Principle 1: Fundamental Rights and Freedoms The most basic of these are the right to life, freedom of expression, and the rights an individual holds against the state from birth. Although every ideology defends the right to life and freedom of expression on paper, when we look at the past and the present, the countries where people can direct the harshest criticism, even outright insults, at the leader of the country without being punished for it are liberal democracies. The reason is that verbal expression that does not violate anyone else’s rights is also considered part of freedom. A merely verbal reaction harms no one as long as it causes no physical harm to anyone’s life or property. In short, individuals have the right to do as they wish as long as they do not harm the life, property, or freedom of others, and this is none of the state’s business! This is what separates liberalism from totalitarian regimes such as socialism and communism. In communism, although society is made up of individuals, society is placed above the individual, and the individual’s freedom can be restricted supposedly for the benefit of society. This is in fact a philosophical contradiction (the fallacy of composition), because what constitutes society is the individual himself. In liberalism, the state cannot interfere with choices that concern only the person making them.

2. Economic Freedom and the Free Market This is one of the clearest points that defines communism and separates it from liberalism. If we think of a country’s wealth as a pie, communism argues for dividing the pie into equal slices, while liberalism focuses on growing the pie so that even the smallest slice brings the citizen prosperity. According to this principle, the state should withdraw from the service sector (from every sector in which it transacts with citizens). This may sound frightening at first, because “free market” is a commonly misunderstood term. A free market means the absence of barriers to individuals entering the market. The state’s role in the economy is only to set the rules of the game, prevent unfair competition, stand against monopolization, and curb fraud. So what about poor citizens? Whereas communism argues that the state should take over the economy directly, liberals argue for giving citizens support they can use in the free market according to their own choices (for example, through systems such as the “school vouchers” or “negative income tax” proposed by Milton Friedman). That way, those who take risks, open businesses, and produce are not harassed. When the state intervenes in a market with its cumbersome structure, it sinks the entrepreneurs in that market. While in communism people are forced to work by the state in the name of society, liberalism places no lien on anyone’s labor or choices.

Principle 3: Limited Government The main reason liberalism has never fully taken root in Turkey is that this principle is not understood, because a culture of expecting everything from the state and taking refuge in the state prevails in Turkey. Yet the state does more harm than good in the sectors it enters. The state is cumbersome and feels no need to compete in order to provide quality service, because it derives its power from being a monopoly. According to liberalism, the state by its very nature holds a monopoly on legal violence and coercion; precisely for this reason, limiting it is of vital importance. The state should fundamentally have three duties: justice, internal security, and external security. Everything outside these should be left to the private sector. So what should be done in cases like Turkey’s, where the state is incapable of even inspecting the areas under its own monopoly? According to a libertarian (radical free-market) approach, the solution is to leave inspection to the competitive private sector as well. The main reason is that the state does not answer for anything. The Soma mine disaster, the “Disaster of the Century,” the Amasra mine accident, the Çorlu train massacre, the Kahramanmaraş earthquake… All of these were, on paper, under state supervision, yet state institutions paid no price; no one even resigned! Had private institutions such as insurance companies been inspecting them instead, institutions that would face enormous financial liabilities in the event of a disaster, the inspections would have been far more ruthless and thorough. At the same time, a limited-government approach means low taxes, which directly benefits the pockets, and therefore the prosperity, of workers and producers.

Principle 4: The Rule of Law Think of Lady Justice from mythology, the symbol of law: she is blindfolded (impartial and free of prejudice), she holds a scale (she treats the prosecution and the defense as equals), and in her other hand she holds a sword (representing the deterrence and authority of the decisions justice delivers). In which countries do you think what this figure depicts can actually be practiced? In totalitarian regimes? Or in countries where judges and prosecutors represent the state, one pan of the scale outweighs the other, and the goddess’s eyes are open? Never. Liberals stand for the full, impartial, and exceptionless application of the rule of law. For this reason, to ensure the rule of law and accountability, the judiciary must be fully independent of politics. Indeed, in the name of radical transparency, those at the head of the justice and security institutions should answer directly to the people, and perhaps even be elected directly by the people at the local level.

Principle 5: Individualism The cornerstone of liberalism is the individual. Society is an abstract concept; it does not breathe on its own; what makes it concrete is individuals. The individual is not the servant of the state; the state is the instrument of the individual. The true and sole reason for the state’s existence is to protect the individual’s life, happiness, property, and freedom.