Nowadays, or historically ?
I try again
[Liberal, a pejorative word ?]
I will add that Milton Friedman, the guru of Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet called himself a liberal. And Trump as a businessman is a liberal.
Basically, a liberal is an adept of personal freedom.
Now nowadays, the word has become an insult when used by conservatives who are in fact liberals in the traditional meaning of the word.
Now, there are many topics and matters. I have tried to sum up them in a matrix
-Economy: market against administrated economy
-Environment: Is the climate change a truth or an hoax ? ?
- Social welfare: parental allocations, state health insurance and so
-Societal: genre, LGBT rights and so, abortion, the right to live as one wants
- Cultural : right of expression, artistic or no, of information and so
- Race and colonialism : self-explaining i think
-State authority: is the policeman always right, are the judge enough punishing, and so
One can be ultra-left on some topics, and ultra right on others. A libertarian would be ultra-right on economy, social welfare, ultra-left about societal, cultural, state authority, and should be about religion. He could be ultra-left on the other ones.
Does that makes him a liberal, a social-democrat or something like that ? For me no.
The debate about society, race, colonialism and so, has supplanted the debate about class and economy, and environment. And that’s a victory for capitalism !!!
Now, i am going to give an exemple, about the work of the judge :
An illegal immigrant enters into France. The french police wants to expel him back to his country. the man contests the decision in front of an administrative judge.
The European convention of human rights states
Right to respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
It means that the judge must balance the rights of the man to a familial life in France with the interests of the French state.
How long has he lived in France ? does he have family, wife, children or friends? Has he worked in France?
Has is committed some misdemeanor ?
An ultra-left judge reflex would be to cancel the state decision, an ultra-right judge reflex would be to uphold it.
The duty of the judge is to make an honest balance and to refer to the preceding cases to decide this one. not easy !
And that, independently of his political opinions.
A few years ago, an independent French NGO has computed statistics. Some judges never cancel the state decision, some cancel very often. The average rate of cancellation was roughly 10 %.
Are French judges liberals ?
Incidentally, the European court of Human Rights has judged that abortion was not a matte rof privacy and that article 8 did not apply.