely compatible with liberalism so many feminists were also liberals. However feminists have largely won that battle now and the new type of feminism that is appearing in American universities called intersectional feminism is incompatible with liberalism and deeply authoritarian, yet liberal parties are clouded by the links to these types of feminists.
Once liberal parties sort themselves out and those with liberal ideals find political expression they will be a force to be reckoned with again.
@barry “Like David, I fear a resort to violence if prosperity is denied to the average citizen whilst the media continues to portray the mega rich at play.”
But the facts are that people are actually getting better off -there has been a huge increase in the number of people taken out of dire poverty in the last 30 years
Simon
That increase is in Asia, invisible to the average Brit.
Andrew,
Your mentionearly writers on Liberalism, but in the 1890s there was a major initiative that led to New Liberalism and our Party is very much in that tradition.
The most influential writer in this tradition is TH Green. Then there is Hobhouse and Hobson.
In the 1970’s the Young Liberalism took those ideas forward and they became the basis of our great breakthroughs in the 1970s and 1980s.
The most influential piece of writing from the second half of the C20th was The Theory and Practice of Community Politics by Bernard Greaves (not Tony) and Gordon Lishman, which can be found here … http://www.crosenstiel.webspace.virginmedia.com/aldc/commpol.htm
I would really enjoy reading a piece by you having looked at this tradition.
To write of Liberalism from the point of view of writers that preceded Green, is to miss the type character of the New Liberalism and its expression in Community Politics that was the basis of our huge revival, that led to us having 4,000 Councillors, 60 + MPs, A share in Government in Scotland, Wales and in the UK.
If you have not encountered these influences before, then, I fear you may have stumbled through the wrong door.
Sadly
The question isn’t,” Is Liberalism dead?” but how can we spread Liberalism to Africa and Asia, especially the Middle East.
I notice that your choice of ‘poster children’ for liberalism, were all from what might be called the upper middle class strata of their day. A priest, lawyers, men of letters, daughter of rich bourgeois family, writers and philosophers with a wealthy family background…etc. Where are the ex- coal miners, shipyard workers, steelworkers and the like, in that grouping of liberal influential(s).? This is indicative to both the rise… and decline of liberalism.
My take on this, is that at its core, liberalism is a ‘feel good’ benevolence which gives us an ‘affordable’ liberality, mainly espoused by the middle class with time and a modicum of ‘comfortable’ wealth on their hands.
More evidence of this link [economic comfort ~ sponsors ~ liberal ideology], is that we can see that liberalism’s popularity increased almost in lockstep with a growing economy over many recent decades. This seems to be because a growing economy gave many more erstwhile working class people the excess disposable wealth to ‘afford’ to be *liberal*. Indeed, as many of our dirty industry(s) were shipped to the East four decades ago, many workers swapped their blue collars for white collars. Simultaneously, many also shifted their thinking, (and self image) too, and became the ‘new middle class’, with an increased disposable income as well. The result of this shift is that with more disposable income, ‘charity’, benevolence, and more buon vivere… ‘let’s have freedoms for all’ social attitudes, became more affordable. And it follows that charity, freedom, benevolence, etc,.. are all the very same key ‘affordability factors’ which gave rise to liberalism within an ‘economically comfortable’ populace?
It should come as no surprise, that as global growth has gone into decline or stagnated, so with it, will go *political* liberalism. As a ‘comfortable’ populace becomes an increasingly ‘uncomfortable’ populace, so too will dissolve many leftist ideals which includes liberalism. So,… Is liberalism dead?. No,.. it’s an ideology which has lived in the mind for decades [maybe centuries], but it can only thrive in a practical sense, in a growing global economy.
Recently I said “small state economics is as dead as a dodo”. This was slightly unfair, but I said it to make a point that George Osborne needs to stop thinking people will accept brutal cuts as long as we have good economic growth for the private sector.
I believe in less government intervention for small businesses, which is what brought me to economic librealism in the first place, but the ideology can’t be applied to the powerful and expect to win public support.
People will say small state economics isn’t liberalism and I think that is true – but it is not how everyone sees it.
I would also apply the same rather tough message to the immigration debate. People are not relaxed about their green spaces and culture coming under threat and nor are they relaxed about potentially mass immigration from areas with lots of terrorism problems.
My only doubt is sometimes I think culturally the centre-left is winning. But in the ballot box the centre ground usually wins or we have the sea saw where a centre left government will win and then a centre right one will replace it and vice versa.
Good article.
always interesting to think and debate liberalism. first some good news – liberal
thinking is only in retreat really if you want it to be, the level of liberal attitudes in UK society must be at an all
time high. one of the essential ‘flaws’ of liberalism is its inherent tolerance, respect even, for opposing views and tendencies, not all of which reciprocate the toleration. hence it’s possible for liberals to feel threatened – by totalitarianism, conservative religion, unions … the original author referred to the rise of fascism in the UK. Really?
the bad news follows on from this – liberalism as a human and humane philosphy remains much wider than the liberal democrats. part of the problem here is that of the fellow travellers hitching their (usually lost) causes to the liberal wagon. Weighted down by the concerns of centrists, social democrats and the like, the party becomes less liberal, less democratic – and so fritters away its vital usp.
so, as we struggle to avoid 4th party status – or even 5th or 6th in scotland an wales, my view would be to go boldly, freely, gloriously in pursuit of liberal policy and ditch the compromises.
Eddie
“culture coming under threat ”
The greatest influences on British culture come from America.
@Eddie Sammon “economic librealism”
I assume this is a typo, but “librealism” seems like a brilliant word to describe a pragmatic approach to liberalism.
Peter, yes it is a typo, but I agree lib-realism is a good new word! 🙂
Is Liberalism dead ?
Well, let’s just say it was in a self- induced coma between 2010 and 2015.
The eyelids are flickering again, but there are still a few bad dreams and the odd bit of delirium denial…. so, who knows ?
Is Liberalism dead?
No, it’s pining for the fjords.
.
.
.
Sorry.
This is a good thoughtful positive article .Andrew , you are correct , everyone should have their own Liberal heroes .
To miss John Stuart Mill is to miss out the greatest influence on modern Liberalism .It is for this reason that I disagree with the view expressed by one or two here , and often , that Liberalism as we know it starts with the more obviously social Liberals of the New Liberalism .Mill is to us , here and now , or should be ,more than Marx is to a Marxist! For Mill did not predict and become redundant for getting it so wrong !He analysed and became timeless , for getting it so right !On Liberty is but one book , it is his whole life, his isolated upbringing , how he lived and related to and worked with Harriet Taylor and then Helen Taylor, his record as , an M.P., his personal ,philosophical, political , essence, is as the father of modern Liberalism.Not Gladstone , nor Hobbhouse, not Green , and no 60s or 70s Liberals , Red guard or community politics , however great the contribution can match it .
And no one has the right to question another Liberals influences or validity , in a philosophy that stretches centuries and continents !And that includes the contribution of classical liberals and social democrats !We are the Liberal Democrat party !
Lorenzo, you have focused the argument precisely. You are right to say that no one has the right to question another’s influences.
But the fact is that for 40 years the Liberals and then the Liberal Democrats campaigned on policies the roots of which were in the New Liberal Tradition and very much in the practice of Community Politics,itself a modern expression of Mill and those who developed New Liberalism at the end of the former century.
The result was a relationship of trust with millions of UK citizens in their communitiers. it was a blossoming of Liberalism and Liberal Democrat values in Cities, towns, villages and shires, not to mention Parliaments and Assemblies, through out the UK.
2007 was therefore ahigh water mark. With the arrival of a new Leadership there was a change back to the more individualist forms of Liberalism and the result was that all that political potential built of those years has been destroyed.
If you have looked carefully at the sources I mentioned above and rejected them, which you have, all well and good – we just disagree – my worry was that the author (who has not responded) may not have known about the influences that I mentioned and which connected so strongly with people across our nations.
No, liberalism is alive and well and thriving in Canada. I’ll never understand why the party isn’t shouting more about Justin Trudeau and what he’s doing there. He’s an instinctive Liberal. Everything he does has liberal principles at its core. Let’s embrace it, hug it and damn well shout loudly about what a liberal society can look like.
Ashley
“I’ll never understand why the party isn’t shouting more about Justin Trudeau”
Because Hero worship is a dangerous thing, best to wait until there is a record that can be cited to demonstrate the value of liberal policies, the LibDems have limited coverage at the moment best to keep the focus local for the moment. In a couple of years time it will be possible to use good examples to back up liberal policies. Just saying “they have announced this” doesn’t have much substance, but once the results start to come through using them as examples of why certain policies should be tried here is easier.
For the moment LibDems have such a low profile they need to keep the limited focus on themselves to make UK specific points for the moment.
Trudeau has only won one election and the domestic requirements of Canada are different to the domestic requirements of the UK.
Obama, Hollande and Merkel are better role models for Lib Dems.
The purpose of the party should be to win and keep power. The battle for democratic victory is a great one and should be embraced. As long as it is done by fair means.
Ashly posted what went through my mind on this topic. The opportunities are there for Liberals in western style democracies but nothing is given.
We should learn from the mistake Francis Fukuyama made in declaring the “End of History”. In his view the ideological conflict between liberal western capitalism and Soviet style communism had been won by the west. Although he dis not support the invasion of Iraq in 2003, George Bush and his neo Conservative allies believed in the words of Paul Wolfowitz that the westerns invaders would be “greeted as liberators”. He could not have been more wrong. It is hard to believe given how awful Saddam Hussein was, but we actually made things worse. And some would argue the same is true in Afghanistan and Libya as well.
Many of our Liberal Heroes are European and American. They are our history and influence who we are today, but they are not everyone’s history. In some countries Liberalism is an alien concept, and we should not take it for granted in the west either. Who would have thought that when the USA abolished torture that it would ever come back again? Well it did in Iraq with waterboarding and Donald Trump is now promising something “even worse” if he is the next president.
I always say politics is what you make it. Lets do what we can to make it like Canada.
Firstly a technical hitch added superb to my name , not intentional !
Bill le Breton
You are correct in some of what you say , let me point out where I believe you are wrong , if I may .
I most certainly do not reject your examples of New Liberalism .I respect all those who contributed to its rise .
I do not believe there was a big move towards an individualist Liberalism in the Nick Clegg period .What there was in fact , was a move towards opening up our party to a broader range of views and ideas in keeping with the many strands and influences within the Liberal perspective.
Everyone who was a part of that , was and is a Liberal .Whether Nick Clegg , Vince Cable, David Laws , Danny Alexander, Jo Swinson, Steve Webb, Lynne Featherstone , the list is long and the contributions varied.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on certain issues or direction of travel .There is a lot wrong with a simplistic and very divisive notion of left social liberal vs right classical liberal .It is not what this party is or ever was about .
We are the Liberal Democrats , all the above and much more too.We all agree on many issues and find allies on our own particular ones that interest us .There were many mistakes made at various times , in the history of this and every party .Let us get together as friends and colleagues and learn rather than lecture !
Thanks all for your comments. I’m aware I have miss out LOADS of other Liberals and specifically didn’t focus on JS Mill and Locke etc as a lot already get lots written about them. I just picked a few favourites, not because they are all from a certain class, but simply because they resonate particularly with myself.
Also my question was a call to arms…I don’t believe liberalism is dead, but these are volatile times and we must ensure we keep it alive.
Thanks again everyone, apologies I haven’t been able to respond personally to them all this time.
Very interesting and thoughtful exchanges. Three thoughts:
1. I agree very much with Andrew about the roots of liberalism in the humanism of the Renaissance and around the Reformation. Erasmus certainly; also Rabelais; and, most of all, Montaigne.
2. Thank you, Bill, for comment on Theory & Practice. I do think that your comment illustrates the dearth of major new thinking about liberalism in the second half of the twentieth century. Although I still agree with the central argument of T&P, I think that the policy elements are pretty out-dated. If I had to choose a beacon of liberalism of the last 60 years, I’d be inclined To nominate Amartya Sen and, specifically, The Theory of Justice.
3. I agree with Mill – and indeed Burke – that important political ideas emerge from open debate and argument about real, current political issues. Nowadays, like other parties, we learn to parrot the Party line (not least because of a fear of “faction” and apparent “splits”) , we put policy arguments in the strait-jacket of Departmental silos, and we don’t test our ideas against others. The internet promotes the process of finding facts to support what we say instead of engaging with other perspectives. The Question Time model of simplistic political assertion instead of debate is taking over.
How then can we create fora for intelligent debate – which might even mean that we come away from a discussion or exchange with an opinion different from the one with which we started?
Certainly Liberalism is not dead. It faces hostility and hostile environments. But with the exception of the tragedy of the betrayal of Russian democracy and Liberalism, look at the countries where extremism and oppression rule and you won’t find they were ever at all Liberal unless you go back 500 years or more. In sub-Saharan Africa (at least south of the Sahel) and in Latin America, dictatorships are far more rare than they were in any previous period and civil liberties are respected better than in the 1960s to the 1980s.
There are depressing trends in British politics including an anti-foreigner prejudice and a devil-take-the-hindmost materialism, but we can talk ourselves into forgetting that recent times have seen the ending of legal discrimination against Gays, the development of a multi-cultural, multi-racial nation and many other gains. There are a few people who hate all this (whether they’re IS volunteers or EDA heavies) but they’re a small minority. Consider that in the 1930s British Fascism had a fair-sized following. Consider that some of the Liberal politicians admired by many of us today for opposing entry into the First World War were chiefly bothered by an alliance with “hordes of semi-civilised Russians”, language which today we’d suspect of being racist.
Yes, psi, one key question is whether the Liberal Democrats will continue to champion it. Having heard the views of many of our new members, and having listened to Tim and Norman running for Leader, I’m now very optimistic that the Party won’t betray Liberalism. That leaves the question of whether we’ll revive or decline. My money would be on the former and in any case, a party does not die unless its activists lose heart.
“Librealism’…brilliant indeed. Liberalism scares a lot of people as it seems to advocate permissiveness. To convince people that liberalism is no such thing and can be a realist and responsible political solution may be the key issue as well as the road to the renewal of liberalism as the country has not known it since a very long time.
Liberalism does advocate that people should be permitted to do and to be whatever they choose as long as it does not harm others. We ARE permissive.
Insofar as “realist” and “responsible” mean that we should not say things that lead people to question their prejudices, that is emphatically NOT a prescription for liberalism!
Gordon , your contribution to Liberalism is valued, your response to Christian is not !
He is correct , permissive is precisely the opposite of, permitted if not doing others harm .Permissive is nearly always used as an insult , Roy Jenkins , a social democrat and a Liberal , and a significant Liberal Democrat , never referred to creating “the permissive society “, but , rather , to ushering in a more “civilised “one.Liberalism is emphatically not left or right libertarianism !
Realistic and responsible is precisely what Liberalism can and should be .Aware of the importance of defending and advancing liberty , it does so realistically and with a sense of responsibility .It is the enemy of a free for all dog eat dog, me first , do what you like anarchy , whether personally, economically or politically .Only the champions of freedom can be relied on to know of its limits too!
1
Lorenzo Cherin
You do have a very negative view of humanity, to assume left to their own people act in a “dog eat dog” way on a personal level. It is not my experience and I don’t think the existence of the many charities, community groups, etc. would suggest people are that way either. It is an idea that would not seem out of place in a discussion of Objectivism. If you consider that state action moves people away from “dog eat dog” behaviour, were do you think the desire for that movement comes from? It clearly comes from people as that is all any collective group like a state is.
As for whether liberalism is permissive, I think on the personal level the LibDems could certainly do with a bit more permissiveness for individuals. The nanning attitudes lecturing attitudes that seem to be expressed towards others criticising their “wrong choices” when it comes to matters of personal effect is very troubling. Permissiveness is certainly not best in all situations but far to many see it as an evil when looking at someone else’s life.
I think the real question isn’t “Is liberalism dead?” but “Can the Liberal Democrats recover and provide a continuing, noticeable and effective political voice for liberalism in the UK?” I remain very unsure about that. We barely seem to be turning the corner as far as the electorate are concerned.
That is why I also question Gordon’s comment “Insofar as “realist” and “responsible” mean that we should not say things that lead people to question their prejudices, that is emphatically NOT a prescription for liberalism!” We all need to question our prejudices, there are potentially so many of them out there, but one man’s prejudice is another’s sound value based on experience. We won’t win elections if we allow ourselves to be portrayed as so liberal we question everything anyone can interpret as prejudice, because the public will see us as questioning most of their personal values. Change in human behaviour comes slowly and those who try to change it too fast simply fall over.
There is a major conflict: Climate change demands the smallest markets – until transportation not dependent on fossil fuels – whereas liberalism favours international trade.
Limited produce and alive – V – trading wealth and dead!
@John Roffey – it is this dichotomy that is the basis for my projection that the UK population is circa 2050 going to be either circa 30 million (limited produce and alive) or sub 5 million (trading wealth and dead). Currently with the forecasts suggesting a population of 70~80m and the need to pull in more migrants because they are helping to build wealth, it would seem we are still on track for the trading wealth and dead outcome…
Roland 21st Apr ’16 – 12:26pm
The natural development of your argument is for the Party to campaign against membership of the EU! I would accept this is the best choice – because of the impossibility to manage and control population growth – but also because of pending TTIP which will expand intercontinental trade.
We don’t have to have a free global market – which provides very little benefit to anyone other that the global corporations and the wealthiest few hundred richest families on the planet – who fortunes are growing exponentially.
PSI
Often agree with you , do not think your disagreeing with me above has truly understood my comments .I disagree with a nannying state and support a vigilant one .
I agree with permit rather than permissive , which is libertarianism , admittedly not in every instant .I am passionately in favour of individual choice , but in certain circumstances , keen to see the Harm principle of Mill implemented !I have an optimistic view of humanity at best and realistic at worst !
As for dog eat dog , by that the meaning is to emphasise the very Mill principle alluded to , and avoid the sought of selfish indulgent society Liberals and indeed social democrats dislike .And consider others, too!
Lorenzo Cherin
“I disagree with a nannying state and support a vigilant one”
I would certainly agree with that, my concern is that the LibDems have moved beyond the Harm principle in to moralising in certain areas ob behaviour (though retain sensible position in others). And I often see this described referencing the “balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” stretching the community aspect to be “protecting” those who’s feelings are hurt by seeing others harm themselves. This appears most apparent in the alcohol and smoking areas. I remember when certain policies starting to be introduced they seemed appealing but I was a little wary, as they have gone on they look like ideological moralising to bully those who indulge in either (neither of which I do). On drugs we appear to be moving in the much more sensible direction, how to allow them with a structure to manage the harm.
For the community aspect I do worry that it is treated as something that has to be “created” rather than something that will naturally evolve (though with gaps that will need to be covered). I wouldn’t like to libertarian ideas pursued on the economic or social spheres but in terms of the personal I think it may be a better starting point, as too many people seem to slip so quickly to moralising in to purely personal matters.