Fall US Elections

[angrysoba]

You're serious about that, now? Liberal means libertarian? Freedom is strength? War is peace?

Yeah, I almost missed that one. No, liberal did not mean anything close to libertarian in any century. The term also wasn't invented in the 19th century. Sometimes the stupid burns so much that I can't help but skim over most of it.

I'm surprised that there isn't some sort of allusion to the belief that being willing to do anything for money is somehow an ethically superior philosophy in there somewhere at this point.

Yes, Classical liberalism is indeed somewhat closer to what we would call libertarianism today:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States...

It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.

Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

[Manopolus]

Yes, Classical liberalism is indeed somewhat closer to what we would call libertarianism today:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

It wasn't identical by any means, but yeah, it did seek to limit government. Let's look at how it primarily limited government, however. Freedom of religion, the press, from search and seizure, etc. are not exactly things that the current strain of liberalism is against, either. Nowhere in there did it suggest the freedom to be filthy rich and getting richer by paying workers virtually nothing, unless you want to include slavery initially being legal, but that wasn't exactly mentioned in the constitution until it was illegal.

As far as I know, there was nothing in classical liberalism that had anything to do with economic systems, and nor did it suggest that people that have money get to have more rights than anyone else (although only landowners were initially allowed to vote in this country, I wouldn't call that "liberal" even by the old standard). It had absolutely nothing to do with the money fascination of the libertarians. It certainly did NOT advocate turning all political and social power over to the moneyed elite. As a matter of fact, it was sort of against that notion.

There's nothing in the newer strains of liberalism that is contrary to the older version whatsoever. It's merely an evolution of the same ideas. Namely, the idea that everyone deserves an equal chance at living a decent life regardless of who their parents are. In its original context, it was anti-nobility. In modern context, it's more about education, race problems, and a basic human right to necessities regardless of whether you (or your parents, up to a certain age) can find a decent job or not. It's a continuation of the same theme.

 

[angrysoba]

As far as I know, there was nothing in classical liberalism that had anything to do with economic systems,

 

[Manopolus]

Well, I'm going by the initial surge of the notion, which was during the American Revolution and the so-called Age of Reason, not the 1800s. The way I've always read it, the ideology had to do purely with political power, not economic organization. If there's something I'm missing, please point it out. I don't think the actual economic organization changed significantly from what was done before the revolution.

A lot of it had to do with a rebellion against the idea of a right to rule bestowed by God to the nobility and a call for a purely secular government that rejected noble privilege and the power of the church. If Thomas Paine was a leading liberal thinker (which I believe he is often described as), I'd say that's a pretty good explanation of what he called for. Of course there's also things like governance by consent of the governed (John Locke), and a few other notions, but I'm still not certain that there was any suggestion of economic change beyond the elimination of the notion of nobility, really.

If there was some intermediate version of liberalism that was completely different from both the modern and the original (1700s) notions, I'm not familiar enough with the history to know it. To me, the 1800s in the US is a somewhat obscure subject, I'll admit. I'm a lot more familiar with world history. I'm also slightly more familiar with the term "progressive" as it was used in the late 1800s than I am with the term "liberal" during that same period (Kansas history, go figure).

 

[RandFan]

Yes, Classical liberalism is indeed somewhat closer to what we would call libertarianism today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Agreed. In fact, it is my opinion that it plainly clear that property rights and a degree of autonomy for both citizens and business creates economic growth the likes of which the world has never known prior. No nation that fails to provide protection for intellectual and real property, as well as an environment conducive to thrift, entrepenurship and hard work can begin to compete with nations that do.

That said, it is also arguable that a degree of regulation is critical to keep corporations from engaging in unfair business practices and monopolies that would otherwise tend to restrict the "invisible hand" of competition. Regulation is also necessary to ensure some degree of protection from the exploitation of laborers.

The advancement of genetics has once and for all dispelled the spurious notion that rich people are in anyway superior genetically. The simple fact is that talent and genius is varied across all classes of citizens. In order to ensure that the capabilities of the poor are not wasted it is important to give the disadvantaged help to develop and thus capitalize from their talent and genius (rich people do this for their children). The American dream is the promise of equal opportunity for all to pursue happiness and to be the best citizens that they can.

The environment in which one is born and raised is the single greatest predictor of success. It is not as is so frequently claimed simply a matter of hard work, thrift and investment (though those traits can and do play a critical role). Poor people work from dusk til dawn cleaning toilets, digging ditches, picking crops, etc.. Many of them were born with genetic precursors that had they been born in to a better environment society could have benefited from their talent.

Finally, nations highest in Economic Freedom, Human Development or any other objective measurement are those that provide generous social services.

Correlation does not imply causation. The explanation for the apparent correlation could simply be that humans have empathy and when their national wealth rises, nations simply have more resources and thus the luxury to indulge their empathy and compassion.

The problem with that thesis is that there is a scientific model that explains and predicts that providing generous social services results in greater success and that the overall fitness of a group happens because of and not in spite of social services.

Evolution generally and reciprocal altruism both explains and predicts that social species are advantaged over non social species when it comes to flourishing and the rise of a nations wealth.

Evolution predicts that desirable traits are selected for. Researchers like Frans De Waal have shown that social species have hard wired in their brains morality hard wired in their brains. Kinship and caring for non-familial members of the group gives them an advantage over solitary species.

Social species suffer stress when they are surrounded by poverty and depredation. People have a higher degree of well-being when they live in societies where suffering is reduced, the environment is clean, crime is low and the vulnerable are cared for. This has been confirmed through field research and mathematical models [ibid], particularly game theory.

Perpetuating social classes benefits both those with talent and drive and also those who are less able to contribute skills and ideas to the community. Social classes also harm those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder making it harder for them to develop their otherwise genetic advantages to the betterment of society.

Conclusions:

1. The incentive of wealth is a powerful motivator to spur investment, innovation and productivity. This is true because unlike ants humans are individuals with individual needs, desires, hope and dreams.
2. ^aSocial services is a powerful means of providing a healthy society high in well-being across all social strata in which both poor and rich can thrive. ^b providing generous social services dramatically increase the likelihood that someone born with talent and/or drive can take advantage of those skills to contribute to a better society.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Today, in the US, liberal policies are a long way from anything that would be called "liberal" in the classical (19th century) sense (i.e., libertarian).

You're serious about that, now? Liberal means libertarian? Freedom is strength? War is peace?

Yeah, I almost missed that one. No, liberal did not mean anything close to libertarian in any century. The term also wasn't invented in the 19th century (it was around well before that). Sometimes the stupid burns so much that I can't help but skim over most of it.

You guys are funny. Milton Friedman devoted a few paragraphs of his Capitalism and Freedom to a discussion of the correct name for his system. He observes that modern American "liberalism" (i.e., soft socialism) is the opposite of classical liberalism (i.e., libertarianism). Friedrich Hayek also discusses the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" in The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty. Mussolini, in the essay I recommended earlier, "The Doctrine of Fascism", observes that fascists are closer to socialists than to liberals (by which he meant classical liberals--i.e., free marketeers). Just google "Liberal Party, __X__", where X is a country, and you will see that outside the US "Liberal" still refers to the pro-free market position. It is not necessary that the term have been invented in the 19th century; it was used consistently until American "progressives" or "socialists" recognized that the public rejected their policies and so they needed a new name for a rotten product.

The stupid, it burns.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Well, I'm going by the initial surge of the notion, which was during the American Revolution and the so-called Age of Reason, not the 1800s. The way I've always read it, the ideology had to do purely with political power, not economic organization.

Power to what end? "Political power" and "economic organization" overlap considerably.

 

[jj]

Are we naked because the State does not operate cotton plantations, textile mills, and clothing stores? Are we starving because the State does not operate farms, ranches, flour mills, slaughter houses, and grocery stores? Why suppose that organized violence (the State) has anything to contribute to the pension industry (Social Security), the medical services industry (Medicare, ACA), or the education industry, beyond its role in the lawn care industry or the kitchen utensil industry, an original assignment of title and a stable system of contract law?

Is there some reason you posted that line of completely propagandistic baloney? Obamacare does not own the means of production, so just stop with the nonsense, man.

 

[BStrong]

How many aside from me think that the real issue this fall is the ability to appoint more Supreme Court justices?

The house will remain resolutely fascist, there's no doubt about that, the only question is the Senate.

So who do they think will be replaced in the next 2 years?

As opposed to diffidently Fascist?

Are any of these Fascists under your bed or monitoring your 'net use?

 

[jj]

He observes that modern American "liberalism" (i.e., soft socialism) is the opposite of classical liberalism (i.e., libertarianism).

The fact that someone engages in semantic deception in order to try to link two unrelated political theories does not make his link factual.

And can we puhLEEZE stop seeing this use of the great boogeyman "socialism" in everything you write.

Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower. So enough of that, man, enough.

 

[Manopolus]

Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower.

...in everything except for church-state issues, sure.

"in god we trust" was an Eisenhower thing, for starters.

 

[BStrong]

The fact that someone engages in semantic deception in order to try to link two unrelated political theories does not make his link factual.

And can we puhLEEZE stop seeing this use of the great boogeyman "socialism" in everything you write.

Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower. So enough of that, man, enough.

Fascists, Socialists, whatever.

People like their whipping boys.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Milton Friedman devoted a few paragraphs of his Capitalism and Freedom to a discussion of the correct name for his system. He observes that modern American "liberalism" (i.e., soft socialism) is the opposite of classical liberalism (i.e., libertarianism).

The fact that someone engages in semantic deception in order to try to link two unrelated political theories does not make his link factual.

Where's the deception? The discussion here and in Friedman's book is pretty clear. "Classical liberalism" names the laissez faire (libertarian, free market) position. Outside the US, the adjective "classical" is unnecessary.

And can we puhLEEZE stop seeing this use of the great boogeyman "socialism" in everything you write.

No. Hayek dedicated The Road to Serfdom "To the socialists of all parties". In The Road to Wigan Pier Orwell speculated that a preference for socialist politics originates in "a hypertrophied sense of order". Elsewhere (e.g., "Inside the Whale", "Raffles and Mrs. Blandish") he suggested that enthusiasm for authoritarian politics indicates vicarious sadism. Mises (Socialism) suggested that the socialist faith originates in a primitive revenge fantasy.
Socialism expresses an infantile, yet popular, power fantasy --"What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it". In reality, while interpersonal violence has some beneficial uses, it generally degrades society.

The government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber).
A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances.
Individual B has a right to engage in activity X if the State has promised not to interfere with B when B attempts to engage in activity X and further if the State has promised to interfere with individuals C, D, etc. if they attempt to interfere with B when B attempts to engage in activity X.
Individual B has title to a resource Y if the State grants to B a right to control Y that includes the right to transfer that resource to other individuals C, D, etc. on term mutually agreeable to B, C, D (i.e., to sell the resource).
Market-oriented legal environments (the system of title and contract law) unite local knowledge with the incentive to use resources in socially beneficial ways.

Here's The Economist

Socialism
The exact meaning of socialism is much debated, but in theory it includes some collective ownership of the means of production and a strong emphasis on equality, of some sort.

Here's Merriam Webster Online

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

"Control" is a matter of degree, so "socialism" is a matter of degree.

Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower. So enough of that, man, enough.

a) What do you mean by "right"?
b)From what do you derive the conclusion "Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower"?

 

[RandFan]

Anarcho Math:

Where X is the overlap of human and canine IQ and F = govt infecting people with aids and U is the value of 2 children forced into slavery by the henchmen of the education lobby.

 

[ravdin]

The fact that someone engages in semantic deception in order to try to link two unrelated political theories does not make his link factual.

And can we puhLEEZE stop seeing this use of the great boogeyman "socialism" in everything you write.

Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower. So enough of that, man, enough.

Yes, stick with the "fascist" boogeyman instead.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I understand you are stating support for the corporate fascists. I must admit I'm not overly fond of Pelosi, but do you really want to give even more power to the people who want you to starve without medical care?

Are we naked because the State does not operate cotton plantations, textile mills, and clothing stores? Are we starving because the State does not operate farms, ranches, flour mills, slaughter houses, and grocery stores? Why suppose that organized violence (the State) has anything to contribute to the pension industry (Social Security), the medical services industry (Medicare, ACA), or the education industry, beyond its role in the lawn care industry or the kitchen utensil industry, an original assignment of title and a stable system of contract law?

Is there some reason you posted that line of completely propagandistic baloney? Obamacare does not own the means of production, so just stop with the nonsense, man.

Why not try civility?
Why not address the question? More generally, could you address the following:
1. From government operation (or regulation) of what industries does society as a whole benefit? You may imagine either a dichotomous classification, A = highly likely candidate for State operation (or regulation) and B = highly unlikely candidate for State operation (or regulation) or a continuum:
(highly unlikely) -1______________.____________+1 (highly likely).
2. What features of an industry determine its classification or position on the continuum?
Before you attempt an answer I recommend Richard Posner's essay "The Law and Economics Movement" (American Economics Review).

 

[RandFan]

The fact that someone engages in semantic deception in order to try to link two unrelated political theories does not make his link factual.

And can we puhLEEZE stop seeing this use of the great boogeyman "socialism" in everything you write.

Obama is well to the right of Eisenhower. So enough of that, man, enough.

You forget that the purpose of govt is to infect babies with aids and then to force the babies into slavery where they make trillions of dollars for the department of education and teachers unions. If that ain't communism at its very core then I don't know what is.

 

[jj]

Why not try civility?

Your victim-playing is transparent, Malcolm.

I am attacking your propaganda, not you.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances.

Oh, hey, it's Malcolm Kirkpatrick!

 

[RandFan]

Where X is the overlap of human and canine IQ and F = govt infecting people with aids and U is the value of 2 children forced into slavery by the henchmen of the education lobby.