Bill, your last paragraph is spot on. No political side in Italy (or anywhere in the 'old' EU for that matter) favors free market economics. Then again, Trump himself also is rather ambivalent on this. So an axis it might be (wicked choice of word, btw), but not quite a free-market one. These are not the Reagan-Thatcher days.
- concerning US isolationism, it co-existed with the Monroe doctrine considering the Americas as part of the natural sphere of influence of the United States. Therefore claims on Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal are not incompatible with the American isolationist tradition. (On substance, I agree with you that the US will find impossible not to continue throw its weight around across the world);
- on Italy, I can only agree that free market economics will is not and will not be the inspiration of any Italian government. When it comes to free speech, I should say however that the culture wars have triggered an unprecedented wave of social and in some cases government censorship in many countries previously considered as free speech champions - Britain comes to the mind (I guess that a speaker making statements considered offensive by any ‘protected group’ in the famous corner of Hyde Park (does it still exist?) would be promptly denounced and quite possibly receive a prison sentence). By comparison, Italy begins to look as a liberal country.
Many thanks. That’s a fair point about isolationism, which in its (brief) period mainly meant withdrawal from Asia and Europe. On free speech in Italy, the frequency of lawsuits by ruling party politicians against critics is what I was thinking of. On Britain, it is many decades since it was legal to stand up at speaker’s corner and call for (eg) the slaughter of Muslims or Jews, or urge violent acts against women whose views you disagree with. Incitement to violence is a long-standing crime. The use of those laws against the making of such statements on social media isn’t anything new. I don’t think most Brits think their free speech is under threat, except perhaps under threat from initimidatory lawsuits by plutocrats or from billionaires’ secretly distorted algorithms.
Thank you for the update on the speaker’s corner. As to incitement to violence, I am fine with the Brandeburg doctrine as per the US Supreme Court. I am afraid however that the meaning given to ‘violence’ by British authorities (not to speak of the recent Orwellian legislation introduced in Scotland) goes way beyond I (perhaps you) would consider reasonable. If one wants to re-introduce blasphemy laws, one should at least be open about that. I would also say that the argument ‘most people in the country do not feel their freedoms are restricted’ is not a liberal one. John Stuart Mill for one would not accept it.
Bill, your last paragraph is spot on. No political side in Italy (or anywhere in the 'old' EU for that matter) favors free market economics. Then again, Trump himself also is rather ambivalent on this. So an axis it might be (wicked choice of word, btw), but not quite a free-market one. These are not the Reagan-Thatcher days.
Two points:
- concerning US isolationism, it co-existed with the Monroe doctrine considering the Americas as part of the natural sphere of influence of the United States. Therefore claims on Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal are not incompatible with the American isolationist tradition. (On substance, I agree with you that the US will find impossible not to continue throw its weight around across the world);
- on Italy, I can only agree that free market economics will is not and will not be the inspiration of any Italian government. When it comes to free speech, I should say however that the culture wars have triggered an unprecedented wave of social and in some cases government censorship in many countries previously considered as free speech champions - Britain comes to the mind (I guess that a speaker making statements considered offensive by any ‘protected group’ in the famous corner of Hyde Park (does it still exist?) would be promptly denounced and quite possibly receive a prison sentence). By comparison, Italy begins to look as a liberal country.
Many thanks. That’s a fair point about isolationism, which in its (brief) period mainly meant withdrawal from Asia and Europe. On free speech in Italy, the frequency of lawsuits by ruling party politicians against critics is what I was thinking of. On Britain, it is many decades since it was legal to stand up at speaker’s corner and call for (eg) the slaughter of Muslims or Jews, or urge violent acts against women whose views you disagree with. Incitement to violence is a long-standing crime. The use of those laws against the making of such statements on social media isn’t anything new. I don’t think most Brits think their free speech is under threat, except perhaps under threat from initimidatory lawsuits by plutocrats or from billionaires’ secretly distorted algorithms.
Thank you for the update on the speaker’s corner. As to incitement to violence, I am fine with the Brandeburg doctrine as per the US Supreme Court. I am afraid however that the meaning given to ‘violence’ by British authorities (not to speak of the recent Orwellian legislation introduced in Scotland) goes way beyond I (perhaps you) would consider reasonable. If one wants to re-introduce blasphemy laws, one should at least be open about that. I would also say that the argument ‘most people in the country do not feel their freedoms are restricted’ is not a liberal one. John Stuart Mill for one would not accept it.