Goal of Mankind?

Varning för antiliberaler - DN.se: "När Svante Nycander i två artiklar på DN ­Debatt hävdade att svenskt kulturliv präglas av anti­liberalism ledde det till sommarens stora ­kulturdebatt. Här bemöter han kritiken från vänster och höger och förklarar varför antiliberalismen bör tas på allvar: unga människor tar intryck och skräms bort från vardagspolitiken."

The article raps up the discussion of liberalism that took place this summer in Sweden. Svante Nycander had published a book in November 2009 called Liberalismens Idéhistoria. Frihet och Modernitet from the point of view of welfare liberalism that is contrasted with Johan Norberg's book about Liberalism that says social liberalism in Sweden is not part of the history of liberalism. Nycander criticizes Norberg's use of a definition of freedom that he does not think is possible to use given the many definitions of the word "liberty". In my mind, however, liberty must include the peace of mind given to the audacious in a society with a welfare system. However, I doubt that it is beneficial to have a historic or dogmatic point of view. I prefer a goal-oriented pragmatic approach.

I have been studying liberalism from the point of view of which societal system that produces the most avant garde scientific development. After all, many are right now anticipating solutions for energy dependence and climate change adaptations from science, and if science will deliver, there will be a hausse of global interest for it to show. The discussion between Nycander and Norberg is pertinent in this regard because the system giving an optimal science development is probably positioned somewhere in between. The United States has become a leader and should probably be emulated in Europe if arguments cannot be found for why Europe would be special in this respect without adaptation.

The election debate in Sweden lacks my idea of a goal for mankind. The environmentalism of Andreas Carlgren and the education development of Jan Björklund are the closest. Such a vision is apparently not tasty enough. It does not generate happiness which in my mind speaks against utilitarianism. It is not an election issue but still very important.

The Red-Green coalition speaks of introducing welfare as seemingly the goal for a nation. They then hope that the fear of not having a job to support oneself will give them votes. I find it surprising that the job-arguments from the Alliansen, the center-right coalition, is not giving them a greater lead in the polls than they have. It is a very important tipping point. Is there belief in the future or not? Do we have a real goal?