Something I wrote somewhere else a long time ago about this whole "liberalism" debate and why I find most of it a farce:
"For the last half a decade we have been inundated with media articles and pundits lamenting the decline of “liberalism.” This modern “liberalism” that the politicians and pundits insist is so important, what does it ha…
Something I wrote somewhere else a long time ago about this whole "liberalism" debate and why I find most of it a farce:
"For the last half a decade we have been inundated with media articles and pundits lamenting the decline of “liberalism.” This modern “liberalism” that the politicians and pundits insist is so important, what does it have in common with the Classical Liberalism that has formed the basis of modern Western Civilization? Belief in the rights of citizens? Well… I mean as long as you say, do, and think the way we want you to. Understanding the limits of the expert class? TRUST THE SCIENCE! The recognition of universal human fallibility? Eh, depends on your race and pronouns. Understanding the limits of what government can accomplish? We will try it again but harder this time and throw more money and government force at it. Recognition of the nation state? Citizen of the world, baby! Equality under the law? It’s equity now. Sorry, but I will take Classical Liberalism with its Enlightenment values over Neoliberalism and its Postmodernist “values” any day."
You want to save Classical Liberalism? Well then the last thing you should ever do is pretend what is called "liberalism" now has anything to do with it. Definitions are changed all the time these days. Of course people are going to rebel against this Frankenstein's Monster. It is the opposite of everything it claims to be. You will also fail if you try to associate Classical Liberalism with neoliberal economics. Which is actually pretty damn stupid because Classical Liberalism predates that crap by centuries and most of neoliberal economics consists of doing things Adam Smith either warned about or complained about in The Wealth of Nations. Finally, I need to be blunt. Don't ever try to sell people on "liberalism" is there to "protect your individual rights" ok? Modern "liberals" have an authoritarian boner the size of China and trying to take your rights away is their favorite hobby. I know what you are trying to argue but you had better start making some clear distinctions if you want to save the Classical Liberalism that made up the American idea.
What I'm understanding from your comment is that people often make the mistake of conflating classical liberalism with the status quo, which is completely agree is a mistake!
This happens with a lot of issues, like free market capitalism. People look at the status quo and say "capitalism isn't working" without knowing enough to realize we are FAR from the ideal of free market capitalism.
Another thing I'm getting from your comment is that it seems we need some serious public education on the philosophy of classical liberalism. That's something I'm realizing more and more myself.
I should point out that the height of American capitalism and prosperity coincided with fifty years of anti-trust regulation, stringent bank regulation, and pricing laws to prevent sellers from undercutting their suppliers or competition.
Not accurate, and the proof is just looking at where we are now: even further away from true free market capitalism and yet only suffering worse economic outcomes.
Something I wrote somewhere else a long time ago about this whole "liberalism" debate and why I find most of it a farce:
"For the last half a decade we have been inundated with media articles and pundits lamenting the decline of “liberalism.” This modern “liberalism” that the politicians and pundits insist is so important, what does it have in common with the Classical Liberalism that has formed the basis of modern Western Civilization? Belief in the rights of citizens? Well… I mean as long as you say, do, and think the way we want you to. Understanding the limits of the expert class? TRUST THE SCIENCE! The recognition of universal human fallibility? Eh, depends on your race and pronouns. Understanding the limits of what government can accomplish? We will try it again but harder this time and throw more money and government force at it. Recognition of the nation state? Citizen of the world, baby! Equality under the law? It’s equity now. Sorry, but I will take Classical Liberalism with its Enlightenment values over Neoliberalism and its Postmodernist “values” any day."
You want to save Classical Liberalism? Well then the last thing you should ever do is pretend what is called "liberalism" now has anything to do with it. Definitions are changed all the time these days. Of course people are going to rebel against this Frankenstein's Monster. It is the opposite of everything it claims to be. You will also fail if you try to associate Classical Liberalism with neoliberal economics. Which is actually pretty damn stupid because Classical Liberalism predates that crap by centuries and most of neoliberal economics consists of doing things Adam Smith either warned about or complained about in The Wealth of Nations. Finally, I need to be blunt. Don't ever try to sell people on "liberalism" is there to "protect your individual rights" ok? Modern "liberals" have an authoritarian boner the size of China and trying to take your rights away is their favorite hobby. I know what you are trying to argue but you had better start making some clear distinctions if you want to save the Classical Liberalism that made up the American idea.
What I'm understanding from your comment is that people often make the mistake of conflating classical liberalism with the status quo, which is completely agree is a mistake!
This happens with a lot of issues, like free market capitalism. People look at the status quo and say "capitalism isn't working" without knowing enough to realize we are FAR from the ideal of free market capitalism.
Another thing I'm getting from your comment is that it seems we need some serious public education on the philosophy of classical liberalism. That's something I'm realizing more and more myself.
Thanks for reading!
I should point out that the height of American capitalism and prosperity coincided with fifty years of anti-trust regulation, stringent bank regulation, and pricing laws to prevent sellers from undercutting their suppliers or competition.
Not accurate, and the proof is just looking at where we are now: even further away from true free market capitalism and yet only suffering worse economic outcomes.