People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.
On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
with this:
They ignore classical liberalism and classical liberal economics. They consider this stuff too wishy washy and lefty and socially democratic.
People who think that welfare politics forms any part of classical liberalism may also wish to read this.
Finally, I would like to quote this from Wikipedia, which is cited:
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed by the middle of the nineteenth century in England, western Europe, and the Americas, which provided a coherent vision of how society should be organized. Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.
Not markets governed by minimum wage regulations, or health and safety regulations, or working hours regulations or maternity leave regulations. FREE markets. Economic liberty is not, in the classical liberal model, separable from civil liberty.
So if you're going to claim that you're a classical liberal, at least find out what a classical liberal is, huh? Before frothing about how lunatic other people are, when they're just adhering to the textbook definition of something you're calling yourself!
21 comments:
Please find any examples where either of us have ever supported "minimum wage regulations, or health and safety regulations, or working hours regulations or maternity leave regulations."
Twat.
And the rest?
Careful, Boaty.
You know what happened last time you sputtered "Find examples", don't you?
Hat-tip to the Clown for this post, BTW.
"They say destroy it all and let the rich and powerful take over everything and fuck everyone else."
Please find examples of where this sentiment has been stated.
B&D have turned from moderately interesting essay writers into boring whiners desperately trying to define exactly why the blogging community should show them more respect.
They replace radical ideas with apparently radical language (Fuck all you mother fucking twats etc. etc. Yawn, yawn.)
Yeah yeah, well down with the kids.
No idea what their traffic is like but surely it is diminishing as a share. All they do is navel gaze and bitch about not being considered very highly.
"No idea what their traffic is like but surely it is diminishing"
Not while this here Clown is linking to them every day.
I saw what happened when he linked to my blog in a post a couple of weeks ago - double traffic, best week for months.
B&D are probably looking at their stats and thinking "yeah, we were right all along". The cunts.
_
No serious;y, when have we ever supported the minimum wage or health safety?
Because we haven't.
All this stems from a basic difference. Obo and co beleive that libertarianism means no state, no safety net, nothing at all. We don't.
You subscribe to 'fuck it all and everyone', we don't.
Roger, you really haven't read us for long have you. And the accusation of 'radical language' being levied on this of all blogs is deeply ironic.
So again, other than the baseless smear campaign Obo, where's the proof? You say 'And the rest', where? Where is this mythical support?
Libertarian or not KB, you are definately a child
So, Boaty, what does your "safety net" look like?
Yup, I'm a child. That's right. I'm not the one arguing back with 'Your a child'.
My safety net? Well it doesn't include a minimum wage, it doesn't include health and safety (although, let's face it, that is a pretty broad term isn't it), it doesn't include working hours regulations. Maternity leave for mothers is hard to argue with although its current format is over the top and should be based more on employer decency than state enforcement.
A view was expressed here http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/2009/07/shocking-welfare-state-our-addiction-to.html
I define libertarianism as a broad range of views combined around the concept of individual liberty. You on the other hand reject that and see it as your fringe beliefs of bring it all down.
Anarchism is an element within libertarian thinking, but it is not all of it.
I would add of course that your argument has large ramifications for the entire LPUK manifesto, which is largely minarchist.
I don't understand irony clearly. Somehow abusing B&D equals praising Obnoxio or some such. Or maybe just commenting does.
Fuck, twat, shit, cock. etc. etc.
I have been reading you for a while. Hence the fact that I suggested you once knocked out moderately interesting essays.
Definitely the most self-regarding of all blogs I have come across.
Never misses an opportunity to define itself again and again.
Navel gaze some more boys and can't wait for the next account of your findings.
Yawn.
Actually, all I claim is that you cannot endorse freedom if you only endorse social freedom. You cannot say that someone is free if they can take drugs, but can't work for less than a minimum wage if that is what they want to do.
And I said at the time that you were fucking cheeky to claim that only left-wingers feel that charity is the best way to address the needs of those who do not have enough to live on.
I think you will find that us reprehensible frothing right-wingers are fully in favour of charity to look after our fellow man, and the more local, the better. We do not want the state to look after the needy, but equally, we do not want to be compelled to spend our money supporting charities we may not believe in.
The upshot of the discussion over at yours last time was that one or both of you was arguing that we should be "taxed", but the money would go to charities rather than the state. And I don't see any material difference between that and being taxed to feed the state.
If I want to give to a charity, I have the right to do so. It is not an obligation. I may prefer to use the money to support a needy member of my own family, or help out a neighbour fallen on hard times. The fact that I choose to do my charitable work in a way that does not meet with your ideas of how I should do my charitable work does not make me wrong or you right.
I'm not arguing back anything, merely observing that you are a child.
Well I'm not sure where the charity thing has come from to be honest, it was one of John's articles that I wasn't privy to http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/2009/08/tax-vs-charity-discussion.html
I can't find anything to say John wanted to tax anyone and give it to charities, it was more about community and mutual agreements.
He then did a follow up http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/2009/09/social-housing-tax-charity-and-notion.html where he talked about a general tax shake up and a proposed tak on unproductive land use.
I couldn't see anything about forced donations.
And I'm not sure where my non-views on the minimum wage have led to a non-view on charity to be honest.
So once again: what does your safety net look like?
My view on the welfare state is put forward perfectly well in the link included in my post of 15:25.
In a comment on your blog I'm certainly not going to go even further and right a dissertation on national welfare policy.
In terms of charity, that is omportant. But it is to the individual to make that decision. Community charities are very good, but again you can't force that to happen and as such it is not reasonable to expect charity to support those in society that need help (the mentally ill, the disabled, children in care etc), as I laid out in my article.
Someone said: "As such I do not believe in a total removal of the welfare state. It is a misconception that before the second world war there was no safety net, there was. Parish taxes were paid and people were looked after."
Other someone said: "They ignore classical liberalism and classical liberal economics. They consider this stuff too wishy washy and lefty and socially democratic."
Classical liberal said: "Classical Liberals, like myself, stress such ideas as voluntary association, incentives, and self-interest. We believe that people are bound by their own decisions, agreements, contracts, and so on. Therefore, people may do unpleasant jobs, for instance, because they pay. They may, of course, do things as well for non-financial reasons. It is important to note that we stress that our way of doing things combines a way to get things done with a high degree of individual freedom. We assume that people recognize the rights of others and some uncontracted obligations toward others, as well. Classical Liberalism can be contrasted with Welfare or Modern Liberalism which has an opposing view and is currently the dominant political philosophy in the United States.
Welfare Liberals think that citizens should have far more welfare guarantees"
You and John may well think you are classical liberals, but you are not. Classical liberals believe that economic freedom cannot be separated from social or civil freedom.
You have clearly endorsed some form of the welfare state. You clearly do not believe that people, left to themselves, will take care of those who are suffering. You believe that "something has to be done" and has to be done by the state.
Just because you believe that the state should be doing less than it's currently doing is not the same as believing that the state should only exist to protect our natural rights and to provide those services with excessive externalities.
You might be a libertarian-inclined social democrat or a social democrat with strong beliefs in civil liberties, but you are definitely not a classical liberal.
You are talking out of your fucking arse Obo.
What you have actaully just said is that the entire LPUK manifesto is social-democrat.
Parish taxes existed to help those who lost their job and they were fairly successful.
You advocate total economic freedom and total civil freedom. That's your call.
But the effect of that is very clear from history: the workhouse, the institute for the blind, the home for the disabled, the mad house.
Do I advicate unemployment benefit? No.
You once again show that as far as you are concerned anyone who is not in the obttom right of the chart like you is a social democrat, which is just bollocks.
I want lower taxes, you want no tax at all (although you agree with voucher education which relies on the payment of tax, so square that fucking circle); I want state provision of care for those that cannot help themselves such as orphens, you want those people to rely entirely on the charity of others and if that doesn't happen, fuck 'em.
That is where we differ. I see that as making me a centrist libertarian and you an anarchist libertarian. You see it as making you a libertarian and me a social democrat.
My views are also pragmatic. Thsi country will simply never vote for a brand of politics who slogan is 'Workhouses for the jobless, mad houses for the mentally ill, bring back Oliver' Coupled with 'Pay us some tax for education and maybe some roads and, er, the army, but not a lot because we hate tax'
Have you ever played devil's advocate with your own views?
I'm certainly not going to apologise for thinking a menatlly disabled bloke in a fucking wheelchair should be guaranteed the care he deserves without having to rely on charity.
And again, maybe you should read the LPUK manifesto, because you support the SDP by all accounts.
You are quite correct, the country will never support a return to classical liberalism or anarchy, or even a particularly minarchist basis. And I support LPUK primarily because they're heading in the right direction, rather than because I think that they will bring the UK to nirvana.
However, that is not the point of my post. You and John claimed repeatedly to be classical liberals but you clearly are not, because you don't believe in the complete economic freedom of the individual.
As to this rabid anarchist thing: despite me making many posts on your own blog on my beliefs regarding people's motivations and charity, you keep on tarring me with this brush of calling for workhouses and "bring back Oliver", and that I want to tear everything down and let the rich take everything.
I want no such thing, nor do I expect any such thing to actually happen. Yes, some people will take the piss, but you can hardly say that our currently regulated to death society isn't also full of people who take the piss. In fact, more people take the piss, because other people assume that the regulation protects them, so they don't pay as much attention as they should when making decisions.
I would argue that my position expresses much more faith in the majority of people than yours does.
I believe that the purpose of the state is:
a) primarily to protect the natural rights of individual members of society -- in other words, to protect the individual from rapacious, unscrupulous business, amongst other things; and
b) to provide services that cannot be provided cost-effectively because of their externalities.
In what way does this constitute tearing everything down and giving it to the rich?
And if I might add:
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."
Hayek, Road to Serfdom. Hayek was obviously a social democrat by the Obo definition.
Well, he certainly wasn't a classical liberal. :o)
Well that's a given!
Your two points of what you beleive are fair, although we differ over what goes into which box.
Post a Comment