CHALLENGES TO LIBERALISM

ENVIRONMENTALISM
1. Environmentalism poses a challenge to liberalism. It puts restrictions on the production and consumption of goods and services in order to conserve and sustain the environment.
2. Environmentalism challenges liberalism by restricting production and consumerism. This means its rejecting values of liberalism such as self-interest and competition. Companies can't make as much products as they want and consumers can't buy whatever they want and how much they want. Environmentalism also slows down the production of goods and services which leads to higher prices and lower competition among companies. It places limits on personal freedoms to achieve a common goal of protecting the planet.
3. Greenpeace, a non-government organization started campaigning against Nestle. This is due to the fact that Nestlé's Kit-Kat bars use palm oil from Indonesian rainforests which is threatening the lives of the people and orangutans around the area. This led to people all over the world boycotting Nestle. Due to this, Nestle agreed to stop getting palm oil from Indonesian rainforests and somewhere else more sustainable. This is an example of environmentalism being a challenge to liberalism as it guilt-trips people into losing their self-interest for the greater good. It also reduces production so prices go up and competition goes lower for companies.
4. I believe environmentalism's challenge to liberalism is justified. This is because it's not completely rejecting principles of liberalism; just modifying them. Without changes like this, life and resources on earth as we know it will cease to exist. It's always a good call to do everything with moderation; and that is exactly what environmentalism is trying to do. IT still pushes for economic stability, but with the added security of the sustainability and conservation of the planet.
NEO-CONSERVATISM
1. Neo-conservatism emerged in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s as a reaction against modern liberal principles that were taken too far. Rather than being a challenge to liberalism, neo-conservatism is mostly just a challenge to modern liberalism.
2. Neo-conservatism is all about protecting American interests in the international level by use of military force, foreign policy and allies. Neo-conservative believe national security can be achieved through these measures. Collective security is given more importance over individual self-interest and security. Neo-conservatism does not call for large government involvement in the economy. This poses a challenge to modern liberalism. This ideology pushes for advancements such as private schools, privatized health care etc. This rejects classical liberalism as well as classical liberalism supports government involvement in education.
3. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush's administration adopted a neo-conservative policy. This caused missions to be sent out to various countries around the world to promote democracy. This goes against liberal values of self-interest and individual rights and freedoms. This is because it is not necessary for the American people to pay taxes just for the government to spend it all on foreign countries and their problems. Individual rights and freedoms of the people in those countries are also violated by the presence of foreigners. American military troops were very violent towards civilians.
4. I don't believe neo-conservatism/s challenge to liberalism is justified. It mostly rejects values of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is a perfect combination of classical liberalism and socialism. To reject an ideology like that is not justified. As neo-conservatism supports military force, many people have died. It is not a peaceful way of thinking and supports domination of smaller countries which takes away their individual rights and freedoms and self-interests.
RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES
1. There are many religions in the world and all of them have different perspectives on how one should live. Religious perspectives challenge liberalism by giving importance to communal living over individual living. Some religious perspectives don't include a secular government which poses a threat to the efficient governance of a s=certain society.
2. Individualism is greatly rejected by mostly all religious perspectives around the world. Many religious emphasize people living for and with each other rather than being alone. They don't believe in self-interests but place importance on collective interests. Rule of Law is often rejected as well because religious people want to abide the laws of their religion rather than the laws of their society. Religious perspectives pose a very big challenge to liberalism as it rejects almost all the principles of liberalism.
3. In 2005, Muslim leaders demanded the Ontario government to let them use Islamic law to settle family disputes. This is a major rejection of liberalism as Rule of Law is at jeopardy. Protests were ensued following the proposal due to the unfair demand by Muslims. Also, according to Islamic law, men and women are not considered equal so individual rights and freedoms are taken away as well. It sparked outrage that consequently the Ontario government denied this proposal and banned all religious arbitration including Catholic and Jewish tribunals.
4. I don't believe that religious perspectives' challenge to liberalism is justified. Religion is already a very problematic topic and if different perspectives start seeking different things from the government or a society, it will wreak havoc. It's people's freedom to practice their religion but it's not acceptable for religions to try to take away people's self-interest, individualism, rights, freedoms and rule of law just in the name of religion.
ABORIGINAL PERSPECTIVES
1. Most Aboriginal groups in Canada are collectivist. They usually base all their decisions on natural resource development or economic development. Values and beliefs of Canadian Aboriginal peoples had a major influence on how Canadians are governed. People often criticize Aboriginals for demanding special treatment from the government.
2. The area of justice is where Aboriginal Perspectives pose a challenge to liberalism most often. The use of sentencing circles to determine a sentence for an offender take longer than normal hearings. Aboriginals often get allocated reservation lands. These reserves take away precious land from commercial development by companies. This rejects principles of liberalism such as private property, self interest and competition. This is because people can not buy these lands.
3. The government in Nunavut is made up of Aboriginal peoples. Decisions that affect all Nunavut people are based on the opinions of elders. The laws are influenced by Aboriginal peoples' connection to the past and tradition. This slows down economic progress. Egalitarianism is emphasized in Nunavut; collective needs are more important than individual needs.
4. I believe Aboriginal Perspectives' challenge to liberalism is justified. Canada was their country and they worked hard to make it their home while being sustainable. Europeans came and destroy their livelihoods and relationship with their lands. Their challenge to liberalism is not even a big one. They do their thing without affecting other Canadians majorly. They deserve to get some special treatment from the government. They reject liberalism themselves but don't necessarily force people to do it as well.

Nächster

CHALLENGES TO LIBERALISM

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Bhavana Kanagala vor mehr als 8 Jahre